London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202115891)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115891

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of a flood;
2. Handling of a related decant;
3. Handling of heating issues in the resident’s temporary accommodation;
4. Handling of the resident’s rehousing requests from October 2021;
5. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns;
6. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 2007. The property is a 2 bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident occupies the property with her 4 children. Her bedroom is located in a basement. She has a number of health related vulnerabilities including sciatica and vertigo. One of the children has asthma.
The landlord’s relevant rehousing policy, effective May 2021, applies to temporary decants and permanent rehousing cases. It confirms safety and suitability considerations may prompt the landlord to rehouse a resident. It shows the landlord should provide clear updates and keep residents informed during the process. It details various situations that can give rise to a rehousing need. They include the following health and welfare related examples:
1. A member of the household has a significant medical need or disability which means they are unable to remain in their home.
2. The household is severely overcrowded and (a member of the household) has a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s related standard operating procedure, effective June 2021. It shows the landlord will gather supporting information before referring a permanent rehousing request to a panel for approval. It shows the panel regularly review outstanding requests to ensure cases are progress promptly.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. If the resident remains unhappy, they can escalate their concerns to a review stage (stage 2). At stage 2, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

From the outset of the below timeline, the resident had multiple long-standing concerns about the condition and suitability of the property. The landlord addressed some of these concerns, including damp, mould, other repairs, and the resident’s rehousing request, in a stage 2 response issued on 20 July 2021. It awarded the resident £220 in related compensation. A separate Ombudsman decision (our reference 202007591) addressed this complaint later in the timeline.
The parties remained in dialogue about the resident’s previous complaint after July 2021. However, the landlord subsequently treated her new concerns (detailed below) as part of her previous complaint. This was evident from the landlord’s complaint records and the events described below. The landlord’s approach later caused confusion for both parties.
On 1 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO. She said she woke to find her bedroom flooded with sewage water. Further, along with the flooring and carpet, various personal belongings were damaged. They included a bed, clothing, and electrical items. She said the property was already damp because the boiler was faulty. She referenced the family’s health issues and implored the landlord to rehouse them. She said, “I’m pleading with you that you get us out of these conditions…”.
Within hours, the resident contacted the landlord again. Its call notes show she reported feeling suicidal. They suggest the landlord signposted her to relevant welfare support services and raised an urgent repair. The landlord’s correspondence (both internal and with the resident) shows the following events occurred later that day:
1. The landlord reported sewage water in the property was 2 inches deep and a decant was required.
2. A drain contractor cleared several blockages. It said the water supplier should check its main drains and the property needed deep cleaning.
3. Due to a large public event nearby, the landlord was having difficulty arranging emergency hotel accommodation.
4. The landlord raised internal and external safeguarding referrals for the resident.
5. The family were eventually decanted to a hotel. Online searching suggests it was around 3.5 miles away with a 20 minute journey time on public transport.
On 3 October 2021 the resident asked the landlord where the family would be staying next. This was on the basis they were due to leave their hotel the following morning. She said the location was important as her children attended different schools. Further, 2 of the children were now ill. She attributed their illness to spending a day in the flooded property. She said the family should be permanently moved to a 4 bedroom house.
The parties exchanged emails 2 days later. The emails confirm the hotel stay was previously extended. The landlord said it was still searching for a serviced apartment. Further, any temporary accommodation would be a similar size to the property. However, given the difficulty finding something suitable, an expanded search would include the landlord’s private sector homes. It also said the resident should discuss a permanent move with the landlord’s relevant department.
After the family’s hotel stay was extended again, the resident thanked the landlord for its efforts. She said she was on benefits and she was struggling with the cost of taxi fares and take away meals. She said the family needed suitable accommodation urgently.
On 6 October 2021 the resident agreed an apartment offered by the landlord. She asked how long the family would stay in temporary accommodation, and whether the landlord could furnish the apartment. She said her bed was destroyed and moving the family’s other furniture temporarily would be stressful. The landlord’s complaint records and the parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the following events occurred on 7 October 2021:
1. The resident raised an online complaint. She said: there had been no contact from the landlord’s repairs team since the flood, the property was locked, the “basic” hotel was far from the family’s schools, and it lacked facilities to provide for them. She asked the landlord for answers and support. No information was seen to show the landlord responded formally.
2. The landlord agreed to update the resident in due course about the duration of repairs to the property. It also offered to arrange a removal company for her furniture. It said the resident could claim on her contents insurance for any damaged items. Alternatively, she could apply to the landlord’s Personal Support Fund (PSF) and it would assist her with the application.
3. The landlord outlined the resident’s responsibility for bills during the temporary decant. It said she was responsible for paying the property’s rent and the apartment’s utility bills. It said, once she signed a licence agreement, it would meet her at the apartment to hand over the keys. Further, the resident could get in touch if she had any questions.
4. The resident replied she did not have contents insurance. She said the landlord should provide compensation for her damaged items. Further, it had failed to provide adequate support overall. She raised concerns about: damage to her furniture during removals to and from the temporary accommodation, the apartment’s location on the third-floor, and her ability to manage its utility bills without a pre-payment facility.
5. Without clarification from the landlord, the resident said she was unable to sign the license agreement. She offered to move to another hotel while it responded to her concerns. This was on the basis the family were due to check-out the following day.
The landlord’s call notes and correspondence from 8 October 2021 shows:
1. The landlord was aware of resident’s online complaint. On the basis the property was overcrowded and damp/mould issues were preventing her obtaining a mutual exchange, it asked internally whether a senior management panel could consider a direct let for the resident. It said the resident could provide supporting medical evidence.
2. It was also aware of the family’s vulnerabilities. Separate internal correspondence said it had spoken to the resident to establish whether the family had any support needs that could impact their decant accommodation. Further, the resident advised there were no issues related to the type of accommodation offered.
3. Based on their location, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s choice of hotels following the flood. The landlord confirmed it would reimburse her taxi-fares and any other expenses relating to the flood. It also agreed to replace any furniture damaged during the removal.
