London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202111330)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111330

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 February 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 repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the process of moving the resident to a new property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord’s Repairs Policy reflects its statutory obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. The policy specifically states that it is responsible for dealing with penetrative and rising damp and condensation and mould (via its Healthy Homes Programme). The policy also confirms its responsibility to repair door and window frames and all furniture, and to repair brickwork and concrete external walls and rendering.
The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould is “properly investigated”. The focus is “on tackling the root cause of the problem and carrying out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. It will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit then provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue. The landlord will then raise orders for treatment or repair.
In March 2021 the landlord resumed completing non-critical repairs after pandemic restrictions.
The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents Policy states that “Our wider suite of policies and procedures reflect the need to tailor services to the different needs of residents, including vulnerable residents. There are many ways in which we can support our vulnerable residents to retain their home and well-being; and live as independently as possible, such as:
1. Communications – provide materials in a range of formats.
2. Service adjustments – providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
3. Aids & Adaptations – providing minor and major adaptations to support our residents to live safely and independently in their homes.
4. In-house support– referring residents to our Tenancy Sustainment Team as well as other commissioned services which can help address issues of financial vulnerability and exclusion.
5. External referrals or signposting to statutory agencies and other external support organisations.”
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it “will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient and we recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer” and that “Compensation may be considered where we fail to follow our policies and procedures”. The policy further states that “discretionary payments can be made to recognise individual household circumstances, for example, larger sized households, or specific vulnerabilities”.
The Compensation Policy states “A customer may be entitled to a Home Loss payment (subject to limitations on entitlement) where s/he is displaced from a dwelling on any land because of the:
1. compulsory purchase of the property.
2. making of a court order in respect of the dwelling (i.e. prohibition order under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 or a demolition order).
3. redevelopment of land or improvement of any dwelling on land previously acquired or appropriated by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers and currently held by such an authority.
4. redevelopment or improvement by a registered social landlord.
5. making of an order for possession because the landlord (in the case of a secure/assured tenancy) intends to demolish or redevelop the dwelling or carry out extensive work, or the area is to be sold and redeveloped.

We may, given the particular circumstances, consider making a discretionary Home Loss payment where a customer is in need but does not satisfy the above conditions (this will not exceed the statutory amount).”

The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord will outline how it will resolve the complaint with timescales within 10 days. If it cannot do so, it will write again within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 it will write with the outcome and the next steps within 20 working days of the complaint escalation. If it cannot do so at that point, it will write again within a further 10 working days. It will then monitor progress until all actions are completed.
The landlord introduced a new Allocations and Lettings Policy in June 2021. Existing residents of the landlord are eligible to transfer to another of the landlord’s property and it holds an internal rehousing list for applicants. The policy states:
1. “There will be situations where we need to directly rehouse existing L&Q residents either on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. In these cases, we will match the resident to a property through our Rehousing list”.
2. “A temporary move may be required so that planned repair or improvement works can be completed in a resident’s home. In these circumstances we will encourage residents to stay with family or friends first and, where this is possible, we will pay the resident £250 per week”.
3. A permanent move may be agreed when a resident is required “to move to a more suitable property” or where there is “major disrepair”. It will “typically be to another L&Q property or possibly a property with a different housing association or local authority (reciprocal move)”.
4. “Should a resident refuse an offer of permanent accommodation as they do not think it is suitable their Rehousing case will be closed. Residents will be offered the opportunity to appeal this decision”.
5. “Properties will be matched to residents from the Rehousing list according to their individual requirements and prioritised according to the date that their direct offer was approved. Residents who are at immediate risk of harm may be prioritised”.
6. “We will take additional measures to support older people, those with disabilities and other vulnerable adults”.

