Lambeth Council (202224802)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224802

Lambeth Council

22 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Disrepair in the resident’s home, including an ongoing roof leak, and damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom top floor flat. She lives with her 5 children, one of whom has an asthma diagnosis.
The resident has experienced repeated leaks from the roof of the building into one of the property’s bedrooms since at least 2014. She has regularly reported damp and mould in her property since at least December 2017.
As she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports, the resident started the legal pre-action protocol for disrepair.
On 14 July 2021 and 23 July 2021, 2 independent surveys were carried out on the property. Both concluded that the property was in disrepair. One surveyor described the mould as ‘severe’. They recommended works including:
1. Damp and mould treatment and redecoration of the hallway, cupboard, living room, both bedrooms, bathroom, and separate WC.
2. Replastering of the bedroom ceiling.
3. Installing a “humidistat” extractor fan in the kitchen.
4. Replacing the plywood panel at the head of the bath, and retiling the area in a matching colour at full height, using mould resistant grout.
5. Both reports said the flat roof directly above the property was beyond its serviceable lifespan and was leaking. The area of roof above the resident’s property should be replaced.
6. One report said the landlord should install a missing access door to the roof, remove weeds, and unblock the drainage gulley.
7. It was recommended that the landlord reinsulate pipework in the property, and that the landlord should install a thermal board lining and plaster to the hallway cupboard, and install chrome vents to allow for air circulation.
After receiving the reports, the landlord and resident agreed a schedule of works. The landlord agreed to complete them within 3 months. It also agreed to pay the resident compensation. The case was settled outside of court on 18 August 2021.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord attended the property and replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen and repaired a light. There is no evidence the landlord made efforts to complete any of the other repairs within the agreed 3-month period.
The landlord’s contractor went to the property on 31 January 2023. It recorded that the mould was a risk to ‘health and life’ and asked the landlord to visit the resident. There is no evidence the landlord visited.
On 12 March 2023, the resident contacted her MP for support. She said the landlord had not done the agreed repairs, and the mould had worsened, particularly in the children’s room. She said she had reported the mould to the landlord again. She said a contractor visited to treat the mould but did not do so, as the situation was “dire” and “it would be hazardous to his health”.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf. The landlord responded, saying that the resident had a legal disrepair claim, so she should contact her legal representative. The MP replied to the landlord on 16 April 2023. They said that the landlord’s response was inaccurate and inappropriate as the disrepair case had been settled.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord sent a response to the MP. It said its contractor had tried to call the resident on 25 April 2023, but she was not available. It had arranged to inspect the property that day.
The resident says that on 2 May 2023, the landlord called her and asked her to move the bunkbeds in her second bedroom so it could do mould treatment. She said she was unable to move the beds as there was nowhere in her home to move them to.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord approved an application for a direct offer of an alternative property for the resident.
The resident wrote to her MP regularly about her circumstances. On 30 May 2023, she told her MP that her daughter had attended A&E 5 times in the last 6 months. Her asthma was so poorly controlled that the paediatric ‘at home team’ were visiting the family daily to monitor her use of steroids and inhalers. She felt this was caused by her home environment. She said that the hospital had referred the family to children’s social care because the property was hazardous to her daughter.
The resident said that she called the landlord 9 times to get an update on the repairs between 6 June 2023 and 17 July 2023. She said:
1. During 5 of the calls, she was told the landlord would call her back, but it did not.
2. On 1 occasion the landlord told her she had not contacted it since January 2023.
3. On 5 July 2023, she reported to the landlord that the tiles were falling off the wall in her bathroom, and water was leaking into the property below.
4. She was told a complaint she made on 3 July 2023 had been sent to the wrong team in error.
5. She was told there was an open disrepair case for her property.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for support in making a complaint to her landlord. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 4 August 2023, saying:
1. The resident had tried to complain to the landlord on at least 2 occasions, but it did not respond.
2. She wanted it to solve the damp and mould in her home. It had inspected the property but not carried out the necessary repairs.