4. The resident was reluctant to accept the private rental sector apartment. Broadly, she wanted confirmation that the family would not have to return to the property following their temporary decant. As an alternative, she was given an option to stay with family/friends for £250 per week in compensation.
5. The resident was concerned the children were unable to complete their homework because the hotel lacked free Wi-Fi.
6. The flood prevented a specialist damp and mould contractor attending the property on 21 October 2021. The visit related to the resident’s previous complaint.
On 13 October 2021 the resident was given keys to the temporary apartment. The landlord’s related correspondence suggests it was late to a pre-arranged hand-over meeting. Further, the resident had to make alternative arrangements to collect one of the children from nursery. It shows her hotel was extended so she could complete removals from the property. Further, the landlord agreed to buy her a new bed. The correspondence also shows:
1. The landlord was seeking clarity around utility bills, extra keys, and internet access on the resident’s behalf.
2. The resident was struggling to evidence some of her expenses. She said she was forced to borrow cash from family members and the funds needed repaying. Further, the landlord had not told her to make card payments in advance.
The parties exchanged emails the next day. The resident asked for an orthopaedic mattress, internet access, and an extension to the hotel stay. The landlord replied it was unable to extend her stay for more than 2 nights as the hotel was fully booked. It offered to book another hotel for an extra night. It also confirmed a bedding supplier would contact the resident in due course. Other key points from the exchange were:
1. The resident could copy the apartment’s keys if necessary. She should contact its electricity provider directly to set up her supply. Though the resident was also responsible for setting up internet access, the landlord would refund any disconnection and reconnection fees. With receipts, it would also refund any mobile data fees.
2. Following receipt of the resident’s bank details, an expenses refund would now be processed. The landlord would arrange storage for the family’s belongings at the property. However, it needed a list of items along with details of any boxes required. Since it was aware she had not been contacted as requested, the landlord had chased its repairs team again.
3. The landlord was preparing the resident’s rehousing case for an internal panel hearing. A relevant staff member would contact her within days. The resident should provide them with any supporting information. If arranging the apartment’s utilities was unmanageable, the landlord would explore what assistance it could offer the resident. She could also call its decant handler on their mobile with any questions.
4. The resident advised it would take her a while to provide an inventory because there were lots of items at the property.
In an email on 18 October 2021, the resident told the landlord she had moved to the apartment. However, although there was hot water, there was no heating and its cooker was defective. Further, she was still waiting for an engineer to attend. The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests its repairs team contacted her about the property the same day. It said she was advised a cleaning contractor would contact her in due course. However, she should contact the water supplier about its main drains.
The following day, the resident raised another online complaint with the landlord. She said it was unacceptable that an engineer had not attended the heating. Further, since the hob was defective, she was unable to cook for the family. Over the next few days, she chased an expense payment, reported stress and cold related health impacts, and raised concerns about the cost of running a borrowed fan heater. She also said the family were eating too much takeaway but the hob limited their meal options.
In internal correspondence on 22 October 2021, the landlord said an energy supplier was directly responsible for the apartment’s heating. As a result, the resident should report the fault to the supplier. Further correspondence gave more information. It said the apartment was part of a heat network managed and maintained by an external party. Subsequent correspondence shows the landlord attempted to provide additional fan heaters, but it failed to raise a corresponding works order until 25 October 2021.
Around the same time, the resident told the landlord her first expenses refund, £210.90, was still outstanding. Further, her second batch of receipts totalled £718.32. She also said she was awaiting details of further expenses from family members. These related to peak-time travel expenses when taxis were unavailable.
The following events occurred between 26 and 29 October 2021:
1. An MP intervened on the resident’s behalf. Their correspondence included an email from the resident. It reiterated her recent concerns and said she had complained about the property’s condition for 14 years. It shows the apartment had an induction hob. Further, the resident had no intention of buying compatible cookware for her temporary accommodation.
2. Two days later, the resident thanked the landlord for supplying useable pots. She also emailed the landlord’s complaints team separately. She said the children’s health had improved in their time away from the property. However, she was experiencing anxiety dreams about the flood and “sharp pains” in her head. Overall, she said the stress of being the landlord’s tenant was “overwhelming”.
3. She also said the family’s belongings were soaking-up sewage water which had not been drained from the property. Further, she had been unable to create an inventory due to her health issues. She was unhappy the landlord was calling and texting her about repairs to the property. She said she was unable to assist its operatives as she was based elsewhere and there was no heating or lighting at the property.
4. Overall, she said the landlord should move the family to a 4 bedroom house in her preferred district. Further it should compensate her for distress, inconvenience and damaged items. In addition, since she did not work for the landlord, she did not understand why she was expected to bear responsibility for various issues. She emphasised the impact on the children’s education and welfare.
5. An environmental services contractor updated the landlord following a visit to the property. It said the appointment had been arranged with the resident. Further, though there was no-one at the property, it found her nearby. It said she did not acknowledge the appointment and was unwilling to engage. Since the resident referred it back to the landlord, the contractor said alternative access arrangements were needed.
In an email on 3 November 2021, the resident said there had been limited communication from the landlord since the flood. She also said she needed time to rest and recover. She asked if a caseworker could meet her at the property in around 2 weeks to help create the storage inventory. The Ombudsman has not seen a response to this email. The landlord’s case records indicate a panel hearing took place around a week later. The Ombudsman has not seen any records from this hearing.
On 24 November 2021 the resident raised another formal complaint about the landlord’s flood handling. She said it was a “horrific” experience and the family received little support from the landlord. She said she was awaiting information about a permanent move and she was unable to access the property. She echoed her previous concerns around damaged items, outstanding expenses and the family’s health.
The next day, call notes said the landlord had spoken to the resident. They show she preferred placing the family’s items in storage over moving them into a single room at the property. Further, the landlord asked its relevant teams to arrange storage and delay the repairs until the property was empty of items.
