Moat Homes Limited (202226217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226217

Moat Homes Limited

26 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
1. The resident’s reports of the heating and hot water system not working properly.
2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation which she believed was also causing damage to electric cables and her kitchen.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. The resident’s request for a management move.
5. The resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a three-bedroom terrace house. The resident has physical disabilities, mental health issues and other medical conditions including support needs which are recorded on the landlord’s systems.
Prior to the events that relate to the complaint definition above, the following two relevant events took place;
1. The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s kitchen in October 2021. The inspection report noted that the resident felt she was entitled to a new kitchen as her neighbours had recently had their kitchens replaced. The report said that the resident’s kitchen had last been replaced in 2014 and was in fairly good condition and was not due to be renewed until 2034.
2. On 22 March 2022, an electrical contractor visited the resident’s property to test the ring circuit. It was noted that there were no faults to the cables in the kitchen and the resident had confirmed the electrics had not tripped in a few weeks. The operative left with all the electrics checked and working without any faults.
On 26 December 2022, the resident said she was attacked by her neighbour after confronting them about mice potentially coming from their property. The resident said she was assaulted by her neighbour. The landlord said that the matter was investigated by the police. On viewing CCTV footage, it was concluded by the police that there was no evidence to support the assault and the matter was closed. The landlord said it sent the resident’s neighbour a written warning letter in regards to the altercation and the matter was deemed closed.
According to the landlord’s notes, on 26 January 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there was an issue with her heating and hot water not working properly. The resident said she had experienced problems with her heating and hot water since she moved into the property and had raised previous complaints about the lack of pressure with the heating and hot water. The landlord said that the issues affected the whole development and not just the resident. The resident had a wet room previously installed (by the local authority in 2022) and the landlord had advised her to install an electric shower to ensure she received hot water.
The resident contacted the landlord in late January 2023 to report an issue with mice and the landlord attended on 3 February 2023 to assess the situation. It found a single mouse dropping, but could not tell if it was old or new. The area was baited and traps were set, and the landlord planned to return later in the month to check them. On the same date, the landlord carried out pest inspections for the resident’s neighbours’ properties. No evidence of a rodent infestation were found, or any entry points, and bait traps which had been set up 3 years prior had not been disturbed.
On 16 February 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint about several issues which included:
1. A management move, as the resident said she had applied for this a couple of years earlier but had not heard anything. The resident said she wanted a management transfer made a priority as she believed her ex-partner was dangerous and due to be released from prison. She was also annoyed that her housing manager had called her frequently and insisted that she apply for a mutual exchange, which she did not want to do. The resident was also unhappy about how her housing manager had spoken to her and said they had been patronising towards her.
2. An ongoing pest infestation with mice, which the resident said was destroying her home, including her kitchen. The resident wanted to know if pest control had attended her neighbour’s properties, as the housing manager would not tell her and she believed only her property had been treated. She said that mouse droppings had been found in her wall. Additionally, she was unhappy that her neighbours had been given new kitchens, but she had not received one.
3. A lack of hot water every winter which had been an ongoing issue since she moved in.
4. Problems with “dangerous” electrics at the property. The resident believed mice were destroying the electric cables.
5. Mould in her property, but she gave no further details.
The landlord provided its stage one response around late February 2023, but the document was not dated. The response said:
1. That there were major infrastructure replacement works being carried out across the estate in regards to the heating and hot water. The landlord said that the resident should report any issues to the customer services department of the third party provider responsible for heating and hot water.
2. That because a staff member had left the organisation, a previous application for a management move by the resident could not be located. The landlord apologised and acknowledged that it had handled the issue poorly. It stated a new request had been raised for a management move and it had chased the appropriate team so that they could respond soon. £50 compensation was offered as a gesture of goodwill for the failing in poor communication with the resident believing they were already on the management move list.
3. It found no evidence of pests and deemed the matter resolved. Neighbouring properties were also investigated to check for wider issues but no evidence of mice were found and no treatment was required.
4. As the resident had stated she did not feel safe as she said mice had chewed through electrical cables, a repair had been raised for an electrician to check the wiring and the landlord would make contact to arrange a suitable date and time.
5. An ASB case had been raised and investigated regarding an incident the resident had with her neighbour. The landlord had liaised with the police on the matter due to the seriousness of the allegations and they had decided not to take the matter forward due to a lack of evidence. A letter had been sent by the landlord to the neighbour and the resident was advised to avoid talking to the neighbour in question. The resident was informed to report any further incidents directly to the landlord and the police.
6. In answer to the resident’s request to move, she was urged to seek a mutual exchange as this would be much quicker than a management move as there was less strict criteria to fulfil. The landlord could not provide timescales for a management move, even if the resident’s application was approved.
7. There was no mention of the resident’s complaint about mould in her property.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s property for mice and checked previous traps which had been set up to test for new or old activity. There were no signs of any mouse droppings and there was “no take” on the bait and therefore it was deemed that there was no further activity.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord’s notes show that the resident informed it that there were further issues with her heating and hot water not working properly.
The landlord then provided a second stage 1 response around the start of March 2023 (again the letter was not dated) addressing the remaining complaint points. The response said:
