London Borough of Ealing (202210609)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210609

London Borough of Ealing

9 November 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damp and mould while it arranged a temporary decant.
  2. Request for alternative, permanent accommodation.
  3. Offers of temporary decant properties.
  4. Subsequent decant to a hotel, specifically regarding food allowance and mobility aids.
  5. Complaint.
2. The landlord’s decision to decant the resident to temporary accommodation.
3. The condition of the property when the landlord attempted to hand it back in July and September 2023.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing on medical grounds.
Since the resident’s rehousing request to be moved on medical grounds to permanent accommodation falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.
The LGSCO can be contacted by visiting www.lgo.org.uk or by telephoning 0300 061 0614.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident has made the following complaints to this service about the:
1. Suitability of decant properties offered.
2. Subsequent decant to a hotel, specifically regarding her food allowance and mobility aids.
3. Condition of the property when the landlord attempted to hand it back in July and September 2023.
While her concerns are acknowledged these complaints have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and there is no evidence of complaint handling failure therefore, these complaints have not been investigated. If the resident remains concerned about these issues, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. Should the resident exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure, and remain unhappy with its response, she may refer back to this service as a new complaint.
The remaining complaints are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and have been assessed within this report.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy started in October 2015.
The resident lives at the property with her 10 year old son and 18 year old daughter.
The property is a first floor, 2 bedroom flat with a bathroom and kitchen.
The resident has facet joint dysfunction which affects her mobility for which she receives personal independent payment (PIP). At the time of the complaint, she was being treated for high blood pressure.
The resident previously complained to the landlord about damp and mould in her home. The internal complaints procedure was exhausted on 23 February 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied and shortly after, escalated her complaint to this service. Around the same time, the resident also instructed a solicitor to pursue a housing disrepair claim.
The resident received a letter from her solicitor, dated 7 March 2022, confirming that the claim had been settled as part of the pre-action protocol for a disrepair claim. On 7 April 2022 this service determined that the complaint was outside of our jurisdiction.
Following the settlement, the landlord completed a decant request form in February 2022 which noted that the property had severe condensation which was causing damp and mould to grow. There was prevalent mould on the external walls of both bedrooms. The landlord noted it was causing “health issues” to the residents.

Summary of Events

On 26 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on her decant and on the outstanding works. She did not receive a response and sent a further email on 4 May to chase.
The landlord’s records show that the email was picked up by a housing officer on 4 May 2022 who had not realised that the resident was ‘on her patch’. The officer confirmed she had read through the notes and could see the property required significant repairs. She said she would email the resident to provide an update and ensure that she had her contact details.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 May 2022 to apologise for the delay in its response. The housing officer, who was new in post, introduced herself to the resident and said she had asked for updates from various colleagues which she would pass on in due course. She confirmed she had emailed the surveyor to ask him to contact the contractors that were “supposed to start the work that could be done whilst she was still living at the property.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2022 to chase a response to her email, expressing concern about a lack of communication.
The housing officer emailed her repairs colleagues on 31 May 2022 to seek an update so she could advise the resident accordingly. She asked whether works could be carried out if the resident remained in the property. The reply confirmed that the landlord did not have a contractor to do the works while the resident was still in the property. In one email, a member of the repairs team asked if a mould treatment could be carried out “as soon as possible.”
The resident telephoned the landlord on 31 May 2022 to seek an update about the repairs. The housing officer said both she and her manager had chased updates but not heard anything back.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2022 to seek an update on the repairs. She said she had sent several emails that had not been responded to.
The landlord’s internal records, dated 22 June 2022, show that following a conversation with the resident, the housing officer asked if the resident could remain in her current home while the repairs were carried out. The resident was updated that the question had been asked.
On 23 June 2022, during communications with the resident regarding a viewing of a potential decant property, she asked the landlord for a meeting to discuss the works. She was concerned about a lack of communication and wanted a meeting to make sure “they were all on the same page.”