Between 6 and 31 December 2021, the landlord asked the resident for details of any diagnosed medical conditions in the family. It said it was compiling a report for the rehousing panel. Later that month, the resident supplied supporting medical documents. Internal notes on 30 December 2021 said “(statutory) overcrowding is not a case for priority medical evidence…”. Further, although some evidence had been supplied, a form was missing. The resident subsequently queried the missing document. She also chased removals, refunds and an update.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord made internal enquiries with a view to arranging storage. Its correspondence shows the resident had the only keys to the property and there was no key safe. Further, on the basis the parties had met at the property several weeks ago, the landlord’s view was the resident could safely access the property. Later that day, the resident reported the landlord failed to contact her about storage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 January 2022. The subject heading was “formal complaint”. Various members of the landlord’s staff were copied in. She said, though 3 months had passed since the flood, her expenses had not been paid and storage had not been arranged. Further, despite several engineer’s visits, there had been no heating in the temporary apartment for almost a month and piping in the “boiler room” was dangerous. She also said fan heaters were bad for the family’s health and expensive to operate.
Notes from 24 January 2022 suggest the landlord had seen images showing condensation dripping onto the apartment’s electrics and heating programmer. A corresponding engineer’s report said pipework needed lagging and the programmer should be moved and replaced. On the same day, internal correspondence said the landlord’s local representative (involved in responding to the resident’s previous damp and mould complaint), was not really involved in her “new complaint”.
In internal correspondence two days later, the landlord said the pipework had been lagged and no leaks were found. Further, electrics that were previously isolated had been restored by an electrician. As a result, “all repairs (were) complete”. Around 5 days later, the resident reported outstanding issues with the programmer. As a result, she said, the heating was either on constantly or switched off.
The parties’ correspondence between 1 and 2 February 2022 shows the landlord was several hours late for a scheduled appointment. It also shows the resident was unhappy that the appointment was an inspection related to other issues in the apartment. She said, “I don’t need assessments after assessments”. She reported two of the children were off school due to the lack of heating and there was now no hot water. She previously reported making alternative arrangements to collect one of the children from nursery due to the late appointment.
In an email update to the resident on 4 February 2022, the landlord reiterated its request for an inventory and the number of boxes required. It told the resident her receipts had been submitted for processing. Its related internal correspondence said the landlord could arrange a removal contractor to meet her at the property. No information was seen to show this option was put directly to the resident. Subsequent internal correspondence said her boxes would be delivered on 10 February 2022.
During email updates to the landlord in early March 2022, the resident raised concerns about her mental health. She said she was stressed, depressed, and taking sleeping tablets. Further, the children were sharing a cramped bedroom, and journeys to and from property were eating into her benefit money. She subsequently said the children lacked clothing because their items were damaged by damp and mould while left at the property. Further, packing the family’s items was slow because the property lacked power and heating. In addition, she was frequently borrowing money to support the family.
The parties’ correspondence shows the following events occurred between 11 and 19 April 2022:
1. The resident said the family’s items were packed. She reiterated the property’s condition had delayed matters. This was on the basis she was only able to attend for short periods. She said the situation had “escalated the pain levels” caused by her health condition and reported suffering from “severe anxiety”.
2. She referenced other repair issues at apartment. She said she had not reported them because she was tired of facilitating repair visits. She questioned why the family were moved from the property to an apartment with multiple issues. She reported being advised by a plumber that the apartment’s defective pipework would likely lead to further problems.
3. Having acknowledged the resident’s request to arrange storage, the landlord said its relevant team would get in touch to finalise the removal. It also agreed to chase the resident’s outstanding expenses refund. Significantly, it said its rehousing list for urgent moves had been suspended and it was unable to accept new cases. Further, the resident previously failed to provide a medical assessment form as requested. It asked whether the resident had contacted her local authority about rehousing.
4. The resident was understandably upset with the rehousing news. She felt her case had been put to the panel months ago. She said she had previously sent the requested medical evidence. The landlord replied it had posted the relevant forms to the apartment before Christmas. Since the housing list was closed, it said the family were expected to return to the property following the decant.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to her 24 November 2021 complaint within 10 working days. We said its response should include the complaint stage. The landlord updated the resident informally on the tenth working day. It said her complaint was at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). Further, it was sorry she had not been contacted about removals or expenses refunds. However, it would chase the matter internally until these issues were resolved.
In an email on 14 June 2022, the resident said the landlord’s update was not a formal complaint response, and it failed to answer any of her questions. She felt mislead on the basis she was told the family were on a priority rehousing list. However, the list had now been “scrapped”. She said it was unacceptable that the family were expected to move back to a cold, damp, and overcrowded property. Her other points were:
1. The resident was experiencing “flash-backs” about the sewage flood. The associated anxiety made it difficult to sleep.
2. There were many issues with the temporary apartment and the resident had complained. Despite a recent appointment confirmation via text, no engineers had attended her last report from early May 2022.
3. The shower, sink and toilet were still blocking. Door handles and a sink tap repeatedly fell off. Outside, scaffolding was blocking the apartment’s natural light. There was no support from the landlord and the resident was unsure who to contact for assistance. Overall, she felt “neglected”.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred on 20 June 2022:
1. The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement. It said it would respond by 1 July 2022. Further, the complaint concerned outstanding repairs to the property, rehousing, and compensation.
2. The landlord spoke to the resident. A related internal email said the family’s belongings had been placed in storage. However, the resident had been incorrectly advised she would be given a key to the storage facility. Further, her new bed was causing mobility issues.
3. In a subsequent email, the resident raised concerns about a recent energy bill. She said things were completely different in the private rental sector apartment and the landlord failed to explain matters adequately. She said she had not read the apartment’s “massive” handbook and the landlord should check the heating programmer.
In internal correspondence on 28 June 2022, the landlord said the resident was not on its current rehousing register. On 1 July 2022, the landlord told the resident it needed more time to investigate the complaint. The resident subsequently raised new concerns about defective pipework in the apartment. She also reported being referred to a food bank because her benefits were stopped.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 July 2022. It recapped events from November 2020 and was 12 pages long in total. Several pages were dedicated to its handling of damp and mould in the property (the landlord had already responded to this complaint at stage 2 on 20 July 2021). The above timeline shows this had limited relevance to the resident’s complaints from October 2021 onwards. Further, the confusion occurred because the landlord failed to open a new complaint about the flood and decant at an early stage in the timeline.
