Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214808)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214808

Notting Hill Genesis

23 August 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 reports of leaks at the property.
2. Response to damp and mould at the property.
3. Knowledge and information management.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started by way of a mutual exchange in October 2021. The property is a 4 storey house with 4 bedrooms. The resident has a young family with 3 children under the age of 5 years old at the time of the complaint. As of January 2021 the weekly rent was £161.16. The landlord informed this Service that there are no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or any other household member.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Where the landlord can resolve the stage 1 complaint to the resident’s satisfaction within 10 days it may, with the resident’s agreement, close the complaint as a “quick fix” case.
If the landlord is unable to respond within 10 working days it will send the resident an action plan within 10 working days, detailing the timescales for completing any outstanding actions. It will provide regular updates at agreed times on progress until completed. In exceptional circumstances its response time frame may need to change. In such cases the landlord will agree a new timescale with the resident.
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 and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an 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 Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (published March 2023) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Stress test systems prior to a change. Landlords should ensure that systems talk together or staff can access the data they need.
2. Undertake a risk assessment regarding knowledge and information shortfalls before a change. This should be a live document with clear risks and mitigations documented.
3. Proactively investigate incoming data. Landlords should identify gaps in the knowledge of incoming stock and residents, and work to fill these gaps.
4. Establish clear data exception reporting processes. This allows the new landlord to identify issues post change quickly.
The landlord’s resident handbook states that it will attend to an emergency repair within 4 hours and aim to restore all major services within 24 hours. All routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repair policy defines an emergency repair as:
1. Where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, heating (during October to March only) or hot water failure, or the property is not secure. A repair can also be considered an emergency when major damage has not yet occurred but has the potential to do so or where a resident is vulnerable and carrying out the works will ensure they are able to remain safely in their home due to their vulnerability.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy includes a guide when its failures have been responsible for the loss or severe limitation of use of rooms or services within the property. Where appropriate the landlord will consider compensation for the following:
1. Loss of living room at 20% of the resident’s daily rent.
2. Loss of bedroom (if used) at 25% of the resident’s daily rent.
3. Loss of kitchen (if no alternative available) at 30% of the resident’s daily rent.
4. Loss of bathroom (if no alternative available) at 30% of the resident’s daily rent.

