Lewisham Council (202306207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306207

Lewisham Council

28 March 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reporting of damp and mould at the property.
2. The resident’s request to be medically assessed to enable them to move.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy began in January 2016. The resident’s partner has been dealing with the complaint on her behalf. Both the resident and her partner will be referred to as the resident going forwards. In addition the resident’s two children also reside at the property.
The property is a two-bedroom flat situated on the top floor of a four-storey building.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities for the household recorded on its system.
The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord’s complaints process sets out that at stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and it will aim to send the response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and aim to provide the response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy explained that in the event that follow-on repairs or an inspection had been noted in its complaints response it would inform residents of this and provide timescales for the actions. However “if we then fail to deliver against these commitments, your complaint can be reopened and escalated”.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it “it would adopt a ‘right first time’ approach, where we proactively manage repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works”. It added that if it needed “to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, we will be clear that this is the reason for the visit, and will arrange any follow on works promptly. Where works cannot be completed in a single visit, we will proactively schedule appointments for follow up visits and keep the resident informed”.
The repairs policy explained in relation to its priorities and response times that they were as follows:
1. Emergency repairs would be responded within 24 hours. It classed these as repairs which “remove immediate danger to people”.
2. Urgent repairs would be responded within 3 working days. This was “work to prevent damage to property, or where there is a possible health, safety, or security risk”.
3. Routine repairs would be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains that it might offer goodwill payments where it had “failed to deliver on its service standards”. It added goodwill payments “could take the form of a non-financial remedy such as decorating an additional area”. The policy also provided the details of when it could award discretionary payments, for which no guidance on amounts was provided as well as payments for time and trouble (of between £10 and £50) and for inconvenience and delay, where it would be based on the impact of the service failure.
In terms of impact and guidance on the amount of the compensation, the framework defines these as:
1. Low impact- where “the impact is no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept”. Compensation would range from £0 to £50.
2. Medium impact- “where the resident has suffered a level of inconvenience and/or distress because of service failure that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept”. Compensation would be from £51 to £250.
3. High impact- where “the resident has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure”. Compensation would be in the range £251 to £1,000.
The landlord’s allocation policy sets out that how long a resident has to wait for a property depends on a number of factors which include:
1. The priority they are allocated on the housing register.
2. The size of property required.
3. The location and type of property required.
The allocation policy sets out that the priority that an applicant receives is “determined based on their current housing situation”. It adds that there are four bands: band 1 being emergency priority, band 2 being high priority, band 3 being medium priority and band 4 being low priority. It adds that “the higher the band, the quicker an applicant can expect to be offered a property to move into”.
The allocation policy explains that “there are many more people who want to move than there are homes available for them to move to”. Given this the allocation policy sets out a number of other options including direct weblinks which a resident may consider in addition to waiting on the housing register which could enable them to move “more quickly”. Included in this list is the option of a mutual exchange which sets out “if you are an existing tenant you should consider registering for a mutual exchange even if you need a different size property to the one you are in now”.
In terms of timescales for providing the resident with the priority band they fall into; the allocation policy explains that “we will aim to register your application within 12 weeks of receiving all the information we require. When we verify your application, we will tell you which Priority Band you are in, so that you can commence bidding on Find Your Home”. However the policy sets out that “if your case gives rise to medical issues, you will need to complete an online medical form”. In terms of timescales the policy explained “it will normally take up to six weeks to obtain a medical assessment”.

Summary of Events.

The resident has stated that he contacted the landlord in late 2021 to request that it carried out an inspection of the property due to damp and mould. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of the resident’s original request. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 16 December 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence from this date noted that its operatives had no access and that the resident would need to rebook the damp and mould inspection.
The resident completed an application for medical banding on 20 July 2022, in relation to their son.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 February 2023 to make a complaint. The resident explained:
1. They had been reporting issues to do with damp and mould at the property since 2021. The resident provided a reference number for the matter which had been provided to them by the landlord.
2. The resident explained he was told that someone would be out on 16 December 2022, which was a year after the matter had been reported by him however no one had come out. The resident added that he had called the landlord a number of times to no avail. The resident did not provide any further details of when these calls had been made.