In relation to the relevant complaint, the timeline in the landlord’s complaint response was broadly consistent with the above summary of events. To avoid repetition, the below summary of the landlord’s response will focus on new information, significant points of difference, and other key details. On that basis, the main points were:
1. The flood was caused by a leak from the property’s main sewage stack.
2. In response to heating issues at the apartment, the landlord provided the resident additional fan heaters on 2 November 2021.
3. The resident met the landlord’s repairs supervisor at the property on 23 November 2021. They detailed the works required and advised her to create a list of damaged items.
4. The landlord was responsible for a “considerable delay” in arranging the removals following its suggestion to install a key safe.
5. Medical evidence the resident provided in December 2021 was insufficient. The landlord needed a letter confirming a medical diagnosis. Since the housing list was temporarily suspended, the resident was expected to return to the property when it was ready.
6. In relation to the resident’s February 2022 report there was no hot water, the landlord contacted the apartment’s energy provider on the resident’s behalf. It was advised there was a fault with the heat network and all residents were without heating and hot water. Further, engineers were on site and the resident should the call provider back in 2 hours for an update.
7. The resident was incorrectly advised that the family’s belongings could be accessed while in storage. She was due to hand over the property’s keys on 7 July 2022. This would allow the flood repairs to begin.
8. In relation to the resident’s food and travel expenses, the landlord was waiting for a cheque to be authorised. It was unable to provide a relevant timescale.
9. The resident had queried a bill from the apartment’s energy provider. The landlord understood the property had a pre-paid meter. However, it was not responsible for how its properties were billed. The resident should contact the energy provider.
10. In relation to her rehousing request, the resident should actively seek a move by searching and bidding for properties. She could also register for a mutual exchange. This was typically the best method for an overcrowded household to secure a move. The landlord signposted the resident to a website that facilitated cross-district exchanges.
11. There was a significant number of families on the landlord’s emergency rehousing register and the process typically took around 21 months. The landlord provided a list of the required supporting medical documents. From 7 February 2022, any new medical applications were temporarily on hold.
12. Reviewing the resident’s case highlighted multiple service failures, including delayed repairs and lapses of communication. The landlord was sorry the resident received a level of service that fell below its usual standards. It was aware she was vulnerable. The landlord had briefed its senior management about her case and feedback would be provided internally.
13. The resident was awarded £1020 in compensation comprising: £220 awarded at stage 2 in July 2021, time and effort £150, service failings £150, distress £200, inconvenience £200 and delayed response £100 (since £220 was not a new award, the correct total was £800). Beyond these descriptions, no further rationale for the compensation was provided.
In an internal email on 8 July 2022, the landlord said its payments team had advised the resident was issued an expenses refund on 30 June 2022. The amount was not specified. Around 10 days later, the landlord’s internal correspondence said it had been unable to collect the property’s keys because the resident cancelled an appointment. Further correspondence on 18 August 2022 said the keys were collected that day. It asked whether the landlord could dispose of furniture left in the basement.
In internal correspondence on 13 September 2022, the landlord said its maintenance team should have asked the resident about the furniture in the basement. This was on the basis its lack of contact had delayed repairs to the property. Within days, the resident agreed that the landlord could dispose of the items.
In late September 2022, the landlord inspected the apartment. It identified several issues including developing mould, easily occurring blockages in both bathrooms and a defective fan. It noted the resident had a cast around her leg. The information seen shows she had recently fallen over. During internal correspondence the following day, the landlord said it had raised clearance and environmental cleaning orders for the property. In addition, another team was dealing with the mould and further repair orders would be raised for minor works. An internal response noted these actions should not have taken a year.
In internal correspondence on 6 October 2022, the landlord reiterated overcrowding cases were not prioritised for rehousing unless the local authority issued a statutory overcrowding notice. It said the resident had been referred to the local authority and mutual exchange process several times. It also said that, following repairs, mould and damp were expected to return to the property because it was overcrowded. However, the problem was considered treatable. Separate correspondence on the same day said the landlord had given the resident its insurance team’s details because she felt the flood was the landlord’s fault.
On 21 October 2022 the resident raised another formal complaint. She said her health deteriorated during the family’s stay in temporary accommodation and her mobility was reduced. She questioned why the landlord felt it was acceptable for children of different sexes to be sharing a bedroom into their mid-teens. She also said she was incurring arrears because the local authority would only pay a year’s housing benefit for the apartment. Her other new points were:
1. There were ongoing problems with the apartment’s heating and hot water. The resident incurred energy arrears because the landlord failed to notify its supplier the apartment was occupied when the family moved in. This was negligence.
2. Significant works were required to fix defective pipework in the apartment. Engineers had attended on 3 occasions and another appointment from early August was still outstanding.
3. The apartment was not equivalent to the property. It lacked the property’s garden and it was less secure. The resident’s asthmatic son was unable to leave its balcony door open at night.
4. The resident was “shocked” flood repairs were delayed by the items left in the property. The landlord should have known these items were for disposal. Alternatively, it should have contacted her to clarify matters.
On 31 October 2022 the Ombudsman issued its decision on the resident’s previous complaint. We found there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to damp, mould and other repairs. We also found there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request. We increased the landlord’s compensation award from 20 July 2021. The decision timeline ended in August 2021. In other words, the decision only considered the relevant complaint issues until around this point.
In an email on 1 November 2022, the landlord told the resident it was unable to conduct a review or register a new complaint about the same issues. It said, given the ongoing issues with the apartment, a contractor’s appointment had been scheduled 2 days later. Case notes from late November 2022 said the apartment had been issued with aids and adaptations to assist the resident’s mobility. They also said the resident had been prescribed anti-depressants. Further, she had fire safety concerns about the apartment and its lift had broken down.