Summary of events

On 21 March 2022 the landlord’s internal communication discussed that newly acquired properties had “come online” as part of a stock transfer from another landlord. It discussed the need for the acquired properties to be added to the relevant contractor contracts.
On 29 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. Her email was titled formal complaint. She advised that she had contacted the landlord 4 or 5 times since 21 March 2023 regarding a leaking boiler and a leak that was damaging her stairwell. She believed the issue was coming from the roof. She described contacting the landlord’s customer services team who directed her to multiple contractors. She explained that none of the contractors appeared to recognise/cover her property so the issue was getting worse.
On the same day the landlord’s internal communication discussed that the resident’s recently acquired property had a leak. It advised that as colleagues had not provided the requested information, it had not added it to a specific contractors database. It noted that the record was showing on another system but questioned whether the contractor was actually aware and therefore able to raise a repair.
Between 29 and 30 March 2022 the landlord called and emailed the resident. Following discussions about the reported leaks, the landlord advised that it had raised a repair for its contractor to inspect the leaks at the property. The landlord said that it had closed the resident’s complaint as a “quick fix.”
On 31 March 2022 a plumber attended the property. Its inspection report said that the leak appeared to be coming from the roof and required an investigation. It noted that the pipes in the bathroom were fine.
On 1 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. The resident described having a significant amount of damp and mould within the attic area and advised she had supplied photographs. She continued to describe how her recently decorated stairwell was becoming increasingly damaged and the [damp] smell was pungent. She was concerned that her children were breathing in the damp. She had sought to raise a repair for the roof as identified by the landlord’s plumber as a source of the leak. Whenever it rained the resident witnessed water damage.
On the same day the landlord advised the resident that it was “still having technical issues with its repair system” and had raised a repair for a roofer who would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
On the 4 April 2022 the resident chased the landlord and asked for the contact details of its roofing contractor. She had not received contact and reported that damp had spread from the second floor to the first floor.
On 6 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO). Her email was titled formal complaint. She advised that:
1. She had an ongoing issue with damp and mould at her property that had begun to cause significant damage to the fabric of her property.
2. Plaster was starting to show signs of disintegration and damp was spreading down walls and causing discolouration to her recent decoration.
3. She and her children were having to breathe in a musty mould smell and that she was only able to open windows (as recommended by the landlord) during the day. She was unable to do this at night as she had 3 children under the age of 5 years old and the property would not be secure.
4. She had been told that a repair had been raised for a roofer on 1 April 2022 but no appointment had been arranged.
5. A recent repair appointment with a plumber informed her that there was significant damp and mould in the roof and evidence of water penetration.
On the same day the landlord’s internal communication showed:
1. That it emailed the resident and escalated her roof repair. It said that it understood that the situation was frustrating for the resident but some repairs can take longer than others. Repairs are not always able to be completed immediately due to the process required “in future please take this into consideration.”
2. It was happy to carry out a home visit on either 7 or 8 April 2022 to inspect the severity of the dampness and asked the resident to advise of her availability.
3. In a separate email, the landlord requested that its contractor attend the resident’s property and either repair or quote for the works required for water entering the loft area.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint made via its CEO and advised that it would provide a response within 10 working days. A repair request was raised with its roofing contractor to attend and investigate/repair where water was entering the loft space.
On the same day internal communication said that the repair was a historic repair before the stock transfer and that it considered that the correct procedures, including escalation had been followed to prioritise the repair.
On 14 April 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s email of 6 April 2022. She apologised that she had missed the email. She said:
1. That she had reported the leak almost 3 weeks ago and suggested the landlord look at the photographs she provided. She said the issue had become worse.
2. That the [damp] smell was becoming pungent.
3. That her GP and health visitor had advised that her family should not be breathing in the damp and noted that she had 3 children under the age of 5 living at the property.
4. That she was watching helplessly as the property (that she had decorated from a bad state or repair since her mutual exchange in October 2021) was being affected by the leaks.
5. That while she understood that some repairs can take longer, the boiler leak had filled up two containers and she was not expecting an appointment until May 2022 to address it.
6. That there had still been no appointment arranged to look at the potential roof leak.
7. That until these issues were remedied, she would continue to raise the issues so that it is seen as a matter of urgency.
On 18 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that the damp had now reached the ground floor and was starting to penetrate the wall. She had not received a response to her complaint within the expected 10 working days. She would wait a further 7 days at which point she would contact Environmental Health (EH) and this Service as the leak was now entering its fourth week.
On 22 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email from 18 April 2022. It said it was sorry to hear of her experience and was “working relentlessly to try to resolve the matter.” It understood that the issue with damp and leakage occurred before 21 March 2022 [prior to the stock transfer]. It was requesting a repair report from the previous landlord.
On the same day the resident responded. She advised that the leaks occurred after 21 March 2022 and she was happy for an inspection to take place.
On 23 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service due to her first floor bathroom flooding and water damage to her kitchen ceiling. A plumber and an electrician attended to investigate the loft and make safe the electrics. Evidence indicates that there was no damage caused to the electrics but the root cause of the leak could not be identified. A plumber was booked to attend at a later date to resolve the repair.