Summary of Events

The resident has a 6-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, her tenancy commencing on 16 March 2018 with rent excluding service charges being £102.81. Her property is a mid-terrace one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has a diagnosis of bipolar and is known to the community mental health team.
It is not disputed at sign up, the resident noticed mould and disrepair. An internal email sent by the landlord after a start of tenancy visit noted “I carried out a fixed term tenancy visit at the above property today and there is a really strong smell of damp throughout the property, there is still evidence of the leak in the cupboard in the hallway and when this cupboard is opened the smell is terrible. The resident complained that she was told all these issues would be resolved before she moved in, but she believes that the water has gone into the cupboard doors and effected the wood as the paintwork is peeling off them in sheets”. The correspondence on the case indicates that the tenant of the property upstairs used to leave the taps running and go away for periods.
On 13 March 2021 the landlord noted that a window was rotting and the handle had fallen off therefore the window was insecure, although its records did not specify where the window was located. On 24 May 2021 it ordered a new UPVC window.
On or around 22 March 2021, a relative of the resident complained to the landlord that the resident’s property had suffered problems with mould since the start of her tenancy and whilst the landlord had cleaned/treated it a few times, the mould had returned “in full force”, spreading to her clothes, furniture, paper files and documents and kitchen cupboards. The relative explained that the resident did not wish to stay in the property, that her mental health had deteriorated and the mould had also caused some physical symptoms such as a bad cough. She suggested that the mould and damp was exacerbated by the fact the property was on the ground floor and the tenant upstairs left the tap running causing leaks into the resident’s property. The relative added that the boiler repeated broke down causing problems with heating. The landlord treated the correspondence at Stage 1.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it upheld her complaint at Stage 1 and it had arranged for its specialist damp and mould contractor to come. On the same date it sent the resident” some useful information and top tips about how to prevent it [damp and/or mould] becoming a more serious problem”.
On 12 June 2021, the resident reported that a leak from flat above caused the bathroom ceiling to collapse. The landlord’s repair records show that by 25 June 2021 it repaired the leak that had caused the collapse then it reinstated the bathroom light which had been made safe.
On or around 30 June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord stating that three weeks after the ceiling collapse, her bathroom remained the same – it had not repaired the bathroom since the ceiling collapse and water was running down the walls and dripping on her when she used the toilet. She also stated that this followed three years of unaddressed problems with mould and damp and water running down the ceiling. She also noted that the broken window in her living room was not yet repaired and that an appointment for the works was postponed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2021 adding that it would arrange for a heating engineer to inspect the resident’s boiler and radiators.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord’s damp contractor carried out a survey of the resident’s property. The contractor confirmed that there was damp and mould throughout the property which it attributed to leaks from the flat above which needed investigating. Furthermore, it identified several repairs including repairs to the damp proof course, unblocking of gutters, broken air-bricks, radiators working intermittently, repairs to the handle and seal of the living room window and lifting of the bathroom and kitchen floor possibly related to leak.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord logged an internal transfer request and approved a permanent decant via a direct offer of accommodation.
On 19 July 2021, after its heating contractor attended the resident’s property, the landlord agreed to change her boiler. However, an appointment for the window for 14 July 2021 had been cancelled as the landlord understood that the resident was not staying in the property to provide access.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response. It summarised the action it had taken in respect of the resident’s reports about mould and damp, the bathroom ceiling, boiler issues and window repairs. It accepted that repairs should have been approved in a timely manner, so the resident did not have to make so much effort to contact it and chased up the response. It accepted there were failings in its communication, administration and overall management of the works. It awarded £1,400 compensation which comprised:
1. Inconvenience and distress – £300.00.
2. Lack of communication – £100.00.
3. Time and Effort – £100.
4. Reimbursement for the cost of repairs (noting that the resident had stated she had spent £600 on labour costs for decorating at the start of her tenancy) – £400.00.
5. Overall experience – £500.00.
Following receipt of the Stage 1 response on 20 July 2020 the resident phoned the landlord to express dissatisfaction with the response. She stated that she was unhappy with the compensation award as well as its overall handling of her concerns, mentioning repair issues not included in the original complaint.
The landlord also spoke to the resident about her situation and on 23 July 2021, the resident confirmed she would accept temporary accommodation. On 27 July 2021, the landlord agreed to offer the resident a home loss payment of £6,400 in addition to the £1,400 compensation.
The landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted to a serviced apartment at the start of August 2021 to allow works; however, the resident’s mental health worsened at the serviced apartment, and she returned to her property on 9 August 2021. The landlord had arranged for repairs to be completed to the resident’s property commencing on 5 August 2021 but the works could not commence on this date nor on a rearranged date of 16 August 2021 as the resident had not relocated her belongings.