1. In relation to the resident’s complaint regarding a member of staff’s conduct, the landlord apologised that its neighbourhood officer had not been understanding about the resident’s situation and in doing so had made the resident feel patronised. The matter had been referred to the staff member’s manager to take forward.
2. Whilst it was necessary for the landlord to call the resident to obtain the necessary information to complete a risk assessment, it acknowledged that this could have taken place in one single call rather than several calls and it apologised for any distress it caused.
3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about her ex-partner being released from prison, the landlord took part in a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) with external stakeholders. It was decided at the meeting that the resident was not a high enough risk to meet the criteria for a management move as her ex-partner was not due to be released until the following May. The MARAC concluded that the decision could be reassessed closer to the time of release, or if circumstances changed.
4. The landlord confirmed that medical letters provided by the resident in support of a management move (an internal move within the landlord’s own housing stock based on level of priority on a like for like basis) had been passed to its relevant team which was dealing with her application. The landlord said that it advised all of its residents who were looking for a management move to also consider a mutual transfer (exchanging a property with another tenant who is willing to swap), as this was a much quicker solution than a management move.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 May 2023 and stated she remained unhappy about the heating and hot water issues, the management move, pest control issues and the ASB incident with her neighbour.
In June 2023 the landlord approved the resident’s application to be rehomed through a management move. The landlord back dated it’s approval by two years to the date when she first applied for the move. The landlord stated that the resident was not disadvantaged by the delay in approving the application, as a management move takes a long time and the property needed to be changed for a like for like property. Given that the resident’s needs were specific, finding a suitable property that met her requirements could take a long time.
According to the landlord’s notes, the resident reported a pest infestation again on 27 July 2023.
On 31 July 2023, the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said the following:
1. With regards to the heating and hot water issues, it clarified who the company was that managed the heating and hot water. It said that there had been ongoing issues with the entire system and an extensive renewal was taking place. The landlord had had a conversation with the management company and they said they were not aware of any issues. It said the resident should contact the heating and hot water company directly to report any issues and it gave their timeframes to respond and contact details.
2. That the resident’s request to be added to the landlord’s management move list had been approved, however, it could not guarantee when a move would take place. It also advised the resident that in order to move properties sooner, she should consider a mutual exchange, as this was often quicker than waiting on a management move. From its records, it confirmed the resident had applied for a management transfer back in 2021, but due to an administrative error, this was not logged in the correct way which led to the application not being advanced as quickly. Compensation of £100 was offered in recognition of this failing.
3. Pest control had recently visited the resident’s home and her neighbours’ to carry out surveys (in February 2023). There was no evidence of a live pest problem in any of the homes. It asked the resident to let it know if any new evidence came to light, but said that it would send its pest contractor to visit and that they would be in touch to arrange an appointment.
4. With regards to damp and mould that the resident had mentioned, it wanted further information so that it could arrange a surveyor to visit.
5. Compensation of £50 was offered for responding at stage 2 outside of its timescales.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord said that pest control attempted to visit the resident, but she had COVID-19 and refused access.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response in September 2023 and said the following:
1. That because the landlord billed her directly for heating and hot water, not the third-party supplier, it was the landlord’s responsibility to contact the supplier and take forward the issues.
2. That there were mouse droppings within the property and requested for pest control treatment to take place again.
3. She had to pay for a pest control company at her own expense to treat a flea infestation, which had been caused by the mice infestation at the property.
4. That due to the landlord’s error she had been delayed two years for a potential management move, and so wished for her application to be a high priority.
In October 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident and said that it would arrange for pest control to inspect the resident’s property and 3 other neighbouring properties with the view of providing treatment or proofing if needed. Furthermore, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould survey for 1 November 2023. However, this appointment and three others rescheduled up to 6 December 2023 had been cancelled by the resident.
Throughout 2023 the landlord opened 5 ‘Cause for concern’ cases for the resident regarding her mental health. This included referring concerns to appropriate officers, engaging with emergency services, signposting to relevant agencies and speaking to the resident’s support worker.
The landlord was able to inspect the resident’s property on 3 January 2024 and found that the property was in an ‘excellent’ condition. All rooms were inspected and no major issues were recorded except a few minor repairs such as resealing the bath, a leaking tap in the kitchen and a humidistat to be fitted to the bathroom to replace an extractor fan. The resident asked about whether her neighbours’ properties had been treated for pests, but the landlord informed her that it could not talk about or provide feedback about her neighbour’s properties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two stage process. After acknowledging the complaint, it will then send a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible and will “keep in good working order the supply of water and gas”. The landlord has also said that the heating and hot water system for the whole development is managed by a third party and was not its responsibility. The third party company were responsible for the billing, maintenance and upgrades to the heating system.
The landlord has provided its pest control guidance which states that action should be taken by the landlord in regards to a mice infestation. Treatment should be provided to eradicate the infestation and any holes should be blocked. Measures should also be taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. All other repairs would be attended to within 21 calendar days.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of the heating and hot water system not working properly