On 24 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised of the out of hours incident and the damaged caused to the property. She said that she had originally raised her repair concerns 4 weeks prior. She requested that a surveyor attend her property to inspect and identify the root cause.
During April 2022 the resident called the landlord on 8 occasions to report the leaking boiler at the property. An appointment was given that was “a month away.” The resident expressed concern about the damage the leak had caused to the flooring below the boiler.
On 25 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord including the CEO. The email was titled stage 2 complaint. She detailed the outstanding leaks that had been ongoing for 5 weeks and how her complaint had not been resolved. She explained how the leaks were causing damage to the property, including mould growth, which she felt could have been avoided had the landlord acted sooner. She considered it the landlord’s responsibility to replace/fix repairs associated with the leaks. She expressed concern for her family breathing in “pungent fumes.” She said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the property was fit to live in and “that was all she was asking it to do.”
Later that day the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It advised that it was due to provide her with a formal complaint response that day. However it would need to extend the deadline as it was still investigating her complaint. A response would be provided by 29th April 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and advised that a stage 2 escalation was not possible until it had issued its response. The landlord arranged an inspection for 27 April 2022.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it was still investigating her complaint. It was extending its complaint response again and aimed to provide a response on or before 6 May 2022. It offered an apology for the delay.
On 30 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. The email was titled stage 2 complaint. The resident said:
1. That she had made her initial complaint on 29 March 2022 and it was closed by the landlord as a quick fix. She did not agree to this.
2. That she had made another formal complaint on 6 April 2022 in relation to her original complaint of 29 March 2022.
3. That if the landlord had not been able to resolve her complaint within its own policy time frames, she should have been sent an action plan. If time frames needed to be changed these should have been agreed with her first.
4. As the landlord had said that it would respond by 29 April 2022, she was now able to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She had attached the current state of damage caused to the property. She described that there were mushrooms growing on her walls. This Service has not seen the email attachment.
On or around 30 April 2022 a plumber attended the property following the resident’s out of hours emergency on 23 April 2022. The plumber had thoroughly checked the back room within the attic but had failed to investigate the bathroom waste pipes. She considered the lack of investigation had resulted in further damage to the walls of the stairwell on 2 floors. This included additional mould growth, mushroom growth, and blown plaster board.
On 3 May 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 30 April 2022. It said:
1. That it had spoken to the resident on 29 March 2022, addressed her concerns regarding lack of communication and raised a repair for the leak. It emailed her on 30 March 2022 to inform her that her complaint was being closed as a “quick fix.”
2. It had reviewed the email it received from the resident on 1 April 2022. The resident had not informed it that she was unhappy that her complaint had been closed. If she had it would have reopened her case as a formal complaint.
3. That the resident “expressed more concerns” on 6 April 2022. Therefore, her case was reopened as a formal complaint.
4. That it had tried to arrange a home visit on a few occasions and she had not been home on 27 April 2022. It responded to the resident’s comment that she did not have the direct contact details of the landlord’s visiting staff member by stating that direct telephone numbers and emails were on all correspondence.
5. It acknowledged that its formal complaint response was late and this may cause distress. However it had informed the resident on both occasions of the extension period and provided a reason.
Between 4 to 6 May 2022 the landlord emailed the former landlord about repairs at the property. The landlord sought information whether the resident had reported any leaks before the stock transfer.
On 5 May 2022 the roofing contractor submitted a repair completion report. It replaced broken roof tiles that could have been letting in water and cleared the blocked water outlet. It said that there could be an internal pipe issue as the tenant was getting damp in the middle floor of the property. Pictures were provided that showed water damage to the property’s walls.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response.
1. It was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the service she had received and apologised for the late complaint response.
2. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
  1. A leaking boiler.
  2. Difficulties communicating and raising repairs with the landlord.
  3. Leaks in the property causing water ingress and dampness.
3. It had become the resident’s landlord on 21 March 2022. Its contractor’s database had not been updated with the resident’s details. This had initially delayed her ability to request a repair.
4. Although the resident had tried to request the boiler repair from March 2022, it was scheduled for 11 May 2022 due to parts.
5. It had encountered a system error and repairs were routed to its out of hours service rather than its allocated contractor for day to day repairs. This caused “significant delays” but had since been resolved.
6. It understood that the primary basis of the resident’s complaint was leaks and water damage at the property. It was “under the impression” that these were historic repairs before it became her landlord.
7. It raised a repair for a specialist roofer. An appointment was arranged for 19 April 2022 but a further visit was required on 5 May 2022 as the contractor could not gain access to the roof.
8. It had offered to inspect the repair on 7 or 8 April 2022 but did not receive communication from the resident until 14 April 2022. An appointment was arranged for 27 April 2022 but the resident was not home.
9. It had received the repair reports and pictures from its contractors and the water ingress was not considered acute and would be classified as a standard repair. It advised the resident to allow 20 working days to complete.
10. It recognised the resident’s concerns about water ingress and the smell of damp. It would arrange for a dehumidifier for a period of 2 weeks. It asked the resident to take a meter reading before and after as it would reimburse her.
11. As a gesture of goodwill it offered £25 for its late complaint response for the inconvenience caused.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord raised a job to provide the resident with a dehumidifier.