On 18 August 2021 the resident advised that she did not now want temporary accommodation but would now wait for a permanent offer. On 20 August 2021 the landlord closed down a repair order for bathroom and kitchen repairs as the resident was remaining in the property. A member of staff from the Tenancy Management Team carried out a welfare visit to the resident’s property to see if she needed additional support and to inspect the mould and damp. The member of staff, who was to act as the resident’s point of contact going forward, offered to contact mental health services on the resident’s behalf after she advised that her mental health would only improve when she moved out of the property.
The landlord made a further offer of temporary accommodation on 31 August 2021, agreeing to replace the wet room, which the resident rejected as it was in a block. She advised she would no longer consider that area/ would only consider a flat in a house or house conversion.
On 6 September 2021 the resident advised that she was willing to go into private rented temporary accommodation not on an estate after sipping in the kitchen due to water on the floor and the smell in her kitchen. However on 15 September 2019 the resident advised now that she would wait for a permanent offer, providing her areas of choice.
The landlord scheduled the installation of a new boiler for 20 and 21 September 2021 although it understood that the existing appliance was still supplying heat and hot water. The resident cancelled the appointment as she did not feel well enough to allow workmen into her property and that she wished to wait for a permanent transfer.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It summarised the action taken on the resident’s case and explained the restrictions it was under in respect of the allocation of properties which meant it could not offer her a new home as soon as she would like, such as the need to adhere to nomination agreements with local authorities and the specific type of properties the resident would accept.
The landlord noted that a member of staff noticed the “presence of mould when she visited after commencement of your tenancy and recognised the property had been let in less than ideal condition”. It accepted that the service it had provided fell short of acceptable standards as repairs should have been managed more effectively and completed more swiftly. Additionally, the condition of the resident’s home was not in keeping with the high standards it aimed for when it was let. It increased the compensation award from £1,400 to £2,000, having noted that the resident expected £2,000-£3,000 compensation, and advised the home loss payment of £6,400 would be paid once a permanent move was agreed to contribute to furnishing and utilities costs. However, it could not provide the timescale for the move as it could not predict when a property would become vacant.
On 1 October 2021 the resident viewed a temporary property within her area of choice at that time but declined it. On 5 October 2021 the resident rejected another property as the ceiling was too low and the property was too small for her liking. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted “[the resident] has made it clear that she is concerned that if she agreed to accept any of the previous properties on a temporary basis, we would leave her there as long as she is out of her current home. I believe this is one of the main reasons she has refused the previous offers and why she is refusing to allow any works to take place at her current address until she moves out”.
On 3 November 2021 the resident advised that she had been unwell and would now take anything to leave her property. The landlord’s internal notes indicate that it was worried about her physical and mental state.
On 23 and 24 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again advising that she was desperate to move and that she wanted an offer before Christmas. She reiterate that she had refused access to tradesmen as it would be too stressful. The landlord suggested support from social services or Citizens Advice but the resident advised that she had already tried those options.
On 29 November 2021 the resident cancelled an appointment for repairs ordered after the damp specialist visit as she did not want noise and stated all works could be completed when she had left the property. Also on 29 November 2021, the resident contacted this Service explaining that she remained dissatisfied having completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. She explained her dissatisfaction that the landlord had only offered her temporary accommodation, the impact on her mental health especially from the noise of operatives, the delays in repairs to leaks from the roof as well as the compensation offered and her view of the lack of recognition of her vulnerabilities.
On 20 December 2021, the resident declined an offer of a permanent property as the bathroom was off the kitchen and because she did not want a smaller property. At a home visit on 12 January 2022 the resident confirmed she did not want operatives to attend her property as she was waiting for a management transfer.
Correspondence sent to this Service by the resident whilst waiting for this investigation show that on 25 March 2022 she reported that she could not use her boiler without tripping the electrics therefore she had to switch it off. On 13 April 2022 the landlord advised that parts were on order after which its contractor would arrange an appointment. The resident requested increased compensation due to the inconvenience and increased electricity costs from using an electric heater. She also stated that she had no use of a fridge freezer for six months due to water damage from leaks from the kitchen floor leading to increased grocery bills. On 20 April 2022 the landlord stated it would not increase the compensation.
It is understood from the correspondence sent to this Service by the resident whilst waiting for this investigation that in May 2022 she went to stay with family members for support. On 15 June 2022, a family member wrote to the landlord seeking an update on a viewing of 19 May 2022 and alleging that the landlord had discriminated against the resident. A friend of the resident also wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2022 expressing concern about the state of the resident’s property and mental health.
The correspondence provided by the resident also confirms that she was placed in private temporary accommodation in July/August 2022 until she would receive a permanent offer. However, the landlord cancelled the stay after three weeks as it could not extend the booking. As it only advised the resident of the cancellation the day before she did not have time to arrange alternative accommodation, therefore booked a hotel room. She asked for a refund of the cost of the hotel room and also a refund of a payment she had made to the temporary accommodation that was meant to refunded on her departure but was not. She has provided evidence to this Service that she pursued the refund several times receiving a payment of £1,750 in December 2022.

