London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202126692)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126692

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a ground floor two bedroom flat. The bathroom is fitted with a shower over the bath. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. This Service has seen that the resident told the landlord in November 2021 that his partner has chronic asthma.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will make sure the structure of the property is kept repaired. It also says the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order all fixtures and fittings for water and repairing or replacing all fixtures and fittings it is responsible for.
The landlord’s repair policy says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the following bath and shower facilities:
1. Bath/shower screens.
2. Bath panels (when rotten or severely warped).
3. Showers that are fitted by the landlord.
4. Waste and supply pipe leaks
5. Splash back bath/shower tiles, grouting and silicone seals.
6. Silicone sealant around baths and showers.
The repair policy also says that it is responsible for repairs to the following:
1. Wall tiles.
2. Condensation and mould (via its Healthy Homes Programme).
3. Penetrative and rising damp.
4. Kitchen and bathroom floor coverings.
5. Floorboards.
The repair policy says that for routine day to day repairs, its aim is to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It also says for emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours. These 24 hour emergency repairs are referred to by the landlord as P1, or priority 1.
On 31 March 2020 the landlord introduced a new procedure for assessing issues reported to it that are considered to be critical repairs. These are repairs not meeting the criteria for an emergency response within 24 hours, but are of greater urgency than its routine repair route. The landlord cited some examples of critical repairs to include matters where there is a risk of harm to a person or to the property, such as a leak that causes damage to a property over time. The process for any repairs identified as critical is for the landlord to raise a D365 referral which initiates a 20 day order for the repair.
A note published on the landlord’s website on 23 January 2023 says that it has been proactively tackling damp and mould since April 2020 through its healthy homes programme. The note says that when a case of damp and mould is reported, its contracted mould eradication specialists conduct a healthy homes assessment to identify the root cause of the problem and, in nearly all cases, mould removal and shielding are undertaken. Damp and mould advice is also provided to residents, and humidity sensors are fitted unless refused. Humidity sensors are used to help tackle future mould growth. The sensor sends alerts to let a resident know when conditions in their home may encourage mould growth.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage, have a strategy for keeping residents informed, and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases, and to make adherence to this part of the service level agreement with third parties, for example contractors.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one the response time is 10 working days and at stage two 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 5 October 2020, the resident reported that the bathroom floor had collapsed. The landlord recorded the matter as a P1, saying that part of the floor next to the bath had collapsed and was unstable, and the resident was concerned for their safety. Work to attend and make safe was completed on 14 October 2020, and a further works order was created that day for a contractor to attend and assess the flooring with a view to renew it. This work is recorded as completed on 19 November 2020.
On 22 October 2020 the resident reported problems to the landlord about the work undertaken by its contractor. The resident said the carpenters who attended to fix the bathroom floor had discovered that water was leaking through the bathroom tiles because the grouting had worn away. He said the contractor fixed the flooring but had not fixed the grouting and so the problem would eventually come back. The resident included some photographs and said that the contractor caused the following damage to the property:
1. hole/ dent made in the side of the bath
2. screw caps had been removed and not replaced
3. dent/ mark left on bedroom doorframe from tools/ material being lent against the frame.
The resident asked that the landlord fix the grouting in the bathroom to avoid any damp issues again, and replace the screw caps. The resident also asked the landlord to record the damages caused by its contractor so he would not be held liable for any associated costs.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord left the resident a voicemail saying that it would grout the bathroom and renew the screw caps when it carried out general repairs. A works order was created and completed on 4 May 2021 for the landlord to attend on a non-critical basis to regrout the bathroom in the affected area and renew the screw caps.
On 28 September 2021 the resident reported mould in the bathroom, saying it was behind the tiles. The landlord said its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. As part of the landlord’s healthy homes initiative, a contractor completed its damp and mould assessment on 1 October 2021. The report confirms the presence of damp and mould in the bathroom and a “Clean and Shield” treatment to the affected area on the day.
