Lambeth Council (202313959)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313959

Lambeth Council

29 July 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 5-bed end terrace house. The resident has Alzheimer’s disease, and is unable to speak English well. As such, she has been assisted in reporting repairs and bringing her complaints by her adult son. For ease of reference, any reports or complaints raised by the resident’s son will be referred to as the actions of ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
The resident made 4 complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, and its response to reports of damp and mould, over a number of months. She made those complaints on 14 and 31 October 2021, 1 November 2021, and 26 May 2022. She said she had been chasing the landlord for repairs for years, but it had not carried out the repairs. She said the internal walls were in poor condition, the front door needed to be replaced, the windows were rotting, there was a roof leak which had not been fixed, and there was damp and mould in the property, which was affecting her family’s health.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for delays in the repairs, and offered a £930 goodwill payment. This was following intervention from a local councillor. It then issued 2 separate stage 1 responses on or around 22 June 2022. It said:
1. It had booked a roof inspection for 30 November 2021, but it had to be cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. It had completed works to the front door on 5 April 2022.
3. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 7 June 2022. The surveyor inspected the damp and mould, and raised various repairs and follow-on works. The follow-on works were booked for 5 July 2022.
The resident made multiple further expressions of dissatisfaction following the landlord’s stage 1 responses. Those were in September 2022, November 2022, December 2022, April 2023, May 2023, and July 2023. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process at that time.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 July 2023. She said she had asked the landlord to carry out various repairs and had put in multiple complaints, but nothing had been done. She said the property was deteriorating, was full of mould, and was not fit for occupation. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 and asked it to issue a stage 2 response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. It said it had carried out numerous surveys and inspections, and raised various works orders as a result. It said roofing and window works were in progress and it would provide an update as soon as possible. It also said the damp issues and lack of insulation in the property were upgrade works rather than repairs, and it would pass them to its planned works team.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, walls, windows, and external doors. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard.
The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out in either 7 days or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair, and that planned works would be completed within 90 days. It says repairs for vulnerable tenants will be prioritised.
The landlord’s repairs policy includes the following commitments regarding damp and mould:
1. It will prioritise the removal of the mould, with an initial wash and mould treatment to be carried out within 7 days.
2. It will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days.
3. It will agree a written action plan to resolve the damp. The action plan will include timeframes for action.
4. Where a home has persistent damp, the property will be allocated to a surveyor, who will be the point of contact and see the relevant repairs through to completion.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Under the policy, stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request. This matches the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of pest control and a leak from a blockage near the bath. These issues were raised in 2023, after the landlord had already issued its stage 1 responses to the resident’s complaints. These complaints have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, and therefore cannot be considered as part of this investigation.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised repair issues surrounding the front door, windows, damp and mould, and cracks in the walls going back a number of years. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe (usually 12 months). As such, while previous reports may be referred to for context, this investigation will only consider the reports and landlord’s response in the 12 months prior to the resident’s initial complaint in October 2021, up to the point of the stage 2 response.
The resident said she does not believe the property was fit to live in. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make a formal finding as to whether or not the property was fit for human habitation, as such a finding can only be made by the courts. The Ombudsman also cannot award damages in the way a court can when a property is found to be unfit for human habitation or in a state of disrepair. The Ombudsman can, however, award compensation for any distress or inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the way the landlord handled the reports.
The resident has also referred to the effect the damp and mould had on her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be determined by the courts, as the courts can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings in this regard. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