A district heating system was operated by a third-party company that provided the heating and hot water for the development, which the resident was part of. As the landlord provided social housing, it is understood that it had a scheme with the third-party company to provide heating and hot water to its tenants whereby the landlord paid for the utilities and then recharged the cost to the resident. The landlord has stated that there had been issues with low pressure and other faults across the whole development since the resident moved in.
The resident raised issues regarding the lack of hot water in January 2023 and then mentioned this again in a complaint on 16 February 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 to say that major infrastructure replacement works were being carried out across the estate and to report any issues directly to the company that ran the heating and hot water and provided their contact details.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible and will “keep in good working order the supply of water and gas”. Furthermore, the provision of services are organised through the landlord and it recharges the cost to the resident for the hot water and heating. Therefore, whilst the landlord was right to make the resident aware of the infrastructure works to improve the issue, it could have done more to assist the resident as it had an obligation which was outlined in the tenancy agreement. The landlord merely provided the company’s contact details and told the resident to contact them, but it also could have tried to contact the heating and hot water management company, given that the resident had raised the issue in January 2023 and there was no evidence that it had taken any action. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not also contact the heating and hot water provider to try and help the resident.
The landlord’s notes show that on 6 March 2023, the resident reported further issues with her heating and hot water. There was no evidence that the landlord took any action, although the management of the system changed company in April 2023. The landlord said that the number of issues across all properties reduced after the change, but made no specific mention of the resident’s issues. In its stage 2 response, the landlord then said that there were ongoing issues with the entire system and an extensive renewal was taking place. It said it had spoken to the company and they said they were not aware of any current issues and it urged the resident to report any issues directly to the third party. Although the landlord did speak to the new company, it did not address the resident’s concerns until the stage 2 response at the end of July 2023, nearly 5 months later.
There was a service failure here, as the landlord should have responded to the resident sooner. It could have also been proactive and contacted the heating and water company to raise the issue for the resident, especially as: it had a duty to keep the supply of water in good working order; it was responsible for arranging the services for the resident and the resident paid it directly for those services; the management company had changed and the resident was a vulnerable person. The landlord said it contacted the company once, but it is reasonable that in these circumstances it could have done more to help the resident who was frustrated at the ongoing situation.
It was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in responding to the resident’s reports that her heating and hot water was not working properly and which caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord should pay £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her reports about her heating and hot water system not working properly.
In addition, as the services were provided through the landlord (given that it recharged the cost back to the resident) and it was obligated under the tenancy agreement to keep the gas and water supplies in good working order, the landlord should take responsibility for the poor service that has been provided. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation for the inadequate service that it has provided to the resident (this works out at around £10 per month for the autumn/winter months since the resident reported the issue in January 2023).