3. They had followed the landlord’s advice to get dehumidifiers and left windows open at the property. They had also warmed up the property.
4. The mould had spread and that this had affected their children who had been sick as a result of the damp and mould.
5. They had heard nothing back on being moved on medical grounds which had been outstanding for 36 weeks at that time. The resident added they were told the medical assessment would be completed within a maximum of six months.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed that the matter had been logged by it as a formal complaint and that it would respond by 20 March 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response to the resident on 17 March 2023. It set out the resident’s complaint as concerning a delay for the damp and mould inspection as well as in respect of moving homes. The landlord upheld the complaint in terms of the inability to carry out a damp and mould inspection following the resident’s request. However it did not make any award of compensation. The landlord referred to the resident’s original request for the inspection as having been made in November 2022. It explained:
1. That the damp and mould inspection had now been scheduled for 22 March 2023. It added that following the inspection “all required works will be raised”.
2. In line with the council’s allocation policy the resident had been deemed as needing a two-bedroom property. This was what they currently had, so the landlord explained that the resident was considered as being “adequately housed”.
3. The medical documents required for a medical assessment were uploaded on 22 July 2022 to the relevant council team. The landlord had sent a further task to the team on 22 November 2022. Its housing officer had spoken to the council’s medical assessment team on 10 March 2023 for an update. At this point it had been advised the team was short-staffed and there were delays in processing applications, although it was doing its best to deal with applications as quickly as possible. It added there was a huge demand for medical assessments.
4. The medical assessment team would “determine whether priority can be given” to enable the resident to bid on property. The housing officer had explained the reason for the delay to the resident. It had also discussed the option of a mutual exchange. However it understood from the resident that, as there was damp and mould, this option was not suitable.
5. If the resident wished to explore alternative housing options, it provided a contact number for the housing management team.
The resident emailed the landlord late in the afternoon on 22 March 2023. They explained that they had been told that someone would be at the property in the morning and they had both taken time off work for this, but no one had turned up. The resident added that they wished to escalate the complaint.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 14 April 2023. The email, which had also been copied to a number of people including the mayor, explained that the resident was following up on their earlier email of 22 March 2023 and wanted immediate action taken by the landlord. The resident said:
1. The damp and mould had been “persistently ignored” by the landlord.
2. No one had come to the property on 22 March 2023 as they had been informed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 April 2023. It explained that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and that it would respond by 17 May 2023.
The landlord’s works log show that an inspection was carried out by it on 18 April 2023. Following the inspection it had scheduled for a mould wash and staining to be undertaken. In addition to this it would apply two to three coats of emulsion paint to the walls and ceiling.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response to the resident on 17 May 2023. It explained it understood the resident’s complaint to be:
1. The resident had taken time off work on 22 March 2023 when a damp and mould inspection was due to take place. However no one had turned up on the day.
2. That the landlord had continuously let the resident down and assumed no responsibility.
3. That the resident felt they had been ignored and as a result they had copied in the mayor into their correspondence.
4. Despite efforts to “highlight the severity of the situation” the matter remained unresolved.
5. The damp and mould had been “spreading rapidly throughout the property, affecting not only the aesthetics but also the health and well-being of yourself and your family”.
The landlord explained it was partially upholding the complaint and making an offer of compensation which comprised £50 for the delay in resolving the ongoing damp and mould and £10 for the missed appointment on 22 March 2023. Whilst this totalled £60 the landlord offered an amount of £100, although it did not confirm why it had increased the award. It stated:
1. It would be conducting a pre-work review of the property on 19 May 2023. This would ascertain the full extent of the remedial work which was needed and it would arrange a suitable date and time for the work.
2. It had delayed in pursuing the repairs. It explained that its internal processes for having the works completed had failed and this had caused the delays.