The landlord was in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) around the same time. It said there was high demand and a short supply of empty homes. As a result, the landlord did not have an open transfer register. Instead, empty properties were used to rehouse residents in emergencies and the resident did not fall into this category. Further, before rehousing could be agreed by the landlord’s rehousing leadership, any medical needs must be assessed by the landlord’s independent medical advisor.
The parties exchanged emails in late December 2022. The landlord reiterated the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure and no new case would be opened. The resident subsequently asked for a copy of its relevant final response. The Ombudsman has not seen the response provided. However, the resident replied the response related to the property whereas she wanted a response to her October 2022 complaint.
Internal correspondence from 26 January 2023 shows the resident had approached the press and a local mayor (we have seen a detailed letter from around this time, it was assumed to be the resident’s correspondence to the mayor). The internal correspondence said, given the length of the decant, there were “obvious failings” on the landlord’s part. Further, a recent post-inspection of the property identified various issues including a window and tiles in need of renewal. Within weeks, further correspondence said the property needed an asbestos survey.
The following events occurred between 6 and 28 March 2023:
1. The landlord told the resident all works identified in her stage 2 response were complete and her complaint would be closed.
2. When the resident disputed any works had been completed, the landlord asked her for a list of outstanding repair issues.
3. The landlord responded to the mayor’s enquiry. It referenced the recent Ombudsman decision and the flood. It said a window could be installed on the resident’s return to the property. Further, the resident declined a welfare check on 14 February 2023. Contact details were provided for the landlord’s senior rehousing leader.
4. The landlord chased the resident for details of the outstanding repairs.
5. The resident’s reply referenced various issues at the apartment including blockages. This confirms the parties were referring to different complaints during the above interaction.
On 17 April 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about a smell of sewage in the apartment. Around a week later, she reported an attending engineer found an incorrectly installed waste pipe, which was not glued together. Further, there was a “horrendously” strong smell of sewage in the apartment’s kitchen, which was not fit to cook in.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman around May 2023. In addition to reiterating previous complaint points, her undated letter raised general concerns about racial discrimination and unconscious bias within the housing sector. The implication was that these issues might be relevant to her case. She also said the landlord’s offer of £1020 was unfair given the family’s damaged belongings and the “traumatic” events they had experienced.
During internal correspondence between 14 and 21 June 2023, the landlord said the resident had declined to return to the property on the basis there were outstanding drainage works. It later said she needed to return home and a joint inspection would allow the parties to discuss matters. However, an injunction should be sought if the resident failed to engage. An occupational therapy letter to the resident on 22 June 2023 shows “minor adaptions” (handrails) to the property were recommended.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about drainage issues in the decant property. The response said the complaint was submitted on 11 May 2023 (the above time suggests this date was incorrect). The Ombudsman has not seen a subsequent final response letter.
Internal correspondence from 7 July 2023 said the parties had met at the property that day. Further, the resident had raised “a catalogue” of repairs and refused to return until they were complete. Notes from around a week later show she had raised a legal disrepair claim and was requesting a surveyor’s inspection. The resident also completed the landlord’s medical assessment form around this time. An internal stamp suggests the landlord received it on 26 July 2023.
The landlord gave the Ombudsman its case evidence on 2 October 2023. Its file summary, a numbered index detailing its response to our information request, said the landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its system.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 10 October 2023. She confirmed a legal disrepair case was ongoing but no court proceedings had been issued. Further, she was reluctant to return to the property without a survey. She referenced repairs including: deteriorated flooring, water leaking from a ceiling, a basement window and external brickwork issues. She said the apartment’s drainage issues were also ongoing amongst other issues. Her other key points were:
1. The resident only received 1 expenses payment of around £200. She estimated a refund of around £500 was still outstanding, but she was unable to recall the exact details without checking her own records.
2. In relation to her damaged items, the landlord failed to refer the resident to its insurance team until for around a year after the flood. Even then, its advice on resolving matters was unclear.
3. The resident was incorrectly advised the family would have access to their belongings in storage. This was a problem since the children needed access to their school books.
4. The resident was having ongoing problems with housing benefit and council tax payments for the apartment. These issues were proving difficult to resolve due to the landlord’s poor communication.
5. In comparison to the property, the apartment was better. That said, “anywhere” was better than the property which was in disrepair.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we are unable to determine liability or award damages. In other words, we unable to establish if the landlord was negligent or whether it was responsible for any illness or injury.
It may help to explain that this assessment concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s flood complaint, which is broadly reflected in the timeline above. We can consider any ongoing issues that were covered by the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022. Any more recent concerns, such as council tax issues, should be raised with the landlord in the first instance. The new issues in the resident’s October 2022 complaint were also beyond the scope of this assessment.
In its stage 2 response on 6 July 2022 the landlord awarded the resident a total of £800 in compensation comprising different elements. From the information seen, it was difficult to interpret the rationale behind the compensation. This will be addressed further in the complaint handling section. Broadly, we were unable to link individual elements to specific failures. On that basis, we could only consider the total compensation in the round. In other words, we were unable to determine whether the landlord offered adequate compensation in respect of any individual complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a flood

Little information was seen to indicate the cause of the flood. Further, as mentioned, we cannot determine whether the landlord was ultimately responsible for it. Nevertheless, we can consider its response to the incident. The timeline suggests it did not begin the related cleaning and repair works until around 12 months later. It also shows that, based on the timing of this assessment, the family have been decanted for around 25 months. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs.
Ultimately, the above confirms an inappropriate lack of resolution-focus on the landlord’s part. It is accepted the resident’s personal circumstances made the situation more challenging for the landlord to manage, but the evidence suggests it could have reduced the overall timescale by working more closely with the resident. For example, in mid-October 2021 the resident said it would take her some time to provide a storage inventory. Later that month, she cited health issues and a lack of heating and lighting as reasons for the delay.
Though it subsequently chased her for the inventory, no information was seen to show the landlord attempted to help the resident overcome the above issues. In early November 2021, the resident made a clear request for help with the inventory. Its internal correspondence on 4 February 2022 shows the landlord could have arranged additional support from its removal contractor. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show it responded to the resident’s request. Nor was any seen to show arranged additional support later.