On 16 November 2021 a tiler attended to assess mould in the bathroom, the tiles coming away from the wall, and subsequent floor damage. The resident says the tiler would not re-tile and a plastic panel would be fitted on 19 January 2022. The resident complained that the landlord did not offer any resolution to the mould under the bath. Whilst the repair records do not include an entry for its attendance in November 2021 this Service has seen a maintenance request entry dated 15 November 2021 which shows the landlord did attend and whilst on site it’s operative is noted as communicating to the resident that it would fit a Perspex panel over the bathroom tiles on 19 January 2022.
On 30 November 2021 the resident raised a stage one complaint, including the following concerns and chronology:
1. The bathroom floor was replaced in 2020 following his partner falling through the floor, due to damp and mould.
2. The contractors who replaced the floor did not deal with mould and just replaced the bath panel leaving the grouting untouched. The landlord had told him the mould needed treating and it would persist until it was treated and the grouting repaired.
3. The specialist mould contractor said that the tiles needed replacing and the mould could not be treated until new tiles were fitted. The contractor had told him it could not treat mould under the bath because the panelling was glued on.
4. The tiler who attended on 16 November 2021 did not re-tile the bathroom or offer any resolution to the mould under the bath.
5. The plastic panel would not resolve the mould issue, and the tiles will still be loose. The tiler advised him that he intended to only panel behind the shower because he did not want to take the shower screen off. The resident said this was laziness and the tiles were loose, mouldy, and falling off the entire 90 degree angle of the shower area above the bath.
6. The resident asked the landlord to communicate better and resolve the issues that had been ongoing for nearly a year.
7. The resident asked the landlord to replace the tiles and address the mould as a matter of urgency, citing the impact on his partners chronic asthma. The resident also said he could not take the stress of the situation any longer.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord telephoned and emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint and to confirm its stage one decision. The landlord:
1. Apologised that the resident felt it was not dealing with the root of the problem.
2. Acknowledged that the resident considered the repair scheduled for 19 January 2022 would not resolve the problem.
3. Said that it had liaised with its healthy homes team about the matter and it would report back to the resident when it had an update.
4. Said there were no outstanding repairs related to his bath, and the resident would need to report this or provide details for this to be addressed.
5. Said it would continue to monitor the resident’s complaint and advised how the resident could escalate the complaint should he remain dissatisfied.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord sent an internal email saying that the resident would like a resolution to his concerns about damp and mould. This email also reiterated the resident’s concerns that the appointment on 19 January 2022 to place plastic panels over the bathroom tiles would not resolve the damp and mould issues. The landlord asked other members of staff “what do you suggest please?”
The resident continued to report his concerns about damp and mould, the associated impact on his home and his family’s health and safety, citing his partner’s chronic asthma and his daughter being in the property. The resident repeated these concerns in communications with the landlord on 3 March 2022, 10 March 2022, 8 April 2022, 13 April 2022, 27 June 2022, and 20 October 2022.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident to say the appointment to install the Perspex panelling would be rescheduled to 11 March 2022 because its operative was off sick.
On 3 March 2022 the resident again spoke to the landlord to say he was unhappy with the proposed works to install plastic panels over the bathroom tiles on 11 March 2022. The resident questioned why the landlord could not strip the walls and then re-tile the bathroom. The landlord agreed it would escalate the matter “to a full building surveyor” and it would keep the resident updated. However, it called the resident on 10 March 2022 asking if it could attend that day instead of 11 March 2022 to install the Perspex panelling. The landlord also contacted the resident on 10 March 2022 to tell him the appointment had been moved until 9 May 2022.
On 10 March 2022 the resident asked that his complaint be escalated to stage two in the complaints process. The resident considered that the landlord was ignoring his complaint and concerns. The resident said that if the operative attended the following day they would be “turning him away” because his complaints about the proposed work predated the appointment.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss his complaint. The resident said he had received a call from a member of the landlord’s staff that same day and the member of staff had agreed with the resident that the mould needed to be dried out, treated and retiled. The resident said that the member of staff told him they would call him back later that day. The landlord asked that the resident take the name of the member of staff when they called him back, and said that it could chase this colleague for an update as it had not received one.
On 11 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say its staff member who said they would call him back, had not done so. The landlord responded the same day and said an inspection of the property would be carried out and the resident would be contacted to arrange this. The landlord confirmed that it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its process, but said it was unable to give a timeframe on its response.