On 11 May 2022 the resident’s son was taken to hospital by ambulance. He had an asthma attack and could not breathe. The resident was concerned that this was caused by the prolonged exposure to mould within the property. The resident informed this Service that she also sought help from her doctor due to experiencing shortness of breath.
On the same day a new condense pipe was fitted to repair the boiler leak.
On 13 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service. Water had come through her first floor bathroom ceiling [from her second floor bathroom]. The bath was leaking via the plug hole and the rubber washer had worn away. It advised the resident not to use the bath until a new plug hole had been installed. It noted that there was also a leak coming through the kitchen ceiling that required investigation.
On 18 May 2022 a roofer attended the resident’s property. Although some tiles were fixed the roofer considered the issue to be an internal leak. However the resident described further water ingress to the third floor entering the bedroom and stairwells.
On 26 May 2022 the plumber provided a repair completion report. It said it had replaced the leaking bath plug and overflow pipe section.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord she sought a resolution to her repairs that included:
1. A surveyor to assess the water damage to the property.
2. The landlord to send a professional contractor to safely remove mould and to check the first floor bathroom ceiling. This had developed “mushroom growth” which she believed was due to a leak from the bath above.
3. Fix the hole under the bath and fix the water damaged flooring.
4. Check and reposition the waste pipes under the baths and toilet. She said that the landlord’s plumber had advised het that these needed repositioning to allow better water flow.
5. Complete remedial works to the stairwell walls, skirting boards, behind the hand rail, kitchen ceiling and bathroom.
6. 2 months’ rent as compensation. This was due to the time it had taken the landlord to complete the repairs and the distress that had been caused.
On 21 June 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 26 May 2022. It apologised for the late response and explained that this was due to staff absence. It responded to the resident’s points as follows:
1. It would raise a complaint to its heating and hot water team about the delayed boiler repair. It advised this team would provide a response. This Service has not seen a copy of a response provided to the resident.
2. It had reviewed all repairs and identified no reports of major leaks. There had been no reports that the bathroom had been condemned and the home remained habitable. It asked the resident to provide videos or photographs of the severe leaks if she had any.
3. It acknowledged that the water ingress to the property may have caused damage. It said it would request that a surveyor attends as a matter of urgency.
4. It understood that the damp had caused distress and it sympathised. It had amended its first compensation offer.
  1. Right to repair £50.
  2. Inconvenience or distress discretionary payment £125.
On 30 June 2022 the landlord’s contractor provided the resident with a dehumidifier. It noted that the repair job required follow on works. Pictures were supplied that showed water damage to the property’s walls.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property.
Between 27 to 28 July 2022 the landlord communicated with its heating contractor. It required 2x radiators to be checked and removed to allow remedial works to be completed. This included plastering and redecoration due to water damage. The evidence showed that this job was not progressed due to the landlord’s inability/delays raising a purchase order.
On 18 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and CEO to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She advised:
1. That water leaks in the property that started in March 2022 had still not been repaired.
2. That roofers who had attended her property “a few months ago” had advised her that the leak was coming from a waste pipe.
3. That the day before this email there had been water ingress near the skylight windows in her children’s bedroom. This had damaged areas recently plastered and decorated. The resident considered this evidence that there was also an issue with the roof.
4. That she sought a resolution from the landlord before seeking legal advice.
5. She advised that she was looking to contact the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to enquire about using her rent payments to pay for repairs herself.
On 24 August 2022 the public protection and regulatory service (PPRS) at the local council emailed the landlord. It had been informed by the resident of leaks and extensive damp at her property. It required the landlord to investigate and report back any defects and a timetable of works by 2 September 2023. If the council were to find any significant hazards or defects that threaten the resident’s health it would be served with an improvement notice and charged £645.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord communicated internally about the email from PPRS and the need to respond by 2 September 2022. It said that the resident had not reported any leaks to the boiler since 11 May 2022 when its heating contractor replaced a condense pipe. It also noted that it had completed a gas safety check on 13 June 2022 and the resident had made no reports of a leak at that time. The landlord emailed its heating contractor to raise a job due to “extensive damp and mould caused by an on going leak.” This Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s response to the PPRS.
On the same day a member of the landlord’s staff contacted the resident. Her complaint was escalated to stage 2 and handled by another manager. It advised that its heating contractor would contact her to make an appointment. It asked the resident to confirm if she had reported any new boiler leaks since 11 May 2022 as there was no mention of any leaks since its last visits. It said that it would arrange for 2 surveyors to attend the property about the roof leak and would contact her to make an appointment.
On 2 September 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s email of 26 August 2022. She explained that the leaks within the property stemmed from the reported roof leak and bath and toilet waste pipes. The boiler leak was an old issue. The heating contractors were supposed to attend on 30 August 2022 to look at the bathroom radiators but did not show for the appointment.
On 5 September 2022 an inspection listed repairs to be completed. This included redecoration work to areas affected and to check for leaks. It also noted that external slabs to the back garden posed a severe trip hazard. It evidenced asking for advice from colleagues about the resident’s reports of leaks. It said that its readings during its visit had showed low moisture content and asked, “what it should do under the circumstances.”
On 17 September 2022 the landlord provided job completion records for redecoration repairs.
On 7 October 2022 an independent reviewer looked at the resident’s complaint. The review, which was shared internally, summarised that:
1. There had been service failure by not identifying a leak under the bath in April 2022 which caused water damage and mould.