Similarly, the resident later perceived (correctly) that months of delays had occurred, broadly between July and October 2022, because the landlord’s repairs team failed to contact her about belongings left in the property for disposal. The evidence suggests the matter could have been swiftly resolved with a phone call. More recent delays, from around March 2023 onwards, relate to a dispute over the property’s condition. While the resident objected to returning from the outset, the landlord could have reasonably involved her in a post-inspection of the repairs.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord was responsible for a significant proportion of the overall delay timeline. In other words, we found few delays that were solely attributable to the resident. That said, the evidence points to a period of around 6 weeks between 7 July and 18 August 2022 where the landlord was unable to collect the property’s keys. The evidence suggests the resident cancelled a pre-arranged appointment in this period. Nevertheless, the above suggests the landlord was responsible for an inappropriate delay of around 23 months overall.
From the information seen, it was difficult to gauge the resulting impact to the resident. For example, in October 2022 she said the apartment was not equivalent to the property given it lacked a garden. On the other hand, during her October 2023 update to the Ombudsman the resident said the apartment was better than the property. Still, no information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to provide the resident a matching decant property. As noted, she was reluctant to return to the property from the outset.
That said, it is reasonable to conclude an unnecessarily prolonged stay in temporary accommodation, away from a portion of the family’s belongings, was both distressing and inconvenient for the resident. The timeline shows she chased the landlord for repair and storage updates on several occasions. The timeline points to other significant issues. For example, it shows the resident asserted the landlord’s responsibility for her damaged belongings by 7 October 2021. However, the landlord failed to refer the resident to its insurance team for around 1 year. The timeline suggests the matter remains unresolved.
This was unfair and inappropriate. For clarity, where a resident alleges property damage occurred due to a landlord’s failure, a landlord can refer them to its insurer or deal with the claim through its complaints procedure. Typically, the complaints route involves a landlord inspecting the damaged items. In this case, the evidence suggests the landlord effectively did neither until later in the timeline. Where health impacts are cited, this should also prompt an insurance referral.
In addition, the parties agree the resident was given incorrect information around access to the family’s belongings in storage. The resident has said the children were unable to access school books as a result.
Overall, the evidence points to severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord’s inappropriate lack of resolution focus unnecessarily prolonged the family’s stay in temporary accommodation, away from a portion of their belongings. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s assertion it damaged her belongings and the matter remains unresolved. The landlord gave the resident incorrect information. It also failed to provide additional support with her packing.
The Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will be based on a flat rate of £50 per month to reflect the resident’s loss of amenity during the above identified delay period. In line with our approach to compensation, our order will also include a separate distress and inconvenience element to address these impacts separately.

The landlord’s handling of a related decant

During the timeline, the resident consistently questioned the landlord’s levels of communication and support. Further to above assessment, the evidence suggests some of her concerns were valid. For example, within a week of the flood, the resident reported she was on benefits and struggling with costs linked to the decant. Nevertheless, despite numerous chasers, the timeline suggests she was unable to obtain a refund from the landlord for around 9 months. This was based on the period between 14 October 2021 and 30 June 2022.
Given the circumstances, this timescale was unfair and inappropriate. The information seen suggests the refund only covered the resident’s initial expenses of around £210. The resident told us significant expenses remain outstanding. Her comments from around 22 October 2021 support this conclusion. Nevertheless, from the information seen, there was no evidence to show she submitted her second batch of expenses to the landlord. The Ombudsman has reviewed extensive correspondence between the parties.
For example, there was no indication the resident subsequently chased a higher value refund later in the timeline. In other words, no information was seen to show her outstanding expenses remain unpaid due to an error by the landlord. Regardless, the above identified delay was a significant failure.
The timeline also suggests the landlord was late for scheduled meetings/appointments on several occasions and this required the resident to change her plans at short notice. For example, when the resident was issued keys to the temporary apartment in October 2021. No information was seen to suggest the landlord ultimately addressed this issue in its final response letter. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have at least apologised
In other respects the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns during the decant. For example, it supplied a new bed and compatible pans for the hob. It also gave the resident a direct number for its decant handler and encouraged her to call them for support. However, the above identified delays and failures show there was ultimately a disconnect between the landlord’s objectives and the service it ultimately delivered. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s handling of heating issues in the resident’s temporary accommodation

The Ombudsman has not seen details of the landlord’s repairing responsibilities for the apartment. However, the landlord has consistently said an energy provider was responsible for maintaining its heat network. The landlord’s internal notes support this assertion. The information seen indicates it was responsible for the apartment’s internal pipework and fittings (such as the programmer). The resident said she did not read the apartment’s “massive” handbook.
In any case, based on the period between 18 and 22 October 2021, the timeline suggests it took the landlord 4 days to signpost the resident to the energy supplier. This was following her report that the apartment lacked heating. It also suggests the landlord’s repairs team failed to respond to a repair request during this time. If the landlord felt it was not responsible for the repair, it should have communicated this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. 24 hours is a standard response timescale for repairs of this type.
Around the same time, the landlord’s internal correspondence said the landlord delayed raising an order to supply additional fan heaters to the resident. The timeline suggests the apartment lacked adequate heating for a period of around 15 days between 18 October and 2 November 2021. It also suggests the landlord’s actions were a significant contributory factor. The timeline suggests the resident previously borrowed a heater and the apartment had hot water. Nevertheless, the above was an inappropriate timescale given the apartment lacked adequate heating.
In her formal complaint email on 21 January 2022, the resident said the apartment lacked heating for almost on month. This suggests separate heating issues began around 21 December 2021. The landlord has not accepted responsibility for any failures around this time. The information seen suggests lagging and programmer works were completed around 25 January 2022 and no leaks were found. Related internal correspondence suggests the electrics were made safe temporarily. Overall, the above was broadly consistent with the Ombudsman’s routine repair expectations.