On 26 June 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The main points of the complaint were:
1. The landlord’s lack of communication was not in line with its service principles as outlined on its website.
2. The property was not fit for habitation due to the poor condition of both bedrooms.
3. It was agreed that works would be completed by the 7 April 2022 but to date no works had been completed. Her last direct communication with the landlord was when it offered her a temporary decant property via the telephone. Since this date there had been no further communication.
4. On the 4 May 2022 the housing officer had emailed her to confirm that she had asked the surveying team what works could be completed while she remained in situ however, she had received no further communication.
5. She had received a copy of the decant request form where the landlord had estimated the works would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete and after this time the property would be “fit for habitation.” She therefore concluded that the conditions she and her children had been living in were not acceptable.
6. She said the situation was starting to take a toll on her health as she had recently been prescribed medication for high blood pressure which she believed was caused by the stress of her housing situation.
In an internal email dated 29 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that the work could be carried out with the resident in situ. However, furniture would need to be moved to temporary storage and the resident would need to sign an appropriate disclaimer. The housing officer replied to say that she would discuss options with the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 June 2022 and confirmed that the surveyor had said it may be possible for her to remain in the property during the works if this was her preference. The housing officer said she had also chased up relevant parties regarding the meeting. The resident replied on the same day to say she would like to think about her options.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 July 2022 to request an update and a meeting. It replied on 17 July to say that a request had been made to the major works and voids manager to ask him to make contact to arrange a meeting. It was chasing the contractor for a start date, but it hoped it could be in 2 weeks’ time, week commencing 1 August.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2022 to say that she wished to remain in the property while the works were completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2022 to chase a response to her stage 1 complaint made 20 June. She also rang the landlord to chase both the repair and a response to her request for a meeting. The housing officer had explained that both she and her manager had chased other departments for a response, but they had not heard back either.
The landlord’s internal email, dated 9 August 2022, confirmed that the resident had said she would rather stay in the property and work be carried out around her. Given that a surveyor had previously said this might be an option, the housing officer sought to clarify the current position.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2022 to request a resolution to her situation, as follows:
1. Most recently she was offered a 2 bedroom property but the resident enquired if she could remain in the property while works were carried out instead. She requested this because she believed the temporary move would cause a significant amount of stress and she was already being monitored by her GP for high blood pressure. She said her GP believed that her “current housing situation and the lack of communication and resolution it had caused stress.”
2. The landlord has failed to respond to emails.
3. Her 9 year old son had been sleeping in her room for 2 years due to the condition in his room. She had disposed of his bed due to damp and mould and “refused” to purchase a new one until the problem had been resolved. At that time, she was using the lounge as her bedroom so once he had gone to bed she had to use the kitchen to relax.
4. She had requested a meeting to discuss her situation but that had not happened.
5. No one from the housing team had offered to inspect her home.
6. She had recently contacted her MP who had made a member’s inquiry on her behalf, but he had not been able to provide her with a response.
The housing officer sent an internal email on 16 August 2022 following a chasing call from the resident. She asked her repairs colleague to call the resident and let her know what the next steps were.
This service was contacted by the resident on 22 August 2022, we wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022 to request that it respond to her complaint of 20 June by 23 September.
The resident also emailed the chief executive team on the same day to ask for assistance in resolving her complaint. It replied to the resident and said that a member of the repairs team would be in contact.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2022 to confirm that she would need to be decanted for the duration of the works.
The resident replied on the same day, 5 September, to say that she still had an outstanding stage 1 complaint and was awaiting contact from the repairs team. She reiterated her request for a meeting to discuss the situation. She said she felt like she had “been silenced and not been given an opportunity to express herself which has led to her feeling stressed and anxious.” Finally, she advised that her daughter was undergoing medical investigations as she had been suffering with vomiting and fatigue for the past 6 months which could be related to the damp and mould. She requested all communication be via email.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2022, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in replying to the complaint of 26 June. It said that due to the impact of COVID-19 it was experiencing a backlog of property issues and complaints. It had assigned extra resources, but it had not yet seen a significant impact in time taken to resolve individual matters.