On 24 March 2022 the resident emailed asking for an update on the inspection, saying he had not received contact from anyone to arrange an appointment. The landlord responded the following day to say that it had chased the relevant department to contact him about an inspection. The landlord also said his stage two complaint had not yet been assigned to a member of staff.
On 25 March 2022 a works order was raised for the contractor to attend and undertake a refurbishment and demolition (R&D) Asbestos survey of the resident’s bathroom. The landlord notified the resident the same day that it had arranged for the R&D survey to be done before it carried out any work. The landlord said that once this survey had been done it would instruct a “survey or a technician to attend and assess what work are required.” The landlord did not provide any timescales, saying it would be in touch soon.
On 8 April 2022 the resident told the landlord the survey had taken place that week and the black mould present was hazardous and extended to the flooring, around the bathtub, and underneath the bath. This Service has not seen any reports or records relating to this survey.
On 9 April 2022 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response which said:
1. it was arranging for a surveyor to attend to discuss resolving the damp and mould issues, and its surveyor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment
2. “an asbestos test has also been booked” and its contractors would contact the resident to book an appointment if they had not ready done so
3. it would arrange for its colleague to oversee the work until the matter was resolved
4. it considered that the resident’s stage one complaint was handled appropriately and “a fair outcome” was reached
5. the landlord apologised for the time taken to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint, saying it was taking steps to speed this up. In recognition of “any trouble or upset this might have caused” the landlord said it was sending the resident £20
6. it directed the resident to this Service should he remain unhappy, saying its internal complaints process had now concluded.
On 19 April 2022 the landlord sent an internal email, copying in the resident, asking that an inspection of the resident’s property be done and for the necessary works to then be arranged. On 29 April 2022 the landlord raised a works order for a contractor to attend, and to contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment. The resident contacted the landlord that day, concerned that the works order that was copied to him did not mention the removal of the damp and mould. The landlord emailed the contractor and its colleagues arranging the repairs to ensure they were aware of the damp and mould, and then closed the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed these actions in an email to the resident.
On 27 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord saying that whilst its contractor had attended his property to assess the works and measure up approximately one month ago, he had not received any further contact or updates. This Service has seen no records relating to the landlord’s attendance in May 2022. However, the resident said the contractor told him during its visit that the landlord would be contacted for approval of the works which would take 2-3 weeks.
On 27 June 2022 the landlord responded to the resident confirming approval had been given to its contractor to do the work. The landlord provided the resident with the contractor’s telephone number to book the repair directly. The resident emailed the landlord back the same day, concerned because the contractor had told him there was a three month wait until he would be given an appointment date. The resident reiterated his concerns for his family’s health and safety, asking the landlord to speed up this process.
The resident contacted the landlord again, chasing its contractor’s appointment, on 25 July 2022 and 26 September 2022. In his September 2022 email, the resident said his property’s mould detector had triggered, and the landlord’s mould team had called him advising him to ventilate the property. The resident said that he could not ventilate the bathroom because it did not have a window. He said that the bathroom mould was now reaching the ceiling.
The landlord’s records show that on 26 September 2022 the contractor told it the job was cancelled in July 2022. The contractor said this was because it had no plumbers available at that time. The landlord emailed the resident later on 26 September 2022 to say it had passed his complaint, update request, and compensation request to its customer relations team to respond within 5 working days. The resident chased the landlord on 28 September 2022 and 4 October 2022. The contractor also emailed the resident this date saying, “the works order…was cancelled with us in July.” The contractor told the resident it believed the landlord had appointed another contractor.
On 29 September 2022 the landlord emailed the contractor. It said there was a note on its system which said the contractor did not have enough plumbers, but asked whether it could do the work or whether another contractor was needed.
On 4 October 2022 the resident submitted his complaint to this Service.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident saying:
1. it was waiting for an update on the matter
2. a new contractor had been appointed and would contact the resident directly
3. it apologised that its original contractor could not attend
4. it would monitor the resident’s complaint and advised how the resident could escalate his concerns with it or this Service.