Assessment and findings

This Service notes the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair reported in March 2022, her request for compensation for this and for costs arising from disrepair to her fridge-freezer. This Service also notes that the resident has reported concerns about the landlord’s handling of the provision of temporary accommodation in July/August 2022 and her request for reimbursement of costs. These issues are substantively new complaints. However, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Essentially, a landlord should have the opportunity to consider and resolve a complaint through the operation of its complaints procedure. This investigation will therefore focus on the matters considered within the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 23 September 2021.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property

It is not disputed that there was damp in the property from the start of the property which was odorous and that the landlord was aware of this. The damp indicated that there may be disrepair to the resident’s property or a neighbouring property which the landlord had a responsibility to investigate and addressed prior to sign up; however, there is no evidence from the landlord’s repair records that it sought to diagnose the cause of the damp/smell then carry out necessary works to remedy this at this time, in line with its obligation.
The resident in complaining to the landlord in 2021 noted that she had reported mould caused by the dampness in her property on several occasions which the landlord had cleaned. The landlord’s repair records do not confirm how many reports were made or that it attended the resident’s property to clean mould which indicates shortcomings in its record keeping. It also remains the case that there is no evidence that the landlord sought to investigate and diagnose the underlying dampness in the resident’s property. This is particularly unreasonable given the recurrent nature of the mould and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Regarding the landlord’s omission to investigate the dampness, from the start of the resident’s tenancy, the landlord noted that leaks from the upstairs flat, possibly arising from the actions of the tenant(s) may have contributed to the dampness. However, there is no evidence that it investigated the occurrence and frequency of such leaks and correspondingly sought to manage the actions of the tenant(s).
When the resident complained about the mould her property in March 2021 the landlord responded by arranging for its damp contractor to visit. This was in line with its Healthy Homes procedure that had been introduced the previous year. However, the complaint response was cursory with the landlord upholding the resident’s complaint but not investigating its prior handling of the damp and mould and offering redress. The landlord also did not acknowledge the impact on the resident showing a lack of empathy. As such it missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
It transpired that a leak from the flat above caused the resident’s bathroom ceiling to collapse prior to the visit by the damp contractor. Although the landlord’s records indicate that it repaired the leak, the resident in her complaint of 30 June 2021 advised that there was still water running into her property and the damp contractor advised that the landlord needed further to investigate leaks from the flat above. It is reasonable to assume therefore that the landlord still had not resolved fully the issue of leaks in the resident’s property.
Related to the leak, the damp contractor confirmed the presence damp and mould in the property. Further repairs were identified including gutter blockages, repairs to the damp proof course, leaks to a floor and heating repairs which potentially contributed to the presence of damp and mould. Landlord should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions (as confirmed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould published October 2021). Given there were concerns about damp and mould from the start of the resident’s tenancy, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord failed to adequately investigate the dampness and mould in the resident’s property at an earlier stage and therefore missed opportunities to identify these repairs earlier.
In its response of 20 July 2021 the landlord also considered repairs raised for the resident’s boiler and window. Although the landlord inspected and raised repairs there were unreasonable delays. It inspected the window on 13 March 2021 but only ordered a replacement over two months later, on 24 May 2021. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s report of repeated boiler breakdown in the original complaint of 22 March 2021, it only arranged an inspection after her further complaint of 30 June 2021.
The landlord has not completed the repairs that have been identified. The landlord has taken steps to gain access by making offers of temporary accommodation but she has indicated she does not want the repairs completed until after she receives a permanent offer of accommodation acceptable to her. It is noted too that the landlord after responding to the resident’s complaint employed a member of staff to liaise with the resident, in line with its policy on Vulnerable Residents.
However, it is noted that the landlord sought to carry out works in August 2021 but according to its records did not due to the possessions in the resident’s property. There is no evidence that it sought to assist the resident in moving her possessions to facilitate works which was a missed opportunity given the need for the works. This Service therefore recommends that the landlord offers to assist move the resident’s possessions to allow works with her in situ, if offering to put the possessions in temporary storage.