2. It apologised if the resident felt there had been a lack of communication. It said whenever an incident of this sort happened it took the opportunity to review its processes and learn any lessons. It thanked for the resident for bringing it to its attention and allowing it the chance to redress it. It upheld this part of the complaint.
3. It said it noted that the resident had instructed solicitors, who were in liaison with its legal department, so any further issues relating to her case should be relayed to her solicitor directly to her.
4. Having carried out a damp and mould survey the resident was required to move out to allow remedial works to take place. A decant property had been identified and once the resident moved works would commence to eradicate the damp and remedy the external wall. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the matter and the inconvenience this may have caused.
5. It said that having taken into account all of the above, and having considered all of the information available, the overall complaint was partially upheld.
Also on 12 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. The main points were that it:
1. Acknowledged a failure in its complaint handling but did not offer compensation as per its policy.
2. Failed to keep the resident updated throughout the complaints process and did not follow its policy.
3. Did not fully address the significance of the lack of communication and the impact it had on her.
4. Failed to address her concerns about whether the property was fit for habitation. It also failed to acknowledge a change in plans, including that she would remain in the property while the repairs took place.
On 16 and 20 September 2022 the housing officer sent an internal email to try to clarify a number of matters, including a timeline for the repairs.
On 23 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident by way of follow up to a meeting held earlier that day. The housing officer confirmed she had escalated the resident’s request for a meeting and for a survey to be carried out at the property.
On 24 September 2022 the resident emailed this service to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response because the landlord did not fully answer her questions in terms of a permanent decant. She had requested a meeting and was told the landlord does not have meetings with tenants “as they are not like other housing providers.”
In an internal email, dated 29 September 2022, the landlord’s legal team confirmed that the resident no longer had an ongoing legal case and that it could facilitate a face to face meeting regarding the disrepair issues.
The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive team on 15 October 2022 to advise that she continued to be ignored and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the issues she had raised. She asked that a senior member of staff contact her and offer to meet to discuss the situation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2022 to chase an update to its email of 23 September as she had not heard anything further. The housing officer replied on the same day to say both she and her manager had been chasing other departments.
On 20 October 2022 the resident emailed this service to report that the landlord had not responded to her stage 2 complaint. It had not informed her of any delays or offered an extension.
We wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2022 to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 15 November 2022.
In an internal email dated 3 November 2022 the landlord circulated our letter and confirmed that the escalation request had been received and uploaded onto its system. It noted that a reply had not been issued.
The resident’s GP practice provided a letter “to whom it may concern” dated 10 November 2022 which set out her medical needs in respect of her housing, as follows:
1. The resident’s had a diagnosis of facet joint syndrome – condition of the spine which can be a “significant” source of back and neck pain which can leave individuals with “limited mobility and suffering in constant pain.”
2. The resident had a diagnosis of essential hypertension – high blood pressure. Symptoms include shortness of breath, dizziness and can be life threatening if not managed.
3. The resident’s children were extremely vulnerable and displaying symptoms related to damp/mould exposure.
4. The resident and her 2 children were sleeping in the lounge because the bedrooms were worst affected.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 November 2022 to ask for an update on the damp and mould. Since a decant property viewing on 23 September, she had not heard anything further. The housing officer escalated this to her colleagues the following day to seek updates. This included a direct request for confirmation of whether a meeting could be arranged and for a colleague from repairs to contact the resident. She also advised that it appeared the landlord had missed our deadline by which it should provide a complaint response.
The housing officer replied to the resident on 15 November 2022 to say that she had chased the repairs team for updates and for a meeting. She said the last update she received was in October which was passed onto the resident on 18 October. She confirmed she had also forwarded the resident’s concerns to the complaints department.
The resident emailed this service on 16 November 2022 to report that the landlord had failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The works at the property remained outstanding.
We wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2022 to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response no later than 29 November.
The landlord emailed this service on 1 December 2022 to say that the resident had instructed a disrepair solicitor. It had agreed works for which the resident would need to be decanted. It was currently looking for a property but was unable to close the complaint because the matter was still in progress.