On 5 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with its response and handling of his complaint. The resident raised his concern that the landlord and contractor had blamed one another for the problems, and that the landlord had not provided him with any timescales for the new contractor.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord replied to the resident and said a contractor would contact him with a new appointment within 10 working days.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord’s mould specialist completed its follow-up report of the resident’s bathroom. It said that the repairs reported when it last visited the property in November 2021 were still outstanding. The report noted the further structural damage to the bathroom floor which it said needed repairing. It concluded that there was excessive moisture in the property, which was caused by water “seeping in via the grouting onto the left wall & back wall underneath the bathtub.” The contractor said this was an ongoing issue which needed repair, alongside the flooring repairs, and a clean and shield treatment could not be done until the repairs had been carried out.
On 8 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, unhappy that further assessments needed to be done when the work had already been assessed by contractors. The resident also said he wanted the landlord to ensure that redecoration and making good works were actioned following the remedial work.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord responded, apologising for his unpleasant and frustrating experience, for the service failure, and a lack of communication. The landlord said:
1. the survey agreed as part of the landlord’s stage two complaint response was undertaken, but its contractors who were to undertake the work failed to notify it that they could not, which meant it could not notify the resident
2. it had asked its colleagues to contact the resident as soon as possible with an appointment and to support the resident and his family to monitor the damp and mould
3. it acknowledged the damp and mould would continue to form until the repairs were completed
4. it would chase the works and update the resident when it had any further information.
On 16 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that a new contractor attended his property on 13 October 2022 to assess and re-measure the works required. The landlord responded on 19 October 2022 and confirmed approval for the new contractor to undertake the works had been given on 17 October 2022. It said that the contractor should contact him directly to arrange an appointment for the repairs, but the landlord would contact him should it receive an update. This Service has not seen any records relating to these orders or appointments.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2022, saying he had agreed with the new contractor that it would attend to undertake the work on 26 to 28 October 2022. The resident said he wanted the landlord’s confirmation that:
1. It was arranging for a contractor to treat the mould before any work commenced.
2. It was arranging the redecoration works. The resident said he should not pay the redecoration costs and he had already been impacted financially, by having to use holidays from work over the past two years.
3. The resident sought confirmation that the landlord would cover the cost of a replacement shower screen if its contractor broke this. He said the contractor told him the landlord had refused to replace the shower screen, despite it having mould.
4. The resident asked the landlord to clarify its position on compensation.
The landlord responded saying it had noted what the resident said, and notified its healthy homes team of events. It confirmed its specialist mould contractor would attend to treat the mould before the work commenced on 26 October 2022, but asked the resident to let it know if the mould contractor had not contacted him by 24 October 2022.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord asked the resident if its specialist mould contractor had contacted him. The resident confirmed that the landlord’s healthy homes team had attended that day but had left a short time later saying they could not wash or treat the mould because the landlord had not attended to remove the bath panel first.
On 26 October 2022 the resident provided an update to the landlord praising the effective communications of the new contractor. He enclosed pictures of the bathroom and mould. The resident said the contractors had begun removing tiles but had found the panelling to be wooden, which needed to be replaced. The resident was concerned the landlord had not told the new contractor that the panels were wood, and that it was now having to seek authority to replace the wooden panels. The resident said the extent of the work meant that he had no usable bathroom, and his family were having to make alternative accommodation and care arrangements. The landlord responded that day confirming the contractor had the required approval.
On 27 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, saying that he was being ignored by it as the staff member in customer relations who usually responded was on leave. The resident asked who the landlord’s point of contact was. He said the work was taking longer than agreed, continuing into the weekend and he and his family were without facilities, and were having to continue to make alternative accommodation and care arrangements. The resident said that the landlord had not considered his family’s living arrangements.
On 31 October 2022 the resident provided a further update to the landlord, saying the works had continued into the evening of Sunday 30 October 2022. He said the new contractors had found a leaking trap pipe on the bath, which was not picked up by the landlord before this despite its visits and inspections to assess the bathroom. The resident said the damage was a result of this pipe leak in addition to the burst seal around the taps, and loose wall tiles. The resident said the repair work was now complete, but the contractor did not do the redecoration work and the landlord had still not provided him with a response about this. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the redecoration, saying the contractor could not seal the bath panel because the landlord needed to check the work.