3. She wanted to be decanted (moved temporarily) during the works.
4. The damp and mould were affecting the resident’s daughter’s health.
On 10 August, the landlord contacted the resident to book in works. It sent her a complaint response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 11 August 2023. It said:
1. It carried out a damp and mould inspection on 8 August 2023. As a result, it had arranged to:
  1. Renew the bathroom light.
  2. Replace missing tiles.
  3. Replaster the living room and bedroom.
  4. Apply a mould treatment throughout the property and redecorate.
2. Although the resident had requested a decant, the schedule of disrepair report said the repairs could be done with the residents in occupation. The landlord was confident it could do the repairs room-by-room.
3. It acknowledged that the works had taken longer than expected, and this had caused the resident inconvenience and stress. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £500 as a “good will gesture”.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman to request an investigation. She said:
1. The surveyor who came to her property on 28 April 2023 said it would not be possible to do the works with the family in occupation. It was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on the disrepair inspection, when the landlord had inspected more recently.
2. She felt the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the damp and mould were having on her daughter’s health. She felt that her daughter’s asthma would not be so severe if the work was done sooner.
3. She felt the compensation offered by the landlord did not adequately reflect the impact caused.
On 18 September 2023, the landlord attended the property and partially retiled the bathroom. It told the resident to put her belongings in storage so it could do the mould treatment. The resident said it told her it would return to the property. She said she waited at home for 2 days, but it did not return. She told the Ombudsman she was arranging for her daughter to stay elsewhere as her health continued to be poor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2023 to report that the roof was still leaking. The landlord inspected the roof on 22 December 2023.
Between September 2023 and January 2024, the landlord treated the property for mould, and redecorated. On 12 January 2024, the landlord closed its disrepair case. It says that the internal repairs to the property are complete but accepts that the roof repairs are incomplete.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She disputed that the landlord completed all the internal repairs agreed through the disrepair process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which have been the subject of court proceedings. In this case, the resident started a legal disrepair case which was settled prior to court proceedings in July 2021. As a result, the case is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because although a legal case was started, it did not proceed to court and therefore the resident did not raise the matters she is complaining about in court proceedings.
As part of the settlement, the landlord agreed to complete specified works and pay the resident compensation within 3 months. As the resident and the landlord reached an agreement on the issues prior to this date, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from July 2021 onwards. However, the resident’s previous contact with the landlord to report similar issues has been considered for context to the more recent complaint.
During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, particularly for people who have respiratory conditions. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident and her family. If the resident wants to take this aspect of her complaint further, she could consider making a liability claim. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details (if it has one) to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health.
It is accepted that the resident is living in overcrowded accommodation. Under paragraph 41d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters in respect of local housing authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease. In this case, this includes the landlord’s management of its rehousing register. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction to consider. If the resident would like to pursue this aspect of her complaint further, she may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Repairs

The repairs the landlord is responsible for are set out in the resident’s occupancy agreement, and the landlord’s repairs handbook. These state that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and external fabric of the property. It is also responsible for ceiling repairs, provision of extractor fans and plaster repairs, other than for minor cracks.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it has 5 priority groups for repairs. It will complete repairs in highest priority within 2 hours as an emergency. It will deal with routine repairs in 30 days, and planned repairs within 3 months.
The landlord had agreed to complete the repairs identified in its schedule of disrepair within 3 months. This was in line with its policy timescale for planned repairs. It failed to complete the repairs within this timescale. The roof repairs have not been done 125 weeks after the landlord agreed to complete them. The landlord said it completed the internal repairs. The exact date of the internal repairs is unclear from the records the landlord has provided this investigation, but as they were incomplete on 21 September 2023, it exceeded the agreed completion date by at least 96 weeks.