Within days, the resident reported outstanding issues with the apartment’s programmer. At this point, she said the heating was either switched on or off. In other words, the family lacked advanced control over the heating. She subsequently raised the programmer again in June 2022. In her update to the Ombudsman in October 2023, she referenced other issues with the apartment. It is reasonable to conclude this report was also a routine repair. However, no information was seen to show the landlord responded accordingly.
Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 20 months in relation to the programmer. While this was an inappropriate timescale, the evidence suggests there was a limited resulting impact to the resident. Overall, the above identified delays and failures confirm there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing requests from October 2021

Rehousing requests on health and welfare grounds are typically outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is usually better placed to consider complaints that fall within Part 6. Management transfers are within the Ombudsman’s remit because they fall outside of these rules. It may help to explain that we cannot compel the landlord to move the resident. We can consider whether the landlord followed its relevant policies, and acted reasonably given the circumstances.
It is accepted the resident has been awaiting rehousing for a considerable period. Nevertheless, the landlord has limited control of the availability of 4 bedroom properties. In general, some districts contain larger numbers of 4 bedroom properties than others. Given the above, the overall duration of the resident’s wait time does not, in itself, evidence a failure by the landlord. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that errors by the landlord could have extended the overall timescale unnecessarily.
For example, processing errors or avoidable delays could have temporarily halted the process. These examples could represent a failure that unfairly impacted the resident and her family. As a result, the Ombudsman checked the timeline for evidence of similar failures. In other words, we considered whether the landlord progressed the resident’s case accordingly in line with it policies. In this case, from the limited information seen, it was unclear whether the resident’s request was ever reviewed by the landlord’s rehousing panel.
In any case, the landlord’s rehousing policy shows the resident should have received a clear update regardless of the outcome. For example, if her request was declined she should have been issued a letter explaining why and detailing her rights to appeal. Similarly, if more information was required the landlord should have reasonably issued a letter confirming that her request was on hold until any missing information was provided. Though the landlord’s April 2022 comments to the resident were noted (it said documents were posted to the resident before Christmas 2021), the Ombudsman has not seen the referenced letter.
In addition, the standard operating procedure shows rehousing requests are regularly reviewed and short timescales apply. For example, it says responses to information requests should preferably be received within 5 working days. On that basis, matters should have been clear to the resident prior to the landlord’s 7 February 2022 deadline for new medical applications. To expedite matters, the landlord could have informed the resident about the looming deadline. The above confirms the landlord’s inaction and omissions were responsible for avoidable delays that impacted the resident.
Given the above there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The timeline confirms the resident was understandably distressed by the news that the landlord’s urgent rehousing list had been suspended. The timeline indicates the list remained suspended until around July 2023 (the resident completed the landlord’s independent medical assessment forms around this time). Nevertheless, there was no guarantee that the landlord would have accepted the resident’s request had it progressed matters accordingly.
For example, it was noted the examples given in the landlord’s rehousing policy did not appear to match the resident’s personal circumstances from the information seen. In other words, we cannot fairly say that the landlord’s above identified failures prevented the resident from obtaining a permanent move to more suitable accommodation. As a result, the Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation reflecting the duration of the processing delay and the resident’s distress.

Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

The evidence suggests the resident has been dealing with some difficult personal circumstances. The landlord should have therefore shown her due care and compassion. The below assessment used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to consider whether the landlord acted with appropriate sensitivity given her vulnerabilities. Related issues from previous sections will not be assessed again here.
The timeline shows the resident was in significant distress immediately after the flood. It also shows the landlord responded swifty to her reported risk of serious self-harm. For example, the information seen suggests the resident was referred to relevant external support organisations and the local authority was notified. This was appropriate action given the circumstances.
The timeline suggests the resident was later offered a welfare check in February 2023. In contrast, it shows the resident repeatedly raised health concerns and welfare during the timeline. This was often in the context of rehousing and compensation. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have done more to highlight sources of support for the resident. For example, it could have referred her to relevant mental health support agencies again following her March 2022 updates.
Further, the landlord’s October 2023 comments around recorded vulnerabilities were concerning. The landlord’s primary records should accurately reflect the resident’s current vulnerabilities. This should ensure they are considered accordingly during the resident’s interactions with the landlord’s different departments. That said, the evidence confirms the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities during the timeline. For example, it shows the landlord discussed them with the resident prior to arranging the apartment in October 2021.
In other words, there was no evidence to show the landlord’s record keeping resulted in health/welfare related failures. Broadly, the evidence suggests the landlord showed appropriate sensitivity overall. For example, the resident was able to access aids and adaptations in November 2022. She also completed an occupational therapy assessment around June 2023. In summary, the landlord could have done more signposting to help the resident but there was no evidence to show it failed to comply with any relevant obligations. This amounted to service failure by the landlord.
In her correspondence to the Ombudsman, around March 2023, the resident raised concerns about racial discrimination and bias. It is acknowledged these are serious allegations. No information was seen to show these allegations were put to the landlord. Nevertheless, we checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns. We were unable to find any indication she was treated differently based any protected characteristics. For example, no concerning comments were found in the landlord’s internal correspondence.
For clarity, we expect landlord to investigate allegations of this type through their formal complaints process. The resident should put her concerns to the landlord in the first instance. Alternatively, she can seek legal advice if she wants to pursue them under the Equality Act (2010).

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. It shows the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s formal complaints at least 4 times between 7 October 2021 and 21 January 2022. This was concerning, unnecessary, and unfair. It is reasonable to conclude repeatedly submitting similar complaints was both distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Internal correspondence on 24 January 2022 suggests the landlord recognised her new issues were largely separate from the previous damp and mould case.
It was evident the landlord’s informal approach caused confusion throughout the timeline. For example, the above mentioned internal correspondence said the landlord’s local representative had limited involvement in the resident’s new complaint. Similarly, in June 2022, the resident later said she was unsure who to contact for support. The above suggests the parties lacked clarity around ownership of the complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this hindered the landlord’s overall response.