On 11 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord because it had not responded to his email and the questions around redecoration and sealing the bath panel. The resident also said there were gaps appearing in the grout which needed to be addressed. He said the contractor told him that the shower screen was not fit for purpose, and he asked that this be replaced. The resident asked the landlord to consider his request for compensation.
The landlord responded on 11 November 2022 saying that it had arranged the redecoration and other outstanding work to be completed on the weekend of 19 November 2022 to 20 November 2022. Whilst the Ombudsman has not received any records to support the work order or completion for the redecoration, this Service has seen emails between the resident and the landlord that confirm the work was completed at this time. The landlord provided this Service with a completion report to confirm the work to replace the shower screen was completed on 4 January 2023.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident saying it had reviewed the compensation award. The landlord said it could increase the good will gesture to £1030, which it said was for its repair delay, inconvenience, and the distress caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

It is noted that at all times the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord in its dealings with the resident.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. The failings this Service noted include:
1. It took the landlord 9 days to attend the resident’s property from the date that the resident first reported the damaged bathroom floor on 5 October 2020. Given the repair was categorised as an emergency, it was inappropriate that the resident had to wait for over a week for the landlord to attend. This is not in line with the landlord’s 24 hour response time for an emergency P1 repair.
2. Although the landlord arranged for the resident’s property to be made safe on 14 October 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord arranged any inspection, investigation or repair of the water leak or water damaged floor after the flooring was made safe.
3. On 22 October 2020 the resident complained that the contractor had failed to repair the grout and had caused further damages during its visit on 14 October 2020. But despite the resident raising subsequent concerns of a need to address a water leak, the landlord did not repair the grout until 4 May 2021.
4. The landlord’s critical repair handling process says that critical repairs and D365 orders are where there is a risk of harm to a person or to the property. The landlord’s own example it used in its guidance to staff was where there is a leak that causes damage to a property over time, which is reflective of the circumstances in this case. Also, the associated problem of a collapsed floor is a serious one that initially attracted a P1 24 hour response timeframe. The resident said the contractor cautioned this would likely reoccur and the problems would persist if the water leak was not addressed. Therefore, based upon the landlord’s own critical repair handling guidance, it should have raised at least a D365 order for repair within the 20 day order timescale following its visit to the property on 14 October 2020.
5. It was inappropriate that it took the landlord 202 days to attend to repair the grout from the date that the contractor attended on 14 October 2020 and identified the problem. Especially given this perpetuated the linked circumstances; a continued water leak, ongoing and spreading damp and mould, and risks of a collapsed/damaged floor. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the landlord missed opportunities to identify the cause of the leak sooner and put things right.
6. This Service considers the landlord’s failings to undertake an investigation into the cause of the damaged floor and the reported water leaks unreasonable and not in line with its own repairing responsibilities. This failing by the landlord to arrange the necessary investigations is further supported by the findings of the contractor who eventually undertook the remedial works in October 2022 and identified there were two further sources of leaks.
Based upon the evidence this Service has seen, the first specific mention of mould was in the landlord’s repair record on 1 September 2021 when the landlord raised a work order. This work order was then cancelled and re-entered on the repair log on 28 September 2021. It is not clear why this happened.
The work order dated 28 September 2021 was cancelled on 25 March 2022 because the landlord instructed the R&D asbestos survey to be carried out before any further works were undertaken. This action was as a result of the resident’s complaints and continued insistence that the landlord explore alternative remedies, opposed to fitting Perspex over the tiles. The resident raised concerns that this would cover the problem and not address the underlying cause of a water leak causing the damp and mould. Between November 2021 and March 2022 both the resident and the landlord’s customer relations staff contacted the landlord’s teams responsible for repairs numerous times. This was to prompt further inspection and repairs and answer the resident’s questions about the proposed Perspex panelling. It was unreasonable that the landlord took almost 7 months to respond to the resident’s concerns about it fitting Perspex panels.
It was not until 25 March 2022 that the landlord cancelled the work order to fit the Perspex panels, initiated an asbestos survey, and contacted the resident with an update. In this time the resident raised both his stage one and stage two complaints, citing the landlord’s poor communications and inaction.