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation which she believed was causing damage to the electric cables and her kitchen

The resident reported an ongoing issue with a pest infestation for many years and had raised previous complaints about the matter. The resident contacted her landlord in January 2023 to report a problem with mice again and the landlord attended on 3 February 2023 to assess the situation. It found one dropping and laid traps to test if it was old or new. The landlord also inspected the resident’s neighbour’s properties, but found no evidence of a pest infestation. The landlord then inspected the resident’s property again at the end of February 2023, but found no evidence of mice being present as the traps were all untouched.
The landlord’s policy states that with regards to a mice infestation, the action to be taken is that holes should be blocked and treatment provided if necessary. The landlord therefore complied with its policy by investigating the resident’s property and her neighbour’s properties and was reasonably able to conclude that there was no issue. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances by carrying out an investigation within a reasonable period of time and it reasonably concluded that treatment was not necessary.
The resident raised further concerns about a mice infestation in July 2023 and the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would send pest control out to visit. The contractors attempted to visit in August 2023, but as the resident had COVID-19, the operatives could not enter. The landlord attempted to contact and carry out inspections and treatment of the resident’s property and to that of her neighbours in October and November 2023, but the resident was unable to fulfil several appointments due to personal reasons. The resident also had to cancel an appointment on 6 December 2023 as she was unwell. An inspection was carried out on 3 January 2024, which determined that the property was in an excellent condition.
The landlord’s actions in regards to the resident’s further reports of a pest infestation were reasonable, as it responded as part of its stage 2 response and arranged an appointment to carry out an inspection, but was unable to gain entry on several occasions. The evidence shows it fulfilled its duty under its policy to inspect the property and carry out any necessary treatment. The notes show that the landlord was in continuous communication with the resident and was eventually able to inspect the property in January 2024. There was no failure by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s reports of pest infestation.

Damage to the electric cables

The resident also mentioned that mice had chewed through cables and the electrics did not feel safe. The landlord had checked the electrics as part of a previous complaint and found no issues. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it would send an electrician to check the electrics for the resident, however, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she said that no one had contacted her regarding an appointment. The landlord’s notes do not confirm whether the electrics were checked and the issue was not picked up in the landlord’s stage 2 response. When the landlord completed its inspection in January 2024, there was no mention of any issues with the electrics.
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it completed the appropriate electric checks as per its commitment was unreasonable. There is a lack of evidence to support the landlord’s position that it satisfactorily investigated this issue properly, which was inappropriate. Given the resident’s prolonged concerns and the distress this had caused her, the landlord’s failure to demonstrate the electrics at the property were fully functioning amounts to a service failure. The landlord should confirm to the resident that the electrics were properly inspected and an order has been made below in this regard. It should also pay compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Damage to the resident’s kitchen

The resident had told the landlord as part of a previous complaint that she wanted her kitchen to be upgraded, in line with that of her neighbours, who had new kitchens installed in their properties. The landlord had previously told the resident that her kitchen was in a good condition, and therefore not due for an upgrade until 2034, in line with the landlord’s planned improvement works.
The resident subsequently told the landlord as part of her complaint that her kitchen had been destroyed by mice. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs would be attended within 21 calendar days. The landlord did not complete an inspection of the kitchen until January 2024, where it noted the kitchen was in a good condition. The failure to conduct the inspection in line with its repair policy was inappropriate and the landlord’s delay to resolve the complaint about the state of the kitchen was unreasonable.
In addition to the delay to conduct an inspection, the landlord did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns regarding the state of her kitchen in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses to her complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not comply with the Code and investigate the issue as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
In summary, the landlord only completed a full inspection around six months after it had issued its stage 2 response, and 11 months after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably in the circumstances by not following its policy, which caused unnecessary delays and resulted in inconvenience to the resident. This was a service failure. The landlord should compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused.