The landlord has not explained the reason for the excessive delays in this case. As such, the Ombudsman considers the level of delay to the repairs to be unacceptable. They will have caused the resident a significant negative impact, in terms of the worry, inconvenience, and frustration she will have experienced, and will have undermined her trust in the landlord. The steps which the landlord should now take to put things right for the resident are set out later in this report.

Roof leak

The schedule of disrepair completed on 23 July 2021 listed 3 repairs for the roof: replacing the roof above the property, clearing the partially blocked roof drainage and removing weeds from the area, and replacing a missing access door. The landlord should have completed the repairs by 18 November 2023 in line with its agreement with the resident. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to repair the roof until 19 August 2023, when it arranged an inspection. The landlord has failed to explain the 2-year delay. The Ombudsman concludes that the delay was unacceptable and may have caused the resident to feel that the landlord did not take its agreement with her seriously.
The resident reported the leak to the landlord again on 2 November 2023, and the landlord did a further roof inspection on 22 December 2023. As this was 37 working days after the resident reported it, the landlord exceeded its policy timescale of 28 days for routine works. Although this was not reasonable, the delay in arranging the inspection was not excessive. However, it is unclear why a second inspection was necessary given there is no evidence the landlord did any repairs after its previous survey on 19 August 2021. To make best use of its resources and to reduce inconvenience for residents, the landlord should ensure it does not do duplicate inspections or repairs in future.
Despite its inspections of the roof, the landlord is yet to complete the roofing works identified in the disrepair process in July 2021, and the roof is still leaking into the resident’s property. Leaks are a known cause of damp and mould so the ongoing leak into the property will have compromised the efficacy of the landlord’s damp and mould repairs. The avoidable delays in the landlord completing the roof repair have therefore prolonged the time the resident and her family have lived in unsuitable accommodation. This is a failing by the landlord.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a damp and mould charter. It acknowledges that damp and condensation can be difficult to manage, and makes the following commitments:
1. To resolve issues in partnership with residents, communicating in a sympathetic way.
2. To inspect and diagnose damp and mould within 28 days, or sooner in emergencies.
3. To produce an action plan, including timescales for repairs.
4. To provide residents who have persistent damp with ongoing support, and a named surveyor to act as their ‘healthy homes partner’.
Of the works outlined in the disrepair schedule, the only ones completed within the agreed timescale were the renewal of the extractor fan and the repair of a light. This was not appropriate and may have further damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord said that the internal repairs were completed, but the resident says that it did not complete all the repairs that were outlined in the schedule of disrepair. She said it did not:
1. Remove the existing ply panel to the head of the bath and install a 12mm “weather and boil” plywood panel.
2. Replaster the bedroom ceiling
3. Treat her cupboard for mould or redecorate it.
4. Carry out any of the “recommended” works e.g. reinsulating the piping, plastering the cupboard, or installing an air vent in the cupboard door.
The landlord was not required to complete the improvements that were recommended rather than specified in the schedule of disrepair, as it did not agree to complete these. However, given the persistent damp in the property, it should consider making the improvements suggested. This would give it the best chance of providing the resident with a long-term solution to the issues. The landlord should tell the resident which (if any) improvements it will carry out and explain why it will not carry out any other improvements which were recommended.
The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that although the landlord replaced some of the bathroom tiles, the new tiles are a different colour. This was not appropriate, as the schedule of disrepair specified that the replacement tiles should be the same colour. If there were no tiles in the same colour available, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to retile the whole area in a single colour to best meet the requirements set out in the schedule of disrepair.