In an internal call log dated 10 March 2022 the landlord noted that its customer relations team were “working on getting the repair changed under the complaint.” This is in reference to the efforts by the landlord’s customer relations team and the resident in trying to halt the fitting of Perspex panels in the resident’s bathroom. Throughout the duration of the complaint and the repairs there were communication issues between the landlord’s different departments, and between the landlord and its contractors. There were also identified failings by the landlord in its communications with the resident about his ongoing concerns and outstanding repairs. Once the resident made a complaint, other relevant departments beyond the customer relations team ceased to play an active role in expediting and managing the repairs and related investigations. The internal and external communication problems extended from the first reports of problems of a leak and collapsed flooring in October 2020, until November 2022 when the resident was chasing the landlord for a response to his queries around redecoration and a replacement shower screen.
The landlord failed to act following its damp and mould specialist contractor’s report dated 1 October 2021. As evidenced in the contractors follow up report dated 7 October 2022 where the contractor says that the repairs reported during the initial visit in 2021 were still outstanding. The photographs and surface area measurements reported in 2022 show extensive damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom, which by this time had spread far beyond the area where it emanated and that reported on in October 2021. Although the lack of available documentation means it is not possible to be certain what steps the landlord took after its visit in October 2021 or October 2022, it is clear problems persisted. The mould had spread, and water leaks were not investigated or remedied, which should have led to the landlord taking action. That its contractor reaffirms the problems as still outstanding a year later and that the landlord has not addressed these issues is of concern to this Service.
The 7 October 2022 report said further treatment of the damp and mould, below the bath and shower, was required before the repairs on 26 October 2022 could commence. This Service has seen no evidence that this was done, or that the landlord considered its duties in line with the HHSRS, to realise and manage the property’s risks. The contractors 2022 report also states the damp and mould growth is a Category 1, hazard as defined by the HHSRS. It is not clear if this was intended to categorise the matter as a P1 emergency, warranting a 24 hour emergency repair response. However, it seems this was plausible given the P1 category was determined appropriate in 2020 when the floor originally needed replacing, and since that time the 2022 report also identified the problems had worsened and the floor again needed to be replaced. The landlord failed to comply with its own policies and emergency repair timescales.
The resident has said that the landlord informed him that there was no point treating the damp and mould until the leak had been rectified. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered how to alleviate the resident’s living conditions, or whether to decant him whilst it rectified the cause of the damp.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was not in accordance with the following recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 as:

a) It did not clearly and regularly communicate with the resident regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.

b) It did not share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with the resident to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.

c) The landlord did not act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. And its response did not reflect the urgency of the issue.

d) The landlord did not ensure there was effective internal communication between their teams and departments.

e) The landlord did not demonstrate it took a data driven and risk-based approach regarding damp and mould. As such, reliance was placed on the resident to report the issues. Consequently, the landlord failed to identify the hidden issues with the water leaks or take the required action to remedy the issues.

After the landlord issued its stage two response in which it said it would oversee the resident’s complaint, further issues went unnoticed until the resident chased matters on 26 September 2022. Although the landlord said it contacted the contractor on 25 July 2022 to seek an update for the resident, the repair logs show the job was cancelled five days earlier. This Service has seen emails and call notes by the landlord that show it was aware of a problem on 26 September 2022 when it was communicating with the resident. But it failed to notify the resident until 29 September 2022, by which time the contractor had already told the resident it was not able to do the work. It is understandable that this failing to notify the resident at its earliest opportunity, and then the subsequent disagreement between the landlord and its contractor over who was responsible for this oversight, would cause further upset and frustration to the resident.
This Service has seen that the landlord’s customer service team made efforts to contact colleagues about matters. But these ultimately failed communications highlight the ineffective process that was in place to bring about a resolution to the resident’s repairs, through its complaint process. It is evident to this Service that there lacked cohesion between the landlord’s different departments, and this had a direct impact on the resident’s experience.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily, in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
As well as the obvious impact the landlord’s delays have had on the property, this Service acknowledges the impact on the resident and his family’s wellbeing. This Service has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in the resident or his family’s health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are ultimately matters for a court. However, in assessing any compensation, this Service has acknowledged the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family as well as the loss of use of amenities at the property.