2. There was extensive delay in completing the remedial works following the leak repair in May 2022. The remedial works were not completed until September 2022.
3. In relation to the stage 1:
  1. It was late and there were delays in contacting the resident within service standard timeframes.
  2. Service failures were identified with jobs not being routed properly and this was resolved.
  3. It was mistakenly believed that the leaks had been resolved by the roof repair. However, it since transpired that the leak under the bath had been missed and therefore not resolved.
4. In relation to the stage 2 it suggested:
  1. Acknowledge and apologise for the misdiagnosis. It suggested compensation of £100 for inconvenience caused.
  2. Compensation given of 30% of daily rent for loss of bathroom facilities (if this was the case).
  3. £250 for distress and inconvenience for the 4 month delay in completing remedial works.
  4. Compensation for its delayed stage 1 response had offered £25. It advised that the compensation offered at stage 1 did not adequately address the service failures.
  5. Ensure that the surveyor’s report booked for 7 October 2022 was followed up promptly and any outstanding actions completed and referenced in its stage 2 response.
  6. That a follow up visit was arranged as the resident “has not had the best transition experience” to the landlord. This was suggested to continue to build on the relationship and check that the resident was happy with the repairs and complaint responses.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response.
1. It said that it understood the resident’s complaint to have been about:
  1. Repairs needed at the property.
  2. The length of time the landlord took to resolve the repairs.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord understood that most of the decoration work had been completed. It acknowledged that redecoration to the top floor bedroom and the need to check and/or replace a bathroom radiator remained outstanding. It advised that these would be completed within the next 28 days.
3. The landlord apologised for the experience the resident had had with its response to leaks at the property. It acknowledged that it was first aware in March 2022 and although the majority of repairs had been completed it recognised it had been 7 months and some repairs still remained outstanding.
4. It considered its initial response was appropriate as it had sent appropriate contractors when notified. However it recognised that it had taken it longer than 28 days to complete.
5. It considered that providing a dehumidifier to dry out the walls in the property was appropriate. However, it acknowledged that it could have acted quicker to complete the decoration works following the visit by a surveyor in June 2022.
6. During the landlord’s visit in September 2022 the resident showed the landlord uneven paving where water pooled outside of the property. The landlord felt it necessary to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response and advised that within 28 days the resident would be advised how the landlord proposed to resolve this issue.
7. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had cause to write to its CEO on 6 April 2022 and it took this as the date of the resident’s formal complaint. It noted that its stage 1 response was not within its 10 working day response time frame and it had apologised and had offered £25 for this delay.
8. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been understanding at stage 1 that there may be delays with her repairs but she had highlighted the negative impact on her as the damage was getting worse. The landlord recognised that it had missed an opportunity to escalate her complaint sooner at that stage. This led to the resident writing to its CEO again following the second leak in August 2022.
9. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £1200. This comprised:
  1. £700 for the service failure in completing the repairs in a reasonable time frame.
  2. £250 for the length of time it took to recall a contractor to make good poor workmanship.
  3. £250 for the time and trouble its complaint handling delays at stage 1, stage 2 and its failure to escalate her complaint had caused her.
On 25 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and thanked it for taking the time to visit her property and working to resolve the outstanding issues for her family. The resident advised that she would accept the landlord’s offer of compensation as full and final settlement of her complaint.
Between 7 to 18 November 2022 the resident informed this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She advised that:
1. Although she had accepted the landlord’s compensation, she considered that she should have also received a 40% refund for her rent between March to November 2022. This was due to the time it took the landlord to commence remedial works at the property and the impact that the repair issues, and delays had on her family.
2. The landlord failed to remedy the water ingress when she first reported it in March 2022. This led to water damage across two floors of the property that caused mould. The resident said that this had “triggered and exacerbated breathing problems.” The resident also described the family experiencing skin irritation, asthma attacks and how it had had a “devastating effect on her mental health.”
3. She had lost sleep due to stress that her home had mould across two floors.
4. She felt unable to invite friends or family over as she was embarrassed that her home felt and looked unclean. She described not being able to have birthday parties during this time for her children due to the condition of the property.
5. The landlord had not provided help when she first reported the issue in March 2022 and had not received any acknowledgment from the landlord’s CEO when she attempted to escalate her concerns.
6. The landlord had failed to carry out works in a reasonable time and although she reported issues in March 2022 the landlord did not start works until September 2022.
7. The landlord’s communication between staff needed to improve. There had been further delays of some weeks for works to commence due to the landlord’s housing officer failing to raise works instructed by the surveyor.
Between 15 November to 22 December 2022 the landlord communicated internally and with its heating contractor about the outstanding works from 28 July 2022 to remove radiators. The landlord noted that a purchase order had been authorised on 15 November 2022 but it had received no response from the contractor or its internal team regarding a date to complete the outstanding works.
On 20 January 2023 the resident contacted this Service. She advised that the leaks within the property were getting progressively worse. The landlord had informed the resident that the housing officer needed to address her concerns. The resident was concerned that this was not the housing officer’s role. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s communication and length of time taken to resolve the repairs.
On 9 February 2023 there was evidence of email communication between the landlord and the former landlord for the property. The landlord sought a report regarding historic repair work carried out at the property. It advised that it had been unable to locate the required information within the shared folders.