On 5 December we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a final response to the resident on all complaint grounds, including referral rights to this service.
The landlord’s internal email, dated 6 December 2022, show that the housing officer expressed a desire to move the resident as soon as possible, highlighting the difficulties with hotel accommodation due to her daughter’s severe allergies.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord sent the resident an email which confirmed that her complaint record had been updated to “show as decision made – upheld.” There was no response attached so the resident replied to request it be sent.
The resident contacted this service on 16 December 2022 to say she had not received a copy of the complaint response. We wrote to the landlord on the same day to make a final request that the landlord provide a complaint response by 23 December.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 December 2022 to say that it understood solicitors had been instructed in the matter therefore, it would not deal with it under its complaints policy. We contacted the landlord to advise that if it were liaising with the resident’s solicitors this would not prevent it from providing a formal response.
The resident contacted this service again on 4 January 2023 to say she had still not received her stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response dated 4 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and reiterated the contents of its stage 1 response. It added that, having identified a decant property which was no longer a decant option, it was currently searching for a suitable property.
The resident contacted this service on 5 January 2023 to report her dissatisfaction with the stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. The landlord repeated the content of its stage 1 response only adding information in relation to the temporary decant property that it offered.
2. There was no offer of compensation.
3. There was no explanation for the lack of communication in line with the complaints policy, as requested in her stage 2 complaint. It had continuously failed to keep her informed throughout the complaints process and had not offered an explanation as to why it did not meet its timescales.
4. It had not provided evidence or investigated the continued lack of communication, including her attempts to email or telephone on 100 plus occasions.
5. It failed to say whether the property was fit for habitation as the last inspection was completed in January 2022 and the damp and mould had spread.
6. It failed to offer any redress and did not explain why it had not arranged a meeting as requested.
7. The way she had been treated was “totally unacceptable and continued to have a detrimental impact on her and her children’s well-being.”
8. Her 10 year old son was still sleeping in the lounge with her due to the condition of his room. Her 18 year old daughter was awaiting medical assessments due to the continuous vomiting and fatigue, which she believed was due to the condition of bedroom. She continued to take medication for high blood pressure which developed in May 2022 and which she believed was caused by the upset and stress of her housing situation.

Events post internal complaints process

On 12 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on the outcome of the surveyor’s visit to her property on 20 December 2022. She chased this again in an email dated 23 January.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord issued an open letter about its plan to tackle damp and mould. It said that “none of its tenants should be living in a cold, damp home, and that it was determined to provide all the help and support it could.” It said resident’s “safety and wellbeing were its top priority and it wanted to deal with any concerns relating to damp and/or mould in their home as quickly as possible.” It added that “a major programme to tackle the most problematic cases” was being rolled out.
The housing officer emailed the resident on 24 January 2023. She apologised for the delay in her response. She had drafted the response a week earlier but forgot to send it. She said that following the survey, the landlord concluded that repairs to the property would take 6/8 weeks and that the resident would need to be decanted during that time. It was in the process of appointing a contractor and its allocations team was looking for a suitable property. It would contact her again when a property was identified.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2023 by way of response to its open letter about damp and mould. She asked for reassurance that her case was part of this programme. The resident emailed this service on 13 March to say that she had not received a response.
The resident emailed this service on 27 March 2023 to express her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not attempted to clean or wipe down the areas of the property affected by damp and mould.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to propose a meeting to discuss her housing situation. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 May 2023 to confirm the outcome of a meeting it had had with the resident the previous day. The meeting was attended by a disrepair surveyor who confirmed that it would carry out a further survey of the property once she had been decanted.
The resident emailed this service on 7 August 2023 to confirm that she moved out of her property to a hotel on 31 May.
In an email to this service, dated 25 October 2023, the resident confirmed that she has not yet returned to the property. The resident has informed this service that the landlord attempted to hand the property back to her in July without completing all the required works. Furthermore, it tried to hand the property back in September without first resolving a new leak which occurred after the resident was decanted to the hotel.