It is understandable that the events over this prolonged period would have caused them considerable distress and inconvenience. It is also acknowledged that the events would likely have impacted the use of the property’s bathroom facilities. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord took steps to consider this, its impact, and any alternative arrangements whilst work finally commenced. This Service cannot draw any conclusion on the health impacts specific to the resident and his family, but damp and mould are known to pose risks to a person’s health when left untreated. The poor communication by the landlord would inevitably have added to their negative experience and the distress the resident reported.
The resident submitted his complaint to this Service on 4 October 2022. Two days later the landlord said it was reopening his complaint. 73 days after the resident brought his complaint to this Service, the landlord offered the resident £1030 which it said was compensation for its repair failures. Neither the landlord’s stage one or stage two complaint responses acknowledged repair failings or offered compensation in respect of any claimed repair failings. Both of these responses offered the resident an update on its repairing actions and the landlord said it would oversee the repairs.
The £1030 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings because:
1. As set out above, the delay in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, what remedial work was required, and in carrying out the necessary work was in excess of 2 years.
2. The landlord added to the resident’s distress by failing to keep him updated about how it was addressing the issues, and the resident was the driving force behind ensuring that both the repairs and his complaint were progressed.
3. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates and action.
4. The landlord’s offer was made several months after its complaints process had ended. As such, the landlord failed to use its complaint investigation process to put things right.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out amounts for compensation for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends that where there have been serious failings by a landlord amounting to severe maladministration, which have led to a severe long-term impact on the resident, compensation payments should be at least £1000. This Service considers the protracted nature and severity of events exceeds this threshold and the landlord’s offer. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation below.
The landlord has also not demonstrated that it has learnt from outcomes. The landlord has not:
1. shown how it will ensure similar delays are not repeated by it carrying out investigations or work to address damp, mould, and to rectify leaks
2. shown how it will improve communications with residents about proposed or required works.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident. The landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily and there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as:
1. Whilst the landlord did meet it’s 10 day timescale for handling stage one complaints, the response the resident received on this same day lacked care and attention. The email response to the resident on 30 November 2021 was unclear in parts and it failed to take time to address the already longstanding issues raised, opting instead to utilise the opportunity to make colleagues aware of the resident’s concerns. The resident had asked the landlord to communicate better and resolve the issues because the problems had been ongoing for over a year. This Service considers the landlord missed opportunities at stage one in its complaints process to investigate what was wrong and put things right.
2. The landlord failed to provide any timescales to the resident at stage one in its complaint process, saying it would update the resident once it had an update for him. With no measurable timescales given, this only served to exacerbate the poor communication the resident had complained about. The same absence of timescales was noted after the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The landlord told the resident it could not provide him with a timeframe for a response, and yet the landlord’s policy is clear there is a 20 working day timeframe.
3. At both stage one and stage two the landlord said it would monitor the repairs with a view to resolving the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to do this.
4. Furthermore, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord logged and responded to the resident’s complaint dated 22 October 2020. The October 2020 complaint was submitted through the landlord’s online complaint form. The landlord’s two stage complaint process is clear, that complaints received will initially be considered at stage one in its process. At stage one, the appropriate department will contact the resident by the end of the next working day if they cannot immediately resolve matters. The landlord will provide its stage one response within 10 working days, and it will monitor its progress until all actions are complete. The landlord responded on 29 October 2020, within 10 working days, saying that its contractors were asked to look into resolving the issues. The emailed response did not refer to it being a stage one response and it did not provide escalation details should the resident remain unhappy.
5. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response 2 working days after the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaints process.
6. On 6 October 2022 the landlord reopened the resident’s complaint. It is not clear at what stage in the landlord’s process this was done because the landlord had already said that its complaints process had been exhausted, and it referred the resident to this Service. The day before the landlord reopened the complaint the resident had confirmed to the landlord that he had submitted his complaint to this Service. It is not clear why the landlord reopened the complaint at this time. The landlord’s actions to reopen a complaint was not in itself an inappropriate act, but it is of concern that the landlord proceeded to award compensation which should have been considered during its internal complaints process.