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

The resident mentioned that she had mould in her property in her complaint in February 2023, however, the landlord did not address this issue at stage 1 at all. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in May 2023, the resident again mentioned that she had an issue with black mould in her property. Whilst the resident did not give many details, the landlord asked for further information in July 2023 when it issued its stage 2 response so that it could organise a survey.
The landlord organised a mould survey to take place on 1 November 2023, which was then rescheduled to 15 November 2023, but the resident could not make either of these appointments due to personal reasons. When the landlord did complete a survey in January 2024, it noted that there were no issues with mould and any previous mould had been cleared and the effected room had been redecorated. However, it took months for the landlord to confirm that there were no issues with mould in the property.
The landlord did not follow its repairs policy as it failed to investigate the issue of mould when the resident first mentioned it in her complaint. The landlord did not mention the issue in its stage 1 response and then simply asked for further information at stage 2, which was sent 4 months later. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not follow its policy by completing a survey and investigating whether the resident’s property was affected when the resident complained. This caused a lengthy delay towards resolution and during the interim period it was unfair that the resident’s concerns of mould at her property remained unaddressed.
In these circumstances, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive around ascertaining if there was an issue, and taking the necessary action to demonstrate to the resident that there was no issue at the property. This was a service failure by the landlord and it should pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay to inspect the property.

The resident’s request for a management move

The resident first made an application for a management move in 2021, but the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it could not locate the application and the neighbourhood manager who would have processed it no longer worked there. It apologised and conceded that the issue had been handled poorly and said it would raise a new request.
In June 2023, the landlord approved the resident’s application for a management move and backdated it to match the date the resident initially applied. In the stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it had previously made an administrative error and offered £100 compensation. It also stated that it could not say when a move would happen.
The landlord stated that the resident has not been disadvantaged as a management move takes a long time, and its policy states that it needs to find a ‘like for like’ property. It also advised the resident to apply for a mutual exchange which she was unhappy about, as she felt the landlord was pushing her down this path.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that landlords should treat resident’s fairly and put things right when things have gone wrong. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances as it approved the new application and backdated it so the resident was not disadvantaged. It apologised and accepted that it had handled the matter poorly and had made an administrative error. It also offered £150 compensation (£50 in the stage 1 response and £100 in the stage 2 response). This was reasonable redress to reflect inconvenience caused to the resident, taking into account that the delay did not cause the resident disadvantage because of the landlord’s error.
In addition to the resident’s management move application, the resident wanted a move as a priority as she was worried her ex-partner would be released from prison and that this would pose a threat to her safety. The landlord held a multi-agency meeting where it discussed the situation with relevant stakeholders such as the police and the probation services. The multi-agency meeting concluded that the resident was not assessed as being sufficiently ‘high risk’ for a priority move.
The landlord’s policy states that a resident will qualify for a priority move if they can no longer live safely in their home and their situation had been assessed as ‘high risk’. The landlord acted appropriately by engaging with relevant external stakeholders to assess whether the resident’s situation should be risk assessed and classified as ‘high risk’ in line with its policy. As her ex-partner was not due to be released for some time, the landlord actions were reasonable when considering the circumstances and that it had stated that the decision could be reassessed closer to the relevant time when the associated risks were due to rise.
Furthermore, the landlord advised the resident to concurrently apply for a mutual exchange, which it stated it advised as being the best option for any resident wanting to move as the process was a lot quicker. The resident had made it clear to the landlord that she wished to move because she felt she was in danger, and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to explain all the options available to the resident, especially options that could happen much sooner, such as a mutual exchange. There was no failure here by the landlord.