Assessment and findings

The resident has complained that the landlord’s inaction was detrimental to the physical health of her and her children. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord has provided this investigation with a copy of a corporate complaints policy, dated 2011, which describes a 3 stage complaints process. The landlord has not followed this process and having checked its website, the policy is out of date. Therefore, this investigation has referred to the policy on its website, dated September 2021, which was in place at the time of the complaint.
It aims to respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 20 working days. All complaints will be acknowledged within 4 working days. It says that in cases where it is necessary to extend the timescales the complainant will be informed of the reasons why and also when they should receive a full response. Notification should be sent to the complainant at the first opportunity. Its policy does not apply to complaints where the complainant intends to take legal proceedings in relation to the substance of the complaint.
Its corporate complaints policy says it may consider paying compensation in some circumstances where the customer has sustained a loss. It refers to the LGSCO’s guidance.
The landlord’s customer service principles say:
1. All staff regardless of which service they represent have a responsibility to provide a high level of customer service and work to ensure all our customers are treated fairly and with the respect they deserve.
2. All staff have a responsibility to ensure we deliver on the promises we make to customers and keep them updated on our progress. This may mean letting them know that their enquiry has been resolved or advising them there may be a delay in delivering a service.
The landlord must ensure the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including freedom from damp.

Reports of damp and mould

The resident previously made a complaint to this service about the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs in line with the settlement of the pre-action protocol for a disrepair claim. The complaint was ruled out of jurisdiction in April 2022. Taking this into account it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of the damp and mould from April 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to April 2022 have been made in this report to provide context.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on the repairs agreed as part of the housing disrepair claim settlement from the outset. On 26 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on her decant and on the outstanding works. She did not receive a response to this email so emailed again on 4 May to chase.
A consistent pattern then emerged whereby the landlord failed to respond to contact from the resident. Between April 2022 and January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord a minimum of 18 times via email and by phone to seek an update on the repairs. On 5 January 2023 the resident told this service the number extended to hundreds of contacts. Emails included 2 to the chief executive team, on 10 August and 15 October 2022. On or around 10 August 2022 she also contacted her MP who had not been able to provide her with an update. The resident went to significant time, trouble and inconvenience to resolve her complaint which caused her frustration and distress.
In at least 3 of her emails to the landlord, the resident requested a meeting to discuss the ongoing delay. She was concerned about the lack of communication from the landlord. In doing so she sought assurance that “they were all on the same page.” On 5 September 2022 the resident explained how exasperated she felt at the landlord’s lack of willingness to meet, saying she felt like she had “been silenced and not been given an opportunity to express herself which has led to her feeling stressed and anxious.”
Internal records dated 31 May, 30 June, 17 July, 16 August, 16, 20 and 23 September, 14 November, 6 December 2022 show that the housing officer made repeated attempts to obtain updates from, and/or request a meeting with, her repairs colleagues. However, she also experienced difficulties in obtaining a meaningful response which she could then pass on to the resident. Therefore, the evidence highlights issues with both internal and external communication.
The resident’s request to meet was reasonable given the situation. The reluctance of the repairs team to even address her requests was inappropriate and left the resident feeling bewildered, frustrated and distressed.
The internal email dated 29 September 2022, showed that the landlord’s legal team confirmed that the resident no longer had an ongoing legal case and that it could facilitate a face to face meeting regarding the disrepair issues. This suggests that the landlord’s reluctance to meet was borne out of a misconception that the resident was still instructing legal services in respect of a disrepair claim. Not only was this a failure in itself, but the landlord also incorrectly concluded that this would automatically preclude it from engaging with the resident in an effort to resolve her concerns around the works.
Furthermore, the resident asked to meet as early as 23 June 2022 and there is no evidence to explain why it took the landlord 3 months to determine whether or not it could or would proceed with the meeting. This was unreasonable and caused significant frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience for the resident.