Damp and mould

On 10 November 2020, the resident told the landlord that there was a leak somewhere in the property, and that the walls were soft and wet. The landlord’s internal emails and repair logs show it raised a repair on 19 November 2020 for a roof inspection. This was a reasonable first step to take, as it would need to identify the cause of any leak before it could carry out the relevant repairs. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence which shows any inspection actually took place. In the absence of that evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord took no further action after logging the repair. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable.
The resident made further reports of leaks on 27 January 2021, 28 June 2021, and 21 July 2021. She said the leak had caused damage to multiple walls and ceilings, as well as damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not carry out any inspection until 20 August 2021. This was a significant delay, which was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy (which required a repair within 28 days) or standard industry practice. The contractor notes of that inspection say that more than a mould wash was needed, and the job needed to be passed back to the landlord to carry out underlying repairs. The landlord then took no further action until after the resident made a complaint in October 2021.The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay. In the absence of any explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was both unreasonable and avoidable.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord’s repairs staff inspected the property. The notes of the inspection said that the whole property was covered from top to bottom in damp and mould, the wallpaper was peeling off the walls, and all rooms were in poor condition and needed renewal. A week later, the landlord asked for photos of the damp and mould, and said it would book a surveyor inspection once it had received the photos. It is unclear why the landlord chose not to book a survey without photos, given that it had been told the property was covered from top to bottom in damp and mould, and photos would be taken as part of a survey.
The resident provided photos on the same day. The photos showed visible signs of water ingress, flaking paint, peeling wallpaper, and extensive black mould. The landlord then booked a damp and mould inspection. However, its repair records regarding the inspection are incomplete and unclear.
The repair logs say it booked the inspection for 30 November 2021. It told the resident’s local councillor that the initial inspection was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was not mentioned in its repair records, and the landlord has provided no explanation for why the inspection could not go ahead 4 months after national restrictions had been lifted, and 18 months after the Government had confirmed that routine social housing repairs should be going ahead during the pandemic.
The landlord’s repair logs say an inspection was then booked for 23 December 2021, and that the inspection was completed on 10 January 2022. Emails between the landlord and resident then refer to a damp and mould inspection on 19 January 2022 which an operative failed to attend. The landlord has been unable to provide any copy of a survey report, and as such it is entirely unclear when the inspection took place, save that it appears to have gone ahead at some stage between 19 January and 17 February 2022. Good record keeping is an essential part of providing an effective repairs service, and the landlord’s poor record keeping has hampered both its own handling of repairs and the Ombudsman’s investigation of this complaint.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord recorded that the roof was leaking, and that it was affecting all walls of the property. 4 days later, the resident said the walls were extremely damp, that nobody had attended to inspect the property that month, and that the damp was affecting the health of various residents. The landlord then recorded that an operative attended the property to inspect the roof leak on 8 February 2022, but that no access was provided. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show this appointment had been booked in advance, that the resident was aware of any appointment, or that they had attempted to contact the resident when there was no answer. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that no advance notice of the appointment was given. This was unreasonable.
On or around 17 February 2022, the landlord inspected the property. This was more than a year after the resident reported a leak in the property, and more than 6 months after she reported damp and mould. This was a significant delay which was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy or good industry practice, and the level of the delay indicates that the landlord did not take the matter seriously. The notes from the inspection said that the external walls throughout the property were damp, and the walls would need to be stripped back to brick, given a waterproof render, and then replastered. It said there was an ongoing leak caused by a tree growing out of the roof, and that was the cause of the damp.
Following that inspection, the landlord recorded on 11 March 2022 that scaffolding would be needed. There is then no evidence of any further action being taken until 5 May 2022. The details of what happened on 5 May 2022 are unclear. The landlord’s internal emails say that an inspection was scheduled, but no access was given. Its repair records indicate the inspection was for the door rather than for damp and mould. Its stage 1 response said a surveyor attended on that date and raised a works order for a mould wash (there is no reference to this in the repair logs provided), and the resident’s emails from the time say she was home all day on 5 May 2022 but nobody attended. The incomplete and contradictory nature of the evidence provided by the landlord has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. In the absence of evidence of an inspection, or of any attempts to gain access to the property, the Ombudsman can only conclude that no inspection of the damp and mould took place at that time.
On or around 26 May 2022, following further contact from the resident’s local councillor, the landlord inspected the property. Its notes say there was damp and mould throughout the property, and it raised a purchase order for scaffolding. On 31 May 2022, it accepted that it had not acted reasonably. It told the local councillor that it had raised several works orders with its contractors, but they had not been completed as expected. It offered a compensation payment of £930 for the delays, and said a senior surveyor would attend on 7 June 2022.