The evidence the Ombudsman has seen does not conclusively show if all the internal works set out in the schedule of disrepair were done. To ensure that the landlord has completed all the works specified, the landlord is ordered to arrange an independent survey of the property. It should provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of the survey within 8 weeks of the report. The landlord is then recommended to produce an action plan for any outstanding works with timescales for the repairs, in line with its damp and mould charter.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents guidance indicates that it will consider households that are receiving support from children’s social care to be vulnerable households. Under the guidance, vulnerable residents may be given additional support by the landlord, including high priority repairs. The family received support from social care from February 2022 to October 2022. The resident says that the landlord was aware of this, as the family’s social worker contacted the landlord about the family’s living conditions. The landlord should have amended its records during this period to reflect that the family were vulnerable under the criteria outlined in its vulnerable residents guidance, but there is no evidence it did so.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord was aware of the resident’s daughter’s asthma from at least 9 February 2021. As such, it should have considered this when deciding its response to the damp and mould, as damp and mould are known to be particularly harmful to the health of people with respiratory conditions. There is no evidence it did so, and the landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the family. This was inappropriate. If the landlord had considered the resident’s daughter’s respiratory condition, it may have been possible for it to prioritise the repairs. The landlord’s failure to consider the needs of her daughter caused significant worry to the resident. She arranged for her daughter to sleep in the living room, and then to stay away from home, as she was so concerned about her wellbeing. This has been considered when assessing compensation, as detailed further below. The landlord is ordered to update its records to show that the resident’s daughter has a respiratory condition. This will enable it to ensure it considers her condition in future.
The landlord’s record keeping around the actions it took to assess and resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s home was inadequate. For example, although it inspected the property in January and April 2023, the landlord did not provide any record of the outcome of either inspection to this investigation. There is no evidence that any action was taken as a result of either inspection. The resident said that the surveyor who attended in April 2023 felt she should be decanted while works were carried out, but because the landlord has not provided any record of the outcome of the inspections, the Ombudsman cannot determine if this was the case.
It is important to note that the landlord was not obliged to follow the surveyor’s recommendation, if they did recommend that the resident should be decanted. It was entitled to make its own decision on this, based on all the available evidence and in line with its relevant policies and procedures. However, the surveyor’s opinion should have been taken into account as part of this assessment and the landlord’s poor record keeping means it is not possible to tell that it was. This would have been frustrating and upsetting for the resident.
In addition, the landlord’s record of contact from the resident appears to be incomplete. For example, in July 2023 the resident provided her MP with the dates and exact times of 8 calls she made to the landlord. The landlord has no record of 5 of these calls.
These are record keeping failures. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says ‘records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why’. The landlord’s incomplete records appear to have affected its decision making. For example, despite the inspections in January and April 2023, the landlord appears to have relied solely on the inspection done as part of the disrepair process in July 2021 to determine whether it should decant the family. This was not appropriate, as more than 12 months had passed without any repairs being done in the property, and it is likely that conditions in the home had changed during this time. To improve its practice in future, the landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The member of staff who attended the property in January 2023 made a referral to the landlord, saying that the property was a risk to ‘health and life’. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to act with urgency having received this, but it did not do so. Although the landlord sent internal emails about the concern in February 2023 and March 2023, there are no further notes until June 2023, and there is no evidence of any action taken as a result. This was not reasonable. Had the landlord acted on the concern quickly, it may have reduced some of the avoidable delays in repairing the resident’s property. The landlord should ensure that it has a clear reporting process for any staff who have urgent welfare concerns about residents, which will enable it to act swiftly when these arise.
The resident said that the damp and mould in her home has returned since the landlord completed works. She accepts however that she did not make the landlord aware of this. She has said she did not do so as the landlord has not responded to her previous reports. Given her experiences, her frustration is understandable, but the landlord could not be expected to repair an issue it was unaware of. It was entitled to assume that the repairs it had carried out had resolved the damp and mould (aside from the roof issue) until it was advised that the damp and mould had continued.
The landlord’s damp and mould charter says it will provide ongoing support through an allocated “healthy homes partner” in cases where a resident’s home has persistent damp. As the resident has reported damp and mould in her property for at least 6 years, and the mould and damp has returned after the landlord has completed the works in the property, it would be reasonable to say that she has persistent damp. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has allocated the resident a healthy homes partner, which may help her manage the situation in her home going forward. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a healthy homes partner in line with its damp and mould charter.