Having agreed that it was able to meet with the resident, by 5 January 2023 it had not yet arranged to do so. The reason for the ongoing delay is unclear and was therefore unreasonable. The meeting between the landlord and resident took place on 10 May 2023, almost 11 months after it was first requested.
In her stage 1 complaint of 26 June 2022 the resident referred to the decant request form which said estimated the works would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete and after this time the property would be “fit for habitation.” She concluded that this meant the conditions she and her children had been living in were not acceptable. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns or sought to allay her fears in anyway which was inappropriate.
The evidence, for example an internal email of 4 May 2022 and the landlord’s email to the resident of the same day, shows that the housing officer demonstrated some understanding of the distress caused to the resident by the lack of progress. She asked colleagues what works could be carried out while the resident was in situ. Her request was passed on to the relevant department with a request to carry out a mould wash “as soon as possible”.
On 31 May 2022 the housing officer made a further request to carry out a mould wash “as soon as possible.” There is no evidence that the landlord considered this further which was inappropriate.
The letter from the resident’s GP, dated 10 November 2022, said that the resident’s children were extremely vulnerable and displaying symptoms related to damp/mould exposure. Having received this information, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an urgent inspection of the property to urgently assess its condition. This would have provided the opportunity for it to determine if the property was fit for habitation, and whether it should carry out minor interim works to remedy the prevailing damp and mould while it identified a suitable decant property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this medical information in the context of its response to date.
The resident’s email of 12 January 2023 suggests that a surveyor visited her property on 20 December 2022. The landlord has been asked to provide a copy of any survey reports for the purposes of this investigation but has failed to provide a copy of one from December 2022. Regardless, there is no evidence that the survey led to interim works being carried out to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about the damp and mould spreading. Furthermore, when the resident contacted this service on 27 March 2023, she said the landlord had not attempted to clean or wipe down the areas of the property affected by damp and mould.
The resident went to significant efforts to resolve her concerns causing time, trouble, inconvenience, distress and frustration. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to implement a communication strategy with the resident from the outset. This could have included a single point of contact and agreed intervals at which the landlord would provide updates. This would have enabled the landlord to proactively manage communications, rather than having to apologise for something it should do but did not. It would have also saved the resident a considerable amount of time and effort, as well as providing reassurance to her that the landlord took the significance of the situation seriously.
The Code states that an effective and efficient complaints process allows issues to be resolved before they become worse. Even when the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s communication, including its failure to respond to requests to meet, through the complaints process the landlord still failed to implement a clear communication strategy which was a further failure.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the property is fit for habitation at all times. Its responsibility is not ‘suspended’ at the point at which it decides works need to take place. The evidence shows that the circumstances around the decant were complex however, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out proportionate minor works to minimise the damp and mould while waiting for a start date. This is particularly concerning given the GPs observations about the impact of the condition of the property.
The landlord’s open letter of 23 January 2023 says resident’s “safety and wellbeing were its top priority.” It’s customer service principles makes a commitment to provide a “high level of customer service” and to keep customers updated on its progress. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to deliver on these promises which was disappointing and frustrating for the resident.
The failings in the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about communication and the ongoing condition of the property amount to severe maladministration. This investigation has taken into account:
1. The repeated failures by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the damp and mould issues which occurred in spite her significant efforts to seek updates.
2. The landlord’s failure to consider interim works to reduce the potential risk to health posed by ongoing damp and mould in the property the failures amount to severe maladministration.
3. That the poor communication further undermined the landlord/resident relationship and had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.
4. When the resident raised concerns around its communication the landlord demonstrated a failure to put things right and learn from outcomes.