3. It had failed to provide the resident with regular updates including the reason for the delay for its decision about the damp and mould repairs after the inspection. It said that the recommendations made after the initial visit to the property had not been pursued effectively. It added it had introduced systems to prevent this from happening in the future. It also stated that it should have contacted the resident and continued to follow up the repair which it did not do correctly. The landlord explained that it had added the case to its complaints aftercare list “to make sure the repairs are completed”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 May 2023 asking for the pre-work inspection to be carried out. The resident replied the next day confirming that its operative could come on 26 May 2023. The resident asked the landlord to let it know giving notice if it was not going to be turning up on 26 May 2023, as it had failed to attend on 19 May 2023.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s housing officer visited the resident to discuss the issue of rehousing. The resident explained that they were unable to bid on properties, as the medical assessment had still not been completed. The landlord said it would investigate.
The team responsible for assessing applications contacted the landlord on 23 August 2023 to confirm that it had completed the medical assessment. It emailed the resident on 31 August 2023 confirming that it had awarded the resident a band 2. Following this the resident bid on a number of properties from September 2023, unsuccessfully.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 October 2023 to explain that the issues had still not been resolved. The resident said they had been informed in May to June 2023 that the mould would be resolved within 30 days however it had yet to be done. The resident requested that the matter was expediated.
The resident sent the landlord emails on 9 November 2023 explaining that, in addition to the issue of mould, the property was now suffering from a mould mite infestation. The resident requested that the landlord undertook an inspection of the property. The resident also raised the issue of a housing transfer saying there had been miscommunication from the landlord, including informing the resident of properties that might be of interest, but then informing the resident when they expressed interest in the property that it was no longer available.
The landlord’s work logs show that the damp and mould work scheduled for the property was carried out between 13 and 16 November 2023.
The landlord’s internal communication on 16 February 2024 confirmed the sequence of events from the inspection of the property which had been carried out on 18 April 2023. It confirmed that it had contacted the resident three months after the work had been carried out. This had noted that, whilst the mould had not returned in the main bedroom, it had “returned in the children’s bedroom, hallway and the boiler room cupboard”. The landlord confirmed that it would undertake another inspection which had been scheduled on 20 February 2024. Following this it added “we can work on the next steps to resolve this”.
The landlord’s property inspection manager confirmed on 16 February 2024 that he had carried out an inspection on the property the previous year. He stated he had “reported back to the housing team that I believe the tenant had created an extra room within the flat”. This had been by splitting the children’s bedroom into two by means of placing a pair of curtains which divided the beds of both children. The landlord stated the lack of a proper door to divide the bedroom “could contribute to the mould in the bedroom as the radiator would not have been designed to heat the 2 rooms”. It also noted there had only been one window in the room and that there was no other means of proper ventilation in the room. It asked the housing officer to attend to make a decision as to whether the room could remain as two bedrooms.
The resident has recently confirmed to the Ombudsman that, following their eldest child having recently turned 10 years old, that they had now been assessed as needing three bedrooms. They stated as they had previously informed the landlord that their son needed assistance that they should have been assessed as needing three bedrooms at an earlier stage.
The resident has also explained that the paint in the main bedroom has started to crack and that the landlord had attended in February 2024 and stripped the wallpaper in their daughter’s bedroom. This had left the wall exposed and, whilst follow-up work had been scheduled, this was not due until April 2024. The resident had also confirmed that the landlord was still not assisting them in moving and that it was providing incorrect details on some of the properties which they had been interested in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The resident has continued to contact the landlord in relation to the issues of moving/bidding on properties as well as in respect of damp and mould at the property following the end of its internal complaints procedure in May 2023. In respect of the bidding on other properties this occurred following the medical assessment having been completed, in August 2023. The resident has also explained that they had been reclassified as needing three bedrooms following their son having turned 10 years old in January 2024. In terms of the damp and mould this related to contact from the landlord in February 2024; several months after it had completed the damp and mould work to the property in November 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has recently undertaken a follow up inspection as the resident had reported the damp and mould had returned to some of the areas which were treated in November 2023. Following this the resident confirmed that follow up works have been scheduled, although this Service has not been provided with the nature of these works.