Decant request

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that where extensive works are required, it will consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move them out of the property at an early stage. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the family’s circumstances when deciding if it should decant them. This was not in line with its policy, so it was inappropriate.
One of the independent surveyors who inspected the property as part of the disrepair process wrote that, in his opinion, the works could be completed with the family in occupation. However, they did not explain how he reached this conclusion, or the factors that they considered. Later, the landlord wrote in its stage 2 complaint response that its repairs team was confident that the works could be done with the family in occupation, but again records do not show how it determined this.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered:
1. The practicality of doing work with the family in residence, in the context of their overcrowding. The resident sleeps in one bedroom, one of her daughters sleeps in the living room, and the other 4 children sleep in 2 bunk beds in the second bedroom. The landlord’s contractor asked the family to move the 2 bunkbeds, and the resident was later advised to store her belongings. This did not show the landlord had considered where in the property the bunkbeds could be moved to, or where 4 children could sleep if the beds were moved so works could be carried out.
2. Whether the resident could financially afford to store her belongings so that it could carry out works.
3. Whether the chemical mould treatment could negatively impact the health of the resident’s asthmatic daughter.
4. How the family’s circumstances had changed in the 2 years since the surveyors inspection report was written, both in terms of the increase in damp and mould, and the resident’s daughter’s health, which the resident said had worsened.
5. The resident’s assertion that a surveyor in April 2023 had said that a decant was recommended.
Had the landlord considered these factors, it may have decided that it was appropriate to decant the resident and her family for the duration of the works. If it still felt that it would be possible to do the works with the resident in occupation, it could have taken additional steps to allay the resident’s concerns, for example identifying somewhere the family could go while the works were being done and/or arranging and paying for storage of her belongings.
Whatever the outcome of the assessment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident a detailed explanation of its decision. As she had requested a decant, a thorough explanation may have been reassuring, and would have demonstrated that it had listened to her concerns and taken them seriously.
In asking the resident to store her belongings without considering the practicalities of doing so, and by arranging to carry out works with the family in occupation before responding to the resident’s decant request, the landlord caused an additional avoidable delay to the repairs. This will have caused further stress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
The Ombudsman notes that on 4 May 2023, the landlord completed an application to make the resident a direct offer of a 3-bedroom property. Based on the landlord’s internal records, this application appears to have been approved on 9 May 2023. However, the resident says she has not been made a direct offer of accommodation and was not aware that the landlord proposed this. The landlord should assess whether it still considers a direct offer of a 3-bedroom property to be suitable. It should then contact the resident to inform her of the outcome, and any next steps in the process.

Summary

The landlord’s failures, as discussed in this report, amount to severe maladministration. The landlord offered the resident £500 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience its delayed repairs caused her. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has tried to put things right for the resident, this offer did not adequately reflect the detriment caused to the resident and her family by the landlord’s unacceptable, avoidable failure to carry out the agreed repairs for over 2 years.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that, where “A service failure results in [it] delaying unreasonably in providing suitable housing to an affected household”, and this has a major effect, it will pay compensation of £15 per week of the delay.
The resident’s circumstances meet this definition. A home that the landlord accepts is in disrepair cannot be considered suitable housing. The landlord had agreed to complete the repairs within 3 months, which was 18 November 2021. For each week after this, until the present day, the landlord has unreasonably failed to resolve the disrepair in the resident’s home. This had a major impact on the resident, who has experienced inconvenience and trouble, and has been understandably worried about the wellbeing and health of her children.
Therefore, the landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident £1875.00 in compensation. This is calculated at £15 per week for the 125 weeks that the landlord has unreasonably delayed in repairing the property. This is ordered in addition to the £500 in compensation it has already offered for stress and inconvenience as part of its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where there have been failings by the landlord which have had a seriously detrimental effect on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord says it will respond within 20 working days and at stage 2, it will respond within 25 working days. This does not align with the timescales set by the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which says that landlords must respond at stage one of their complaints process in 10 working days, and at stage 2 of their complaints process in 20 working days. As such, the landlord should consider self-assessing against the updated Code, which was published on 1 April 2024.