5. The resident first raised the disrepair claim in February 2022, 1 year and 9 months ago.
During 2022/23 the rent was £103.50 per week and for 2023/2024 it was £110.75. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to order the landlord to make a payment of compensation which recognises the impact of the failures on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The period considered for this calculation is 26 April 2022 to 10 May 2023, which is 54 weeks. It also takes into account that there are 5 rooms in the property.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to order the landlord to pay the resident £2250.10 compensation. This is based on a full refund for the 2 bedrooms which were not used during the period in question due to damp and mould. This figure has been calculated as follows:
1. Weekly rent (£103.50) x 49 = £5071.50 / 5 (rooms) x 2 (bedrooms) = £2028.60.
2. Weekly rent (£110.75) x 5 = £553.75 / 5 (rooms) x 2 (bedrooms) = £221.50.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there are repeated failures by the landlord which further undermine the landlord/resident relationship and had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s delay in consider the resident’s health and safety was significant however, it was resolved by the resident’s move to the hotel. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has advised this service that there is currently no damp, mould and condensation policy in place at this time but this is currently being considered.
The landlord’s current corporate complaints policy does not allow for compensation to be paid for detriment caused, such as inconvenience, distress and time and trouble which is inappropriate. However, this investigation is aware that the landlord is currently drafting a new compensation procedure which meets this requirement.

Decant to temporary accommodation

In her stage 2 complaint of 12 September 2022, the resident said that the landlord had failed to acknowledge a change in plans, including that she would remain in the property while the repairs took place.
Following a conversation with the resident on 22 June 2022, the housing officer asked if the resident could remain in the property while the works were carried out. In an internal email dated 29 June, the landlord confirmed this was a possibility if this was her “preference.” This information was relayed to the resident on 30 June 2022 who said she wished to consider her options. When the communication resumed the landlord provided a different response, and on 5 September 2022 it said she would need to be decanted for the duration of the works.
The landlord was aware that the resident was extremely concerned about the stress of moving to a decant property would cause hence her question about remaining in the property. Despite this, the landlord provided no apology or explanation for the change in its position which was inappropriate.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately which further eroded the landlord and tenant relationship. It also increased the distress caused to the resident about her housing situation at that time. When it communicated its change of position to the resident it did not demonstrate any insight or understanding of the detriment this had caused to her. In line with this service’s outcomes guidance the failures identified amount to maladministration, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2022. She did not receive a response and was caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 5 August. When this did not prompt a response, she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this service on 22 August. We wrote to the landlord on 9 September to request that it provide a response to her complaint by 23 September.
Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2022. This was 56 working days after the complaint was made and 36 days out of time. In its complaint response the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay, adding that due to the impact of COVID-19 it was experiencing a backlog of property issues and complaints.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to identify the reason for the delay and to apologise, it failed to recognise the detriment caused to the resident which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to recognise that it had not adhered to its complaints policy. This was because it did not communicate with the resident to let her know there might be a delay, the reasons why and when she could expect her response. Due to this lack of insight and/or acknowledgment, it did not offer compensation which was unreasonable.
The landlord appropriately apologised for a lack of communication on its part. It said whenever an incident of this sort happened it took the opportunity to review its processes and learn any lessons. However, part 6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that where something has gone wrong, the landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. Therefore, the landlord’s statement was of limited value in terms of ‘putting things right’ because it did not provide evidence of the review and lessons learnt. This meant that the resident could not be confident that it had addressed any errors to ensure that communication would improve moving forwards.
Section 5.6 of the Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about whether the property was fit for habitation at that time. Therefore, it did not comply with the code and caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience because the resident had cause to raised it again in her stage 2 complaint.
On 12 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. Once again, it failed to provide a response and again, the resident was caused further time, trouble and inconvenience in contacting this service on 20 October to seek assistance.
We wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2022 to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 15 November. The landlord’s records show that the escalation request had been received but that no reply had been issued. There was no question that the landlord had received the complaint and its failure to respond was therefore unreasonable.
The resident experienced further frustration and disappointment when the landlord did not reply by 15 November 2022 as requested. She subsequently contacted this service a second time to report that the landlord had failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response. We wrote to the landlord on 22 November to request that it provide its response no later than 29 November.
It initially said it was unable to do so because the matter was still in progress. However, on 5 December 2022 we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a final response to the resident on all complaint grounds.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord sent the resident an email which confirmed her complaint record had been updated to show as “decision made – upheld.” However, by the following day she had still not received a copy of the complaint response which was inappropriate. Having gone to the time and trouble of contacting this service for a third time, we wrote to the landlord on 16 December to make a final request that the landlord provide a complaint response by 23 December.