Given the serious and significant delays up to that stage, and the effect on the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to try to put things right by apologising and arranging for a senior surveyor to inspect the property. Following the survey, it then raised various works orders for a mould wash, stripping the wallpaper, and investigating the leak. However, when the surveyor reviewed the landlord’s records following further contact from the resident’s local councillor, they noted that nothing had been done since the inspection in June 2022. This was despite the landlord having identified an ongoing leak causing a significant damp and mould problem, the resident having raised multiple complaints, and the resident’s local councillor becoming involved. This was clearly unreasonable, and shows the landlord repeatedly failed to take opportunities to take ownership of the repairs and put things right.
Following the further contact from the local councillor, the landlord booked an appointment for 13 September 2022. The evidence provided shows the operative failed to attend the appointment. By the start of November 2022, 5 months after the survey, the landlord had yet to receive a quote for the works from its contractor, and has only provided evidence of chasing this up after it received further complaints from the resident and her local councillor. It then received a quote on 22 November 2022. However, it has provided no further evidence of taking any action related to the roof leak, or the resulting damp and mould, at that time.
The resident said the landlord told him in December 2022 that works would start in February 2023. He said scaffolding was put up in January 2023 and then again in May 2023, with an inspection towards the end of June 2023. The landlord told the resident’s local councillor that works to the roof went ahead on 29 June 2023. However, it has provided no evidence which shows that was the case, and that is contradicted by the landlord’s own stage 2 response which said that, as of October 2023, the roof inspection and repairs were ongoing. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows the damp was ongoing as of April 2024, 3 years after the initial reports. This is a serious and excessive delay, for which there is no justification.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage. The evidence provided does not show the landlord took any of those steps.
The landlord has a statutory obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, and it is required to carry out any remedial works within a reasonable time. In this case, it failed to act on the reports or take any appropriate action to resolve the leak and subsequent damp and mould for a significant length of time. Despite its stated commitment to tackling damp and mould across its properties, there was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord. This was despite reports of severe top to bottom damp in the property, and despite damp and mould being a potential category 1 hazard in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It has also provided no evidence of carrying out any assessment of whether or not the property was fit for human habitation.
The landlord was reactive rather than proactive with regard to the repairs, with the resident having to repeatedly chase updates and responses. The landlord repeatedly failed to take any meaningful action, to update the resident, or to create any kind of action plan to resolve the roof leak, and the related damp and mould. This was despite the landlord noting that the resident was vulnerable, indicating a lack of oversight or accountability in its repairs processes.
When issuing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord set out details of some of the works orders raised and some of its plans for moving things forward. However, it failed to address the significant failings on its part which led to the resident having to raise multiple complaints. It then concluded that works to deal with the mould would be an upgrade rather than a repair, and would therefore be passed to its planned works team. It has provided no explanation for how it reached that conclusion, and it is of significant concern that the landlord appears to have a fundamental lack of understanding of its statutory repair obligations.
Finally, having promised the resident updates on the outstanding repairs in its stage 2 response, the landlord has provided no evidence of doing so. This demonstrates that after repeatedly failing to take appropriate action regarding the leak and subsequent damp and mould for a significant length of time, it then also failed to learn from the complaints. The landlord’s handling of the roof leak and related reports of damp and mould was so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman has recently made multiple findings of severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould (such as in cases 202311129 and 202317574). This demonstrates that the landlord’s failings are persistent and systemic. Following those recent determinations, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a senior management review of its damp and mould processes, its record keeping, and its staff training requirements. As it has recently been ordered to carry out a review relevant to the failings identified in this case, the Ombudsman will not duplicate those orders. However, in addition to taking steps to resolve the damp and mould, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident compensation for its poor handling of damp and mould in this case.
The Ombudsman has assessed what an appropriate level of compensation would be, taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, and this Service’s remedies guidance. This has been calculated as follows:
1. The resident’s rent for 2022-3 was £181.35 per week.
2. The resident reported a leak in November 2020, and damp and mould from 28 June 2021 onwards. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show any rooms were fully out of use as a result of the damp and mould. However, it has seen evidence that every room in the property was affected by ‘top to bottom’ damp and mould from 1 November 2021 onwards. This would inevitably lead to a partial loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
3. The damp and mould was unresolved for 102 weeks between the inspection on 1 November 2021 and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. The landlord should therefore pay the resident compensation calculated at 20% of the 2022-3 rent for 102 weeks.
4. The total compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the property is therefore £3,699.54.
In addition to the compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the property, the Ombudsman has also considered the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s poor handling of the leak, and subsequent damp and mould, caused the resident. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident had lived in a property with ongoing damp and mould for over 2 years by the time of the stage 2 response. For just under 2 years, every room in the house had ’top to bottom’ mould, with wallpaper peeling from the walls. This would inevitably cause a significant level of distress, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s repeated failure to take appropriate remedial action or provide an action plan or updates. That failure meant the resident had to repeatedly chase updates from the landlord, as well as having to repeatedly contact her local councillor for support in getting the landlord to carry out its statutory repair obligations.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £2,400 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on a resident.