The resident said that she complained to the landlord on at least 2 occasions, but it did not respond. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the reference numbers she was given for these complaints. The resident said that she made a complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2023, but when she called the landlord on 5 July 2023, she was told the complaint had been logged incorrectly.
The landlord has no record of the call the resident made on 3 July 2023, but on 5 July 2023 the landlord recorded that the resident had ‘called to complain about how she had been treated’. This met the Code’s definition of a complaint, which is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’
As such, when the resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2023, it should have rectified any errors in logging the complaint and ensured it sent a response at stage one of its complaints process by 28 July 2023. It did not respond by this date. This will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
After the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, it responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 11 August 2023. While its response was timely, it is unclear why the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process without first responding at stage one. This was inappropriate, as it did not align with the 2-stage process set out in its complaints policy or the Code. By missing one of its complaint handling stages, the landlord may have caused a delay in the resident accessing redress. It also missed an opportunity to review its own decision, which may have resulted in a more reasonable offer to resolve the complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised the resident for the stress and inconvenience caused. It also told the resident the steps it would take to resolve the repairs. This was appropriate.
However, it did not take full accountability, as it did not identify any specific failures in its handling of the repairs or her complaint. The landlord said that the repairs had ‘taken longer than expected’, but it failed to give an explanation. Given the extent and impact of the delays, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to fully explore the reason/s and identify any learning it had taken from the resident’s situation. This would have been in line with Code, which says, “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this” and suggests that appropriate actions to put things right for a resident could include providing them with an explanation or changing its practice.
Cumulatively, the complaint handling failures identified by this report amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to apologise to her for its complaint handling failures, and directly pay her £250 in compensation for the frustration and inconvenience these caused her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord made failings which affected the resident, and it has not acknowledged its failings or taken appropriate steps to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of disrepair in the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Directly pay the resident £2625.00 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £1875.00 for its failure to complete the repairs within the timescale agreed through the disrepair process.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
  4. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £500 compensation offered through its complaints process, this can be deducted from the total.
2. A representative of the landlord at director level or above should sincerely apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
3. Allocate a surveyor to act as the resident’s “healthy homes partner” and be her point of contact for the ongoing damp and mould concerns. The surveyor should maintain monthly contact with the resident until the outstanding works are completed.
4. Update its records to reflect the resident’s daughter’s asthma diagnosis.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a case review at director level or above, considering the failures identified in this case, and how it can:
  1. Ensure it proactively manages repairs identified through the disrepair process.
  2. Consider overcrowding and the personal circumstances of each household when deciding whether a decant is necessary.
  3. Ensure its response to staff concerns about residents’ health and wellbeing is robust.
2. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has arranged an independent survey of the property and identified any works that are outstanding from the schedule of disrepair, and any works required to further treat the damp and mould in the property once the roof leak is resolved.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete the roof works to the property, as identified in the schedule of written by its single joint expert on 23 July 2021, which said the landlord should:
1. Remove the entire felt roof covering above the rear right hand side bedroom and install a new high performance three-layer elastomeric torchon felt.
2. Sweep the roof covering clean of all debris, unblock drainage gully, jet through, and descale and leave free flowing.
3. Install a replacement roof access door with new furniture, prime prior to fitting and decorate on completion of works.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with each of these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its previous suggestion of a direct offer of a like-for-like property for the resident. If it still feels this is a suitable option, it should contact the resident to discuss this.
The landlord should discuss the resident’s rehousing priority with the resident, and ensure she is aware of all of her rehousing options.
The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
After the roof leak is resolved, and the landlord has completed an independent survey of the property, it should complete any repairs required to the property within its published timescales.