On this occasion, the landlord emailed the resident on 19 December 2022 to say that it understood solicitors had been instructed in the matter therefore, it would not deal with it under its complaints policy. This does not align with its own record dated 29 September 2022 when, in an internal email, its legal team confirmed that the resident no longer had an ongoing legal case. This suggests there was either a record keeping issue, or a breakdown in internal communications. In either case, there was a failure which caused a further delay. In any event, we contacted the landlord to advise that if it were liaising with the resident’s solicitors this would not prevent it from providing a formal response.
The resident contacted this service again on 4 January 2023 to say she had still not received her stage 2 complaint response. When she did receive her response, also dated 4 January, it was 82 working days after the complaint was made and 62 working days out of time.
In its response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it offered no explanation and no offer of compensation. It failed to update the resident about the delay again, and to let her know when she could expect a response. Given the considerable lengths the resident had to go to in order to receive a response, including intervention from this service on 5 occasions, this was inappropriate.
Furthermore, its response failed to address the resident’s stage 2 complaint about its failure to consider compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It therefore failed, once again, to comply with section 5.6 of the Code. That it did not do so was a further complaint handling failure.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints within 4 working days as stated in its corporate complaints policy. The landlord’s response time for stage 1 complaints is unreasonably long. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a review.
The delays were unreasonable, and the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on when she could expect a response. Not only was this not in keeping with its complaints policy, by not doing so it failed to comply with section 5.2 of the Code which sets out if an extension is required, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response mirrored the contents of its stage 1 response. This is evidence that the landlord failed to carry out a further, independent review of the situation before issuing its response, which was inappropriate. In doing so, the landlord failed to demonstrate the principles of effective dispute resolution; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Furthermore, it also did not provide the resident with confidence that her complaint had been taken seriously.
The landlord’s responses were significantly delayed at both stages of the complaints process. Complaint responses were only issued following considerable efforts by the resident which caused her time, trouble, inconvenience and frustration, and numerous interventions from this service.
There were a series of failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to address the distress caused, and the difficulties it presented for the resident to be able to access this service to seek a resolution to her ongoing dissatisfaction. These failures amount to maladministration and an order had been made for the landlord to pay the resident £600 to reflect the detriment caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Suitability of decant properties offered.
2. Subsequent decant to a hotel, specifically regarding the resident’s food allowance and mobility aids.
3. Condition of the property when the landlord attempted to hand it back in July and September 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould while it arranged a temporary decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the decision to decant the resident to temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication, both internally and externally, in relation to the works was poor. It failed to assess whether the property was fit for habitation, and did not consider carrying out minor, interim, works to treat the damp and mould, while it identified a suitable decant.
The landlord told the resident it was possible for her to remain in the property while works took place but later changed its mind. Its communication around the decision was poor which raised the resident’s expectations and caused her additional distress.
The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It failed to carry out a full, independent investigation at stage 2. Its responses at both stages were significantly and unreasonably delayed. It failed to consider the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures and did not consider offering compensation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £3800.10 compensation, comprising:
1. £2250.10 for the affect of the failures on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
2. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of the reports of damp and mould, including a lack of communication.
3. £150 for the failures identified in relation to the decision to decant the resident to temporary accommodation which caused distress.
4. £600 for the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation.
A senior manager should write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and offer the opportunity to discuss this in person. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should carry out:
1. Review the timescale for stage 1 complaint responses to ensure it is not unreasonably long.
2. Staff training to ensure that its complaint handling adheres to the timescales and processes set out in its corporate complaints policy. The date and content of the training should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
3. A review of its failings in relation to the poor communication with the resident about her reports of damp and mould. This should place a particular emphasis on external communication with residents and internal communication between the repairs and housing team. The date and findings of this review should be communicated to the resident and the Ombudsman in writing, also within 6 weeks.