Repairs – windows

On 10 November 2020, the resident reported that the windows were rotten, and let a significant draught into the property. The landlord’s repair records say that it booked an inspection for 16 December 2020. However, it has provided no notes of any further action being taken until 25 October 2021. In the absence of any evidence of the December 2020 inspection actually taking place, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord took no action for almost a year after the report. This was a significant delay, for which the landlord has provided no explanation.
The landlord inspected the windows on or around 1 November 2021. Its contractor notes for that date say that multiple windows were completely rotten. The landlord marked the job as complete. Based on the repair logs it has provided to the Ombudsman, it took no further action at that time, despite the resident raising concerns about the temperature of the property in winter. This was not in line with either its repair obligations or standard industry practice.
On 31 January 2022, the resident reported that the windows did not open and close properly. According to the landlord’s repair logs, it took no action in response until after the resident made a complaint in May 2022, and her local councillor became involved. Following the complaint and involvement of the local councillor, the landlord inspected the property on 7 June 2022. It recorded that a window specialist was needed to inspect the windows and to renew or repair them as necessary. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action until 22 November 2022, which was more than 5 months later. This substantial delay was not in line with its repairs policy or standard industry practice, and it has provided no explanation for this delay.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord raised a works order for all windows to be replaced. On 2 February 2023, the resident again approached the local councillor and said she had heard nothing from the landlord regarding the windows. By July 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and advised that the landlord had still taken no action regarding the windows. In its stage 2 response in October 2023, the landlord confirmed that the window repairs were ‘in progress’.
The landlord told the Ombudsman in April 2024 that the windows had been renewed. It is unclear when this took place, and the repair records provided do not clarify matters. The Ombudsman notes that the stage 2 response in October 2023 refers to works being ‘in progress’, and an email from the resident to the landlord on 6 November 2023 refers to recent window replacements. Based on those 2 documents, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord replaced the windows at some point between 19 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. It is concerning, however, that the repair records provided are entirely silent in this regard.
When a major repair is needed, it can be reasonable for a landlord to add the repair to a planned works programme rather than carrying out a repair within the usual timescales for a routine repair, depending on the timeframes for those major works. This is a common approach to window renewal as a result of the high costs involved. The Ombudsman also notes that there can often be delays in renewing windows which are outside of a landlord’s control, such as the lead time for replacement windows being manufactured. Where there are delays which are outside of the landlord’s control, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide a resident with regular meaningful updates, and to take any available temporary measures to minimise the effect on the resident.
In this case, the cause of the delays is unclear. This is because the landlord has provided no explanation for the initial delays in carrying out the inspection. It has also provided no information about what happened between November 2022 and October 2023. In the absence of any such explanation, or any evidence of the landlord providing any updates to the resident, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delays were both unreasonable and avoidable, and that the landlord’s communication surrounding the window repairs was poor.