Whilst the works carried out in November 2023 will be considered in this report, as they related to works agreed at the time of the stage 2 response, the issues of the bidding which followed the completion of the medical assessment as well as the follow up work identified following the recent inspection by the landlord in 2024 will not be considered under this investigation. This is as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure nor been addressed to the landlord in the first place. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation in relation to these issues which is set out at the end of this report.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about the time taken for a medical assessment to be completed and the resulting impact on their request for a transfer. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about local authorities’ wider activities, including complaints about the operation of a council’s housing allocation scheme and policies, including assessments of priority or banding given to an applicant applying for a home in its borough. As such, these are matters that the Housing Ombudsman does not generally consider.
In this case, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the request for a medical assessment, as this was directly linked to the issues around the condition of the property and involved the landlord. However, and if the resident remains dissatisfied with the assessment of their transfer application, the priority given to it or the overall management of the bidding process, then they should raise these concerns with the team responsible for the Housing Register in the first instance and, if necessary, then raise a formal complaint about these issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

The landlord has been unable to provide details of the resident’s original request for the inspection. However its repairs log has noted that an inspection had been requested by the resident on 18 November 2021. Whilst the landlord in its stage 1 communication incorrectly referred to the resident’s request having been made in November 2022 and not November 2021, the date in 2021 ties in with the resident’s recollection.
The landlord’s repair logs confirmed that there was no COVID-19 at the property at the time it had noted down the request for the inspection. However it did not attempt to attend the property until 16 December 2021, some four weeks later. This was not appropriate or reasonable. Whilst the landlord had not been alerted to any repairs at the time, it was aware that the issue concerned damp and mould and that there were children at the property. Given this it would have been appropriate for it to try to attend the property in line with an urgent priority response time as there was “a possible health, safety or security risk”.
When the landlord’s operative did unsuccessfully attempt to attend the property it sent the landlord a brief email on 16 December 2021 to explain “No access tenant to rebook”. The landlord or its operative have not provided any evidence that it had left a card at the property when it was unable to attend. Neither has the landlord provided any evidence that it contacted the resident to make them aware that it had attempted to attend the property and that a further attempt would be made. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate it had attempted to follow up on the resident’s request for an inspection to take place. Instead of this there was no evidence of any follow up inspection made until after the resident had made a complaint in February 2023, some 14 months later. This was also not in keeping with the landlord’s repair policy which set out if it needed to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, “we will be clear that this is the reason for the visit, and will arrange any follow on works promptly”.
The landlord in its stage 1 response has accepted that it failed to follow up on the resident’s request for an inspection. It upheld this aspect of the complaint but did not make any award of compensation for this service failure. It is unclear, as the stage 1 response had referred to the resident’s request having incorrectly been made in November 2022 and not 2021, whether its decision not to make any award was based on the timeframe between the inspection being requested and being carried out as being four months (up to 22 March 2023) instead of being 16 months from the resident’s original request in 2021.
The resident has stated that they had also contacted the landlord on a number of occasions about the damp and mould. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s recollection of events neither party has provided any evidence to show when the contacts with the landlord had taken place and by what means. The Ombudsman cannot therefore say with reasonable confidence, based on the available evidence, what contact there had been between the parties in respect of the issue of damp and mould between November 2021 and February 2023.
Following the resident’s complaint in February 2023 the landlord issued the stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. It had stated in this response that an inspection had been booked for 22 March 2023 and that in line with its repairs policy “all required works will be raised post inspection”.
Whilst this response by the landlord was reasonable as it set out the forthcoming timescales of events for the resident, the inspection did not take place at that time. The resident had emailed the landlord on the date of the missed morning appointment to explain no one had turned up and that both the residents had taken time off work for that scheduled appointment. Despite making the landlord aware of this, it did not respond to the resident until after they had sent a follow up email some three weeks later, on 14 April 2023 about the matter. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord and the failure to respond to the resident would have caused them a degree of distress and inconvenience, as it would appear the landlord had been ignoring their requests for it to inspect the property for the issue of damp and mould.
Following the resident’s further email of 14 April 2023 which was sent to a number of different individuals including the mayor, the landlord undertook the inspection on 18 April 2023, within two working days, and follow up work was scheduled following a pre works review which had been scheduled for 19 May 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with any explanation why the pre-works review had not been arranged for a month after the inspection took place. Neither has the landlord provided this Service with a copy of the inspection report carried out following the inspection on 18 April 2023.