In its response to the resident, the landlord accepted failures in its handling of repairs and offered £2,000 compensation which included a sum to contribute towards labour costs the resident had incurred at the start of her tenancy. This was offer in line with the discretion allowed for by its compensation policy, and according to its stage 2 response it was in line with the resident’s request for compensation, albeit at the lower end. The landlord has recognised that the condition of the resident’s property has affected her vulnerability by exercising its discretion and awarding her a management transfer. Moreover, it has exercised the discretion allowed for by its Compensation Policy to the resident’s benefit by committing to pay her the statutory home loss payment in effect at the time it responded to the resident’s complaint, £6,400, even though her circumstances do not fall in the legally defined categories for when payment must be made. This is a fair basis to offer compensation as a home loss payment is designed to compensate people for the distress and inconvenience of having to move home at a time not of their choosing, and in this case the resident has been awarded permanent decant status because of the condition of her property.
In considering the landlord’s offer of compensation, the Ombudsman has also noted that 183 weeks elapsed from the commencement of the resident’s tenancy to the end of the complaints procedure. The total amount of compensation offered allowing for reimbursement of the resident’s decorating costs, amounts to £8,000, over a third of rental payments during this period.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. In this case, through its discretionary financial awards and award of management transfer status, the landlord has provided redress that is proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which provides reasonable redress.
This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the repairs issue, the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach. Whilst this is the case, this investigation has made some recommendations in recognition of acknowledged and/or identified service issues in respect of this aspect.
Furthermore, as the landlord exercised its discretion in making a home loss payment it is not required to make the payment at the time the resident is moved. As further recognition of the distress and inconvenience already experienced by the resident from the condition of her property the Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord make the payment within four weeks of receipt of this determination.

The landlord’s handling of the process of moving the resident to a new property

On 9 July 2021, the landlord logged an internal transfer request and agreed a permanent decant via a direct offer of accommodation. This was an option allowed for by the landlord’s Allocations Policy. Despite the agreement that the resident should be permanently rehoused, the landlord made offers of a temporary decant in the interim. This was reasonable given that this would allow it to complete works to remedy repair issues in the resident’s property pending a permanent offer which in turn may have benefited the resident’s mental health.
In the Stage 2 response the landlord explained why it had restricted numbers of properties available for internal transfers and that the availability of vacant properties could not be predicted. It has provided generic information to manage the resident’s expectations about the prospects of being offered a property. The landlord has also sought to meet its commitment to offer the resident a permanent transfer by making an offer in December 2021 and deciding not to close the resident’s application after she declined the offer.
However, the Allocation Policy Notes that that the landlord can take additional measure to support vulnerable adults. In this case the landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It is also aware that underlying repair issues which have contributed the resident’s vulnerability remain outstanding and that her uncertainty as to when she will be rehoused further adds to her distress and inconvenience. It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord has not taken further, proactive steps to manage the resident’s expectations about her prospects for a transfer or otherwise update her. For instance, it has missed opportunities to provide statistical information such as average waiting times, number of one-bedroom properties becoming vacant in area of choice and the number of other applicants who are also eligible for a direct offer. It can also make clear whether there are any other parameters it is taking into account such a size and layout of property (over and above bedroom size), which have been raised as issues of concern by the resident. This information will enable the resident to make more informed decisions on her rehousing choices.
The landlord’s Allocations Policy also allows for a payment of £250 when residents stay with family / friends on a temporary basis to allow for repair works. Given that repairs to tackle damp and mould remain incomplete but the landlord has not been able to agree temporary accommodation to allow for works, it is recommended that the landlord explore the option of the resident staying with family members and making the above payment to her to facilitate the necessary works.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing

As noted the landlord has a Vulnerable Residents Policy so that it can best provide a service to vulnerable residents. In this case the landlord was aware that the resident had mental health issues impacted by the condition of her property. It was also aware that the resident was concerned by damp in the property from the start of its policy. Even though the resident did not consistently report the damp, these issues confirmed there was an elevated and composite detrimental impact to the resident which the landlord had a responsibility to be mindful of and address through its Vulnerability Policy.
In this case, there was a deterioration in the resident’s mental health in August 2021, causing her to leave a serviced apartment. Works in the property were also not completed in August 2021 because the resident had not moved her possessions; however there is no evidence that the landlord sought to assist her with this such as by offering storage. As such it missed an opportunity to facilitate works at an early stage. Whilst the landlord made a referral to its Tenancy Support Team which visited the resident, given the circumstances outlined, together with its prior knowledge of her mental and physical health and the history of her case, the lack of follow up action by the landlord at this time was unreasonable.
The landlord’s responsibility to take into account the resident’s vulnerability remained after completion of the complaints procedure in September 2021, not least because it was still seeking to complete the repairs complained of. The landlord’s records confirm it was aware around October 2021 that the resident was acutely unwell and showed an increased desperation to leave her property, expressing a wish to leave before Christmas, and would find operatives in her property stressful. As noted above, the landlord did not take further, proactive steps to manage the resident’s expectations about her prospects for a transfer. Over and above this, there is no evidence that the landlord was sensitive to the needs of the residents, considered adapting its services to ensure completion of works or generally addressed the wellbeing of the resident at this time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to her property satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the handling of the process of moving the resident to a new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.

Reasons

Whilst there have been service failings by the landlord in its handling of repair issues, through its discretionary financial awards and award of management transfer status, the landlord has provided redress that is proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which provides reasonable redress.
Whilst the landlord may not be able to predict when it will transfer the resident it is unreasonable that the landlord has not taken further, proactive steps to manage the resident’s expectations about her prospects for a transfer or otherwise updated her.
The landlord did not take sufficiently reasonable steps to shape and adapt its service in light of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within the next four weeks to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her housing application.
3. Writes to the resident to confirm the areas of choice and property types it has registered for the resident. It should then provide information suggested in paragraph 53 of this report and any other information that may assist the resident in understanding her prospects of being rehoused.
4. Pay the resident £500 compensation to reflect the failings in its consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.
5. Ensure that its Tenancy Support Team visits the resident to discuss her needs, and then writes to her with the outcome making clear what further action and support it will provide.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident again to seek an arrangement for completion of outstanding works to the property. When doing so, it should confirm whether it can pay her £250 to stay with relatives to allow outstanding works to her property and/or assist her with moving her possessions so that works can be completed with her in situ.
2. Considers the failings identified in this report, review its approach to reports of damp and mould, identifying what changes will be made to reduce the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. This review should include consideration of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. The landlord should report the outcome of this review to its appropriate governing body.
3. As this determination of reasonable redress is contingent on the landlord’s offer to pay compensation equivalent to a home loss payment, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience already experienced by the resident it should do so within four weeks of receipt of this determination.
The landlord is requested to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within the next four weeks.