Repairs – front door

The landlord’s repair records contain a number of historic reports of problems with the front door. As noted above, this investigation will only consider reports from October 2020 onwards.
On 20 October 2020, the landlord discussed previous door repairs with the resident. Its notes say the resident maintained that further works were required as the door was beyond repair and let draughts into the property. Its internal emails from the time say it requested a surveyor inspection as a priority. The landlord’s stage 1 response to a previous complaint about the door said that repairs to the door went ahead on 14 December 2020. There is no reference to any such repairs or appointments in the repair records the landlord has provided.
On 11 February 2021, the resident reported that there was no draught excluder on the door, and that there were significant draughts through the house. The landlord raised a works order, but has provided no evidence of taking any further action at that stage. The resident then reported further issues with the door in April 2021 (on 3 occasions), June 2021, July 2021, and August 2021. The landlord’s repair logs show it raised a repair on each occasion, but it has provided no evidence of any operatives attending the property until 5 August 2021.
The landlord’s notes from a 5 August 2021 inspection say that the front door was bending away from the frame, and there were large gaps around the door when it was closed. The notes say the door needed to be renewed. The landlord’s notes from a 20 August 2021 inspection say the door was opening and closing correctly, and no work was needed. The notes say the resident reported that there were problems in winter. A landlord is generally entitled to rely on the opinions of its experts when determining whether or not it needs to arrange repairs, and an operative on 20 August 2021 advised the landlord that no works to the door were needed. However, given that the 2 sets of inspection notes entirely contradict each other, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out further investigations. The repair records say the landlord asked the contractor for photos on 1 November 2021, which it received the same day. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action after receiving the photos, which was unreasonable.
On 30 September 2021, the resident reported the front door was continuously sticking, and that there were draughts through the door. The landlord arranged an inspection on 14 October 2021, which was a reasonable step. The notes from the inspection stated that while the door opened and closed, there were large gaps. It said a previous operative had fitted a draught excluder, but it had not been effective as the door had warped. Following multiple further reports of problems with the door, and a request for a new door from the resident, the landlord raised a repair for a works to the front door (a new weatherboard, letter plate, draught proofing and painting) on 30 November 2021. However, it has provided no evidence of arranging the repairs in question prior to the resident raising a complaint on 31 January 2022.
When contacting the landlord about the door on 31 January 2022, she said it had sent a number of contractors previously, but the door could not be repaired due to the level of deterioration. She said she did not understand why the door could not be replaced. The landlord carried out the booked repairs over a number of days from 15 February 2022 to 5 April 2022.
Following those repairs, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to report there were still large gaps in the door, which led to extreme cold in the winter. The landlord booked a further survey for 5 May 2022. As noted above, the landlord says no access was given, while the resident said no operative attended. In any event, the landlord arranged a further survey following its stage 1 complaint response. As a result of that survey, the landlord raised a works order for a renewal of the front door. This was reasonable. However, it then failed to take any action until November 2022, when it chased its contractors for a quote. This was a significant delay, for which the landlord has provided no explanation.
The landlord has not provided any records of taking further action after raising the works order in November 2022. An email from the resident to the landlord in July 2023 said the issues with the door were ongoing, while another email on 6 November 2023 referred to a recent door replacement. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the door was replaced at some point between those dates. However, it is entirely unclear at what point between those dates the repairs took place, and it is concerning that the repair records provided do not clarify the situation.
The landlord’s repair records show significant unexplained delays in its handling of the door repair, caused at least in part by an absence of oversight for repairs once a works order is sent to a contractor. It has also failed to show any assessment of whether or not the property met the ‘thermal comfort’ criteria set out in the Decent Homes Standard after the resident reported excessive cold in the property. In the absence of further evidence related to the door repair, or any evidence of the landlord providing regular and meaningful updates to the resident, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord’s handling of the door repair was unreasonable.

Repairs – walls

On 10 November 2020, the resident reported that there were cracks all over the property. She said while some were hairline cracks, some were much wider. The landlord raised a works order for a surveyor inspection, and has referred in an email to an inspection being booked for 16 December 2020. It was reasonable to book an inspection, as the landlord would need to determine whether or not the cracks were caused by something which fell under its repair obligations. However, as with the other repairs, it has provided no evidence that the inspection went ahead. As such, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the booked inspection did not take place.
The resident reported damage to the walls and ceilings in multiple rooms on 21 July 2021. The landlord raised 2 repairs, and cancelled both works orders. It then raised a further works order for an inspection of the walls on 17 October 2021, which it also marked as cancelled. On 8 November 2021, following an inspection for the windows and the damp and mould, the resident sent the landlord photos showing the condition of the property. The photos showed examples of large cracks in the walls.
The landlord has not provided copies of any survey reports or inspection notes which confirm whether the cracks in the walls were the result of the roof leak, or some other cause. It confirmed that it had ‘recently’ carried out replastering in April 2024, but has provided limited evidence of action taken before then. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord acted unreasonably regarding repairs to the walls.