The landlord confirmed that the damp and mould work at the property was carried out in November 2023, just under six months after the pre-works review had taken place. It has not provided any explanation as to why the work was delayed following the review in May 2023. Instead the work was only carried out following further contact and a complaint by the resident in November 2023. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy set out that it would “proactively manage repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works” this was not the case here. Instead of it being proactive, it only reacted once the resident had contacted it about the matter.
Although the landlord offered £100 compensation for the delays and missed appointment in March 2023, the award proposed is not proportionate to reflect the impact to the resident of the numerous failings since the resident had initially contacted it in 2021 to request the inspection. Taken altogether these failings amount to maladministration and the Ombudsman has ordered compensation of £400 in recognition of this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be medically assessed to enable them to move.

The resident had completed a medical application in July 2022 for the purpose of obtaining a priority banding to enable them to bid and move to a different property. The landlord explained that the resident had been assessed as needing a two-bedroom property and this had matched the size of the property that they were in. Whilst there were two children, one boy and one girl residing at the property, both children had been under 10 years of age at the time of the medical application. In line with property size under the allocation policy there would only have been one bedroom required for the children at that time although this would change once one of them had turned 10 years of age.
Following the resident having made the medical application for their son in July 2022, they stated they were informed at the time that the matter would take around six months for the medical assessment to be completed. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to support the resident having been informed of this timescale, which is at odds with that in the landlord’s allocation policy, which suggested the assessment would be undertaken within six weeks. However given the resident did not contact the landlord over the matter until February 2023 which was seven months after it had been submitted this would support the timescale they had been informed by the landlord at the time. The landlord has stated it had set up a follow up task for the medical team on 22 November 2022 and its housing officer had spoken to the medical team on 10 March 2023 at which point it had been advised of the staff shortages within the assessment team.
Whilst the landlord has provided evidence to show it had created a task for the relevant area to assess the medical documents the resident had provided; the contemporaneous notes show this was on 23 November 2022 and not on 22 November 2022 as stated in the landlord’s stage 1 response letter. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to support the call between the landlord and the medical team in March 2023. Following this there was one further chase up which occurred on 3 July 2023. As the resident had applied on 20 July 2022, the landlord should have been more proactive in chasing up the medical team for the priority banding before November 2022. The landlord was aware that without a priority banding this would affect the resident’s ability to be able to bid and move to another suitable property. Whilst it did set up a task in November 2022 it is not clear why it did not attempt to phone the medical team at that juncture, especially as it did not follow up and do this in March 2023. No follow up task was created at that time based on the evidence the landlord has provided to this Service. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord both prior to the resident’s original complaint, and also following up from the stage 2 response. The landlord has not provided any explanation why it had not chased up the matter again until more than six further weeks had passed since the end of its complaints process.
The landlord has explained that it had suggested alternative options to the resident to enable them to move. This had involved a mutual exchange. Whilst a mutual exchange is a viable option to enable residents to move in a quicker method than via the allocation team with a priority banding, it was not a suitable option in this particular case. The resident had in part wanted to move due to the damp and mould at the property which had yet to be addressed (inspected) by the landlord at that time. Given the damp and mould would have been visible to any prospective residents who expressed an interest in swapping properties, this would not have aided in a mutual exchange for the resident. This had been pointed out by the resident to the landlord when the issue had been suggested.
The landlord has confirmed that the medical assessment for the resident’s son was completed at the end of August 2023. Following the awarding of a priority banding of 2, and a suggestion the resident be moved from the top floor to the ground or first floor property, the resident began to bid on a number of properties which were unsuccessful.