The resident’s report of ASB

The resident reported that she had an altercation with her neighbour and alleged that her neighbour violently attacked her after she enquired about the potential presence of pests at her neighbour’s property. The reports were investigated by the police who decided not to take any further action, as there was no proof of what the resident had alleged. In its stage 1 response, the landlord addressed the issue and explained that it could not take any further action as the police had closed the case.
The incident was a one off at the time, and the landlord’s policy states that it is only likely to intervene when the behaviour has occurred more than once, unless it is of a particularly serious nature. Given that the resident described the incident as a violent assault, the landlord looked into the incident, but did not feel that it could take any formal action due to a lack of evidence after liaising with the police. The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour about the incident and informed the resident not to talk to her neighbour and report any further incidents to the police and itself. Therefore, it took measures to prevent escalation or repetition of further incidents. The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances as it complied with its policy and acted appropriately.
Although the landlord’s actions were reasonable, the resident asked for this issue to be addressed at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process and the landlord confirmed that it would do so, but then made no further comment in the subsequent stage 2 response. The provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme allows this Service to decide whether a complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and subsequently whether we can consider the matter. Based on the circumstances, the actions undertaken by the landlord and the evidence in the case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to its handling of reports of ASB by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord sent a stage 1 response in reply to the resident’s complaint which was not dated. On 1 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident an email to say that it was escalating her complaint, and then sent a further stage 1 response. The second stage 1 response was also not dated. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it has a two stage complaints process: stage 1 and then a complaint can be escalated to stage 2. Therefore, the landlord did not follow its complaints process, nor has it explained why it sent two stage 1 responses for the same complaint. There was a failing here, as it was not appropriate that the landlord did not follow its complaints process which would have likely caused confusion for the resident, who was a vulnerable person.
Furthermore, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord wrote to her and confirmed the issues outstanding which were to be addressed, and that the resident agreed with these. One of the issues that the resident wanted to be investigated at stage 2 was the ‘ASB’ incident, however, when the landlord provided its response, this was not mentioned and therefore not all the issues had been referred to after the complaint was escalated. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that she raised about damage in her kitchen in its complaint responses. The Complaint Handling Code makes it clear that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not review all the issues raised at stage 2 and there was a failing here by the landlord.
Throughout the complaint timeline, there were other examples of poor complaint handling. When the resident raised concerns about her heating and hot water not working properly, the landlord did not address these reports until 5 months later when it sent its stage 2 response. Similarly, the landlord told the resident it would send an electrician to check her cables as raised in a stage 1 complaint, but when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she said no one had contacted her, despite this being part of the landlord’s stage 1 resolution. The landlord only briefly addressed the issues with mould at stage 2, but did not offer any solution to the issue and simply asked for more information, despite the issue being raised in the resident’s complaint 6 months earlier. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles state that landlords should treat resident’s fairly and put things right and learn from outcomes., These examples show that the landlord acted unreasonably by failing to put things right, or learn from failings earlier in the complaint timeline. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the 22 May 2023 and the landlord responded with its stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days, and this can be extended by a further 20 working days, but the landlord will give clear reasons and seek agreement from the resident if doing so. There is no evidence that the landlord explained why its stage 2 response was late, but it did acknowledge the delay and offered £50 compensation in its stage 2 response. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not follow its policy and the delay would have inconvenienced the resident further.
There was a service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling as it delayed the complaint, did not review all the issues raised by the resident as part of the complaint process and at times did not follow its policy or act in compliance with the Code. The landlord should pay a total compensation of £100 (which includes £50 already offered) to compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds:
1. Service failure with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of the heating and hot water system not working properly.
2. Service failure with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation which she believed was causing damage to electric cables and her kitchen.
3. Service failure with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. No maladministration with how the landlord handled the resident’s report of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds reasonable redress with how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to relay the outcome from any electrical inspection which took place in response to the complaint to the resident and, if an inspection did not take place, to conduct an inspection within four weeks of the date of this report and relay the outcome to the resident and this Service.

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £325 compensation (in addition to the £200 previously offered) within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of the heating and hot water system not working properly.
2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her reports of damage to electric cables and her kitchen.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.