Repairs – summary

The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
As set out above, there have been significant and prolonged failings in the way the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of repair issues, with those failings spanning multiple years. The landlord has provided no explanation for the significant delays, and its repair records do not shed any light on the situation. It has also been unable to locate any of the survey reports or most of the contractors’ inspection notes, which has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord’s delays had a significant effect on the resident, who had concerns about excess cold in the property as a result of defects with the door and windows. The Ombudsman also understands that the resident was unable to stay in the property on multiple occasions, and had to temporarily stay with relatives due to the condition of the property.
The Ombudsman considers there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and that a further £900 compensation should be paid to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have a significant impact on a resident.

Complaint handling

The resident made complaints on 14 and 31 October 2021, 1 November 2021, and 26 May 2022. The landlord was required to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of each complaint. It failed to do so. Instead, it issued 2 stage 1 responses after June 2022. This is a significant delay, for which no explanation has been provided.
Having failed to issue a stage 1 response within a reasonable time, the landlord then failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process despite multiple further expressions of dissatisfaction. It only issued a stage 2 response when instructed to do so by the Ombudsman in September 2023. This was not in line with its complaints process or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and caused significant unreasonable delays.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it did not respond to all parts of the complaint, and referred the resident to the incorrect Ombudsman. Its brief response includes works order notes copied over from its repair logs without background or context, and mentions repairs that are ongoing or deemed to be improvement works, with no explanation of how it reached those conclusions. It demonstrates a wholly inadequate investigation into the complaint, and does not meet the requirements set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This was clearly inappropriate, and the landlord noted in its own response that it had not answered the complaint fully.
The landlord delayed its stage 1 response by around 8 months. Its failure to escalate the complaint when it received further expressions of dissatisfaction added a further year of delays to the complaint, and it has yet to fully address a number of the complaint points raised. The landlord’s repeated failings in handling this complaint meant the resident had to keep chasing responses and raise multiple further expressions of dissatisfaction, as well as approach a local councillor and the Ombudsman to get the landlord to progress the complaint. It also meant the resident had to wait almost 2 years for the landlord’s final response to the complaint, which prevented her referring her complaint to the Ombudsman during that time. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman has previously identified repeated serious failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, leading to the Ombudsman issuing a special report about the landlord in February 2022, and carrying out an inspection of the landlord’s wider complaint handling in June 2023. As a result of that intervention, the landlord has made a number of changes to its complaint handling practices, and is in the process of making further changes to its complaint handling more generally. As the landlord’s processes have changed since it issued its final response to the complaints in this case, the Ombudsman will not make any further orders for a review of its complaint handling in this case. However, the Ombudsman does consider that further compensation is warranted for the effect its poor complaint handling had on the resident in this case.
Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have a significant impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for its poor handling of damp and mould, repairs, and its complaint handling. The apology must be issued by the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Write to the resident to set out its action plan with regard to the damp and mould, and any outstanding repairs. It must confirm the following:
  1. What surveys and inspections it has carried out since each of the repair issues was reported, when it carried out those surveys and inspections, and what the results were.
  2. What works it has already carried out for each of the repairs, when it carried out those works, and what further works it intends to carry out.
  3. When it intends to carry out each of the remaining repairs, how long it anticipates any remaining works will take, and whether the resident can remain in the property during those works, or will need to be temporarily moved while the works are completed.
  4. The name and direct contact details for a specific point of contact who will oversee the remaining repairs.
  5. If it does not intend to carry out any further repairs, what its reasoning is.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter within the same timeframe.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £7,499.54 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the £930 offered as part of its stage 1 complaint response, and is broken down as follows:
1. £3,699.54 for the loss of use and enjoyment of the property as a result of the damp and mould.
2. £2,400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of damp and mould.
3. £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of other repairs.
4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
For the avoidance of doubt, the compensation must be paid directly to the resident, and can only be credited against rent arrears (if any) with the resident’s express agreement.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders in the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arrange for a heat loss survey to be carried out in the winter months of this year to assess whether the property meets the ‘thermal comfort’ criteria set out in the Decent Homes Standard.
It is recommended that the landlord review its actions following the stage 2 response and assess whether it should pay any further compensation to the resident for any delays after the stage 2 response.
The landlord should write to this Service to set out its intentions with regard to the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.