Overall there were a number of service failures and missed opportunities for the landlord to be more proactive in chasing up on the issue of the medical assessment. The Ombudsman has therefore made an award of £150 in relation to this issue.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided a repairs log this does not contain much information of when the landlord and its contractors had attended the property. This extended to the inspections which had been requested and carried out. The landlord’s records show only two entries from the time the matter had originally been raised to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The first of these was notes of the resident’s request for an inspection to be carried out in November 2021. The landlord’s repairs log does not show a date this work was completed. The second entry covered the works scheduled following the landlord’s inspection in April 2023. Again the landlord’s records do not show a completion date for when this had been completed, although both parties have since confirmed that the work was completed in November 2023.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses contained errors. The stage 1 response noted the wrong year in terms of when the resident had initially contacted it about undertaking the inspection. It also provided a slightly inaccurate date as to when it had set a follow up task for the medical assessment. The landlord’s stage 2 response had set out compensation of £100. However in providing a breakdown of the compensation, this had amounted to £60 made up of £50 for delays and £10 for a missed appointment on 22 March 2023.
The landlord has stated to this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded on its system. However it was aware from the resident’s medical application that the resident’s son had mental health and learning issues and needed support.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in the management of the resident’s repair requests and in its explanation to the resident following the landlord’s investigation as well as its record keeping of vulnerabilities for the resident and family. These recording failures all amount to a serious failing on the part of the landlord. The record keeping failures caused a level of adverse effect to the resident due to the lack of clarity as well as the delays.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident raised their complaint on 22 February 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 6 March 2023, after eight working days which was outside the timeframe in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord apologised in the acknowledgment email but it did not provide any explanation for the delay. It did however adhere to the 10 working days timescale, from the date of acknowledging the resident’s complaint to issue the stage 1 response.
Following the missed appointment by the landlord’s operative for the inspection on 22 March 2023 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated further. However the landlord did not do this and only responded when the resident had sent a further email about the matter on 14 April 2023. Whilst it acknowledged the complaint on 17 April 2023 it did not apologise for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint. It did however provide the final response within the 20 days timescale as set out in the complaints policy following the acknowledgment of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be medically assessed to enable them to be moved.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide evidence to show that it had reasonably progressed the resident’s request for an inspection of the property for damp and mould. Whilst it has explained its operative had attempted to access the property in December 2021 it did not follow up on this or provide evidence that it had made the resident aware of this. Following the resident having raised a complaint about the matter, the landlord was again not proactive in undertaking the inspection. When it finally did undertake it and determined what work was required, there was a delay firstly in undertaking a pre-work review and then to actually carry out the work in respect of the damp and mould which was only completed seven months after the inspection had taken place.
Although the landlord has provided evidence it had sent follow up tasks for the medical assessment to be completed, it was not sufficiently proactive in doing this. The first chase had been made five months after the application had been submitted by the resident. This was despite the landlord’s policy setting out that the assessment would be expected to be completed in six weeks. Following on from the resident completing the landlord’s internal complaints process it did not chase the matter again until a further six weeks had elapsed. This was despite it knowing that, without the medical assessment and subsequent banding, this would impact on the resident’s ability to bid on other properties.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the lack of notes of communication between the landlord, its contractors and the resident including when the resident had originally requested the landlord inspect the property. The landlord also failed in its stage 1 and stage 2 response to accurately record the dates that events took place and it failed to provide a clear breakdown of the compensation which it arrived at. It also failed to note down the vulnerabilities for the resident and their family despite being aware there had been a medical application made for priority banding. The impact on the resident of these failures was that the failures caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to meet the timescales in the complaints policy at stage one. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. The landlord also failed to escalate the complaint to stage two following the resident responding to the stage one response.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £700, which replaces the offer of £100 as set out in its stage 2 response. Should the landlord have already paid the £100 to the resident then it can deduct this amount from the amount of compensation ordered. The amount comprises:
  1. £400 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in dealing with their reporting of damp and mould at the property.
  2. £150 for its failure in dealing with the resident’s medical assessment to enable them to move.
  3. £100 for the failure in its record keeping.
  4. £50 for its complaints handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the concerns raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in May 2023. This should include the issues raised by the resident concerning the return of the damp and mould following the work having been carried out by the landlord in November 2023 and concerns about the landlord’s communication in respect of other properties following the completion of the medical assessment in August 2023. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and any further assistance it can offer.