In its final response to the complaint on 9 April 2022 the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay in its handling of the stage two complaint. The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the impact that its complaint handling failures had on the resident. As such, it has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily as:
1. The landlord failed to identify any failings in its repairs at either stage one or two of its complaint process. Whilst this Service appreciates the efforts made by the landlord to resolve issues quickly, it seems likely that this has impacted the landlord’s ability to appropriately assess what was wrong, what it needed to do to put things right, and take the necessary steps to ensure this was done.
2. The failings throughout the complaints process were significant and the amount of £20 is not proportionate for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of those failings.
3. The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures by it, other than its two day delay. And it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes by detailing how it could improve its handling of formal complaints.
The landlord failed to adequately address the level of compensation and other action required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily, only doing so 251 days after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.

This Service has also considered the landlords knowledge and information management.

Record keeping failures underpin the landlord’s ability to action both repairs and complaint handling robustly. This Service has identified failings by the landlord in its record keeping.
It is evident that the landlord attended the resident’s property numerous times and outcomes and actions of those attendances should have been recorded.
This Service asked the landlord for all related reports and repair records as part of this investigation and the landlord has failed to provide the following requested documents: records concerning its ongoing damp and mould monitoring or risk assessments, copies of the asbestos survey, inspection reports, and associated communications. This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and water leaks within the property.
One key aspect this Service was unable to determine without the requested information is around what took place at the initial appointment on 14 October 2020. Whilst all parties agree that the flooring collapsed because of the water leaks, without any reports from the contractor’s attendance, we cannot determine if further remedial work in relation to the cause was requested at this time. Only that it is clear that this should have happened.
Further attendances by the landlord remain uncorroborated by a report, entry on the repair log, or referral for the further work, such as the contractor’s attendance in November 2021 where the contractor proposed Perspex panelling be fitted in the bathroom.
Some of the repair failings identified in this complaint are linked to cancelled appointments or those where no action was taken over a period of time. These appointments sit on the repair log the landlord provided, and yet this Service has seen no evidence of supporting information for the majority of the entries on this log. For instance, where some appointments were cancelled there was no record as to why, or there are no records as to what triggered a work order to be made in the first instance. Overall, there is no consistency in the landlord’s processes and handling and recording of its repairs.
Despite the resident’s objection and challenge to the landlord attending on 11 March 2022 to fit Perspex in the bathroom, the landlord telephoned the resident on 10 March 2022 to ask if its contractor could attend sooner than scheduled to complete the work. Whilst this oversight in isolation may seem innocuous, it does support the broader concern this Service has, that the landlord’s internal records and communications were inadequate.
It is vital that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that the landlord has met its obligations under its repairs policy. Failure to ensure good record management and keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, relevant communications, inspections, and investigations. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area. These failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in carrying out remedial works, failed to implement any ongoing monitoring to address the persistent and ongoing damp and mould problem, and did not communicate with the resident about what action it would be taking. The landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily during its internal complaints process.
The landlord did not keep appropriate records to demonstrate that it had met its repair obligations, or to ensure appropriate oversight of its repair function.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident) within four weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2930 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1030 previously offered by the landlord if this has not already been paid.
2. £1500compensation for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s ongoing damp, mould and water leak concerns.
3. A further £300 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
4. A further £100 in respect of the landlord’s record keeping failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this determination to inspect the property and the building to ensure all damp and mould concerns have been resolved and reported on appropriately. If there are any outstanding works, the landlord should write to the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the inspection setting out a timetable for completion of the works.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its handling of the concerns identified in this report in line with those findings and recommendations identified in the Ombudsman’s special report on it, under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The findings of the review should be provided to this Service. This review should be completed within six weeks of the date of this report and include the landlord’s:
1. handling of the repairs
2. damp and mould reports
3. record keeping
4. formal complaint handling.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that complaint handling training should be provided to all staff within 3 months from the date of this report. It is recommended that all new employees receive complaint handling training within 3 months of joining the organisation.
This Service recommends that the landlord’s customer relations team should receive training on the landlord’s repairs team processes and procedures within 3 months from the date of this report. This same training is recommended to be provided to any new employees to join the landlord’s customer relations team within 3 months of them joining the organisation.