Ultimately, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention to prompt a formal response from the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have identified its error at this point. However, the problem was compounded as the landlord bypassed its initial complaint stage. Its disproportionately long stage 2 response on 6 July 2022 lacked reasonable clarity. Though failures were identified, the response failed to unpack them. For example, delays were not quantified and compensation awards were not linked to specific failures.
Given the above, it was difficult to assess whether the landlord’s overall compensation was proportionate. Ultimately, by proceeding straight to stage 2, the landlord missed an opportunity to rectify any issues with its initial response through its own internal complaints procedure. More significantly, the timeline suggests the resident was denied the opportunity to comment on any adverse findings before the landlord reached its final decision on her complaint. This was contrary to procedural fairness and the landlord’s complaints policy.
For example, when the resident raised similar concerns again in October 2022 the landlord replied it was unable to conduct a review or open a new complaint about the same issues. This was inappropriate given the circumstances. It was noted the resident also introduced new issues, including housing benefit concerns, at this point. Regardless, the timeline suggests the landlord failed to address these points accordingly either. This was also inappropriate. The landlord subsequently reiterated its position in December 2022.
Again, the above was both unfair and inappropriate. Given the landlord’s failure to engage appropriately with her complaints during the timeline, it was understandable that the resident sought help from a range of third parties at various points. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude she likely felt unfairly ignored by the landlord. Further, that this was a source of distress for the resident.
In contrast, the landlord awarded the resident £100 in complaint handling compensation based on its delayed response. From the response wording, the above identified failures were broadly overlooked. Ultimately, despite having multiple opportunities to put things right, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns fairly through its complaints procedure. The timeline suggests the compensation offered was also disproportionate given the response was issued around 9 months after the resident’s initial complaint. This was based on the period between 7 October 2021 and 6 July 2022.
Overall, the evidence points to severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our orders will seek to ensure complaints which the landlord previously overlooked are addressed accordingly. Further, that the landlord’s response to the resident’s subsequent drainage complaint (about the apartment) is not impacted by similar quality issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s report of a flood
  2. Complaint handling
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Handling of a related decant
  2. Handing of heating issues in the resident’s temporary accommodation
  3. Handling of the resident’s rehousing requests from October 2021
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.

Reasons

The landlord’s inappropriate lack of resolution focus unnecessarily prolonged the family’s stay in temporary accommodation, away from a portion of their belongings. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s assertion it damaged her belongings and the matter remains unresolved. The landlord gave the resident incorrect information. It also failed to provide additional support with her packing.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s formal complaints at least 4 times between 7 October 2021 and 21 January 2022. Instead, it responded to her new concerns informally as part of a previous complaint. This caused confusion for both parties. The landlord conflated the complaints and skipped a complaint stage. Its final response lacked clarity. The landlord declined to review the resident’s case contrary to its complaints policy and procedural fairness. It also declined to investigate new issues incorrectly.
The landlord was aware the resident was on benefits and experiencing financial difficulties. Nevertheless, despite numerous chasers, it failed to refund the resident’s expenses for around 9 months. This was unfair and inappropriate. It also failed to redress the resident for attending a number of scheduled appointments late. These issues undermined positive aspects of the landlord’s decant handling.
The landlord’s delays and failures contributed to a lack of adequate heating in the resident’s temporary accommodation for around 15 days between 18 October and 2 November 2021. The evidence suggests the landlord subsequently failed to respond appropriately to reported programmer issues over a period of around 20 months.
The landlord failed to progress the resident’s rehousing request accordingly in line with its rehousing policy and accompanying standard operating procedure. Given the parties were in contact prior to Christmas 2021, matters should have been made clear to the resident before the landlord’s 7 February 2022 deadline for new medical applications. The resident was understandably distressed. Nevertheless, there was no guarantee the landlord would have accepted her request had it progressed matters accordingly.
The resident repeatedly raised health and welfare concerns during the timeline. This was often in the context of rehousing and compensation. Nevertheless, the landlord could have reasonably done more to highlight sources of support for the resident. That said there was no evidence to show the landlord failed to comply with any relevant obligations. As a result, there was service failure by the landlord. There was no information to show it failed to respond appropriately to allegations of racial discrimination.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should focus on the key issues from the flood response, complaint handling and rehousing sections. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant letter or call summary within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,050 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,150 for any loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the family’s unnecessarily prolonged period in temporary accommodation away from a portion of their belongings.
2. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a flood.
3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of a related decant.
4. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of heating issues in her temporary accommodation.
5. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of her rehousing requests from October 2021.
6. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid, from the £800 it previously awarded the resident at stage 2, from the above total.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to raise an insurance claim in respect of the resident’s damaged items and reported health impacts with 4 weeks. If a claim was previously raised, the landlord should update the resident and the Ombudsman on its progress within the same timescale. The resident may need support raising the claim.
The landlord to update the resident and the Ombudsman on the current situation with the resident’s rehousing request within 4 weeks.
If it has not formally addressed them already, the landlord should contact the resident within 4 weeks to establish whether she wants her arrears concerns from October 2022 investigating through its formal complaints process. The timeline shows it failed to recognise this was a new complaint issue at this time. The landlord should share the resident’s response and any new complaint reference with the Ombudsman.
The landlord to launch an internal case review of the resident’s subsequent complaint about drainage issues in the apartment. This may involve issuing a further response at stage 2 if the landlord has already replied. This is because significant complaint handling failures were identified in this report. The order aims to ensure the landlord’s subsequent response is not impacted by similar quality issues. The landlord should share its case review with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.
The appointed executive to review the flood response and rehousing issues highlighted in this report (the landlord is already working with the Ombudsman in relation to its complaint handling among other issues). Within 4 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. This is with a view to promptly progressing rehousing cases and preventing unnecessarily prolonged decants. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

With the resident’s agreement, the landlord to appoint an independent surveyor to inspect the property within 4 weeks. The survey should detail a range of options that can reasonably be taken to mitigate the expected return of damp and mould due to overcrowding.
The landlord to update its records to accurately reflect the resident’s current vulnerabilities. The landlord may need to contact the resident in advance to clarify the exact the details of the vulnerabilities.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.