Assessment and findings

The resident has advised that the issues she experienced impacted her health and wellbeing. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s actions or inaction’s may have caused the resident.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home, enjoyment, health, and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a service failure. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty, raised expectations, inconvenience, a strong sense of being treated differently, and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, young children, disability, dependant with disability, and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks at the property

There is evidence to suggest that the resident reported at least three potential leak issues at the property. It was unclear from the evidence supplied whether one or all three were contributing to the water damage and damp issues in the resident’s property.

Roof leak

On the 21 March 2022 and the days that followed the resident sought to report a leak to the landlord and was unable to do so. This was because the landlord failed to effectively manage the transfer of the data for the property it had newly acquired to its systems. The landlord acknowledged this in its internal communications on 29 March 2022, but had failed to make contingency arrangements for the affected residents. This resulted in unreasonable delays in the report of leaks being addressed and measures taken under its repair policy. This also had the effect of additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience for the resident.
The resident continued to communicate the urgency of the repair need and chased the landlord on 1 and 4 April 2022. She advised it that she continued to have difficulties arranging an appointment with the landlord’s roofing contractor. She advised that water damage was spreading to other floors and remained convinced that there was a leak coming from the roof.
There is evidence that the landlord did not consider the resident’s leak to be acute and therefore said that it had responded to it as a routine repair. On this basis it should have resolved the issue within 20 working days. Given that the resident had described attempting to raise a repair before her formal complaint on 29 March 2022 the roofing completion report was not provided until 5 May 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 25 working days later and (at least) 5 days beyond its repair policy.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the roof leak was not resolved. Additional work continued on or up to 18 May 2022 and again during August 2022. The resident had therefore experienced ongoing issues that the landlord had failed to satisfactorily identify and resolve for approximately 5 months at this stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it was waiting for the August 2022 completion report from its roofing contractor. It said that it would provide a copy to the resident. This Service has not seen a copy of this report nor the recommendations to resolve the ongoing issue.
There is further evidence on 5 September 2022 that the landlord internally queried “what should be done under the circumstances” as the resident continued to report that damp patches were returning from the roof. There was no evidence of the actions the landlord took to respond to this enquiry. This is evidence that the repair continued to remain unresolved. Furthermore the resident informed this Service in January 2023 that the leaks were ongoing.

Boiler leak

The resident experienced similar problems in attempting to report leaks with her boiler on and around 21 March 2022. This formed part of her complaint to the landlord on 29 March 2022.
This leak was not assessed as an emergency, but needed the resident to regularly empty a container that caught the leaking water. It appeared that the landlord arranged for repairs on 11 May 2022. During this time the flooring under the boiler suffered water damage.
It was evident that a repair to replace the condense pipe was not finalised until 11 May 2022. This was 29 working days later and 9 days beyond the landlord’s 20 working day time frame for routine repairs.

Bathroom leak

Having reported a water leak or leaks in March 2022 the resident had to call the out of hours service on 13 May 2022 due to a significant leak from a bath waste pipe. The landlord responded within 4 hours and in line with its emergency repair response time frames.
Upon ensuring that the emergency leak was fixed the landlord arranged for a plumber to return. This took place on 18 May 2022. However the repair was not completed until a second visit on 26 May 2022. The repair took 9 working days which is within the landlord’s 20 working day routine repair time frame. Although the resident was unable to use this bathroom there was another facility in the property that could be used.

Conclusion

When required the landlord responded to 2 emergency call outs and attended to make safe repairs within 4 hours. This was appropriate because it was within its repair policy time frames.
However although the landlord attended to the resident’s boiler and roof repair it failed to complete these jobs within its 20 working day routine repair time frame. This was not appropriate.
The landlord received reports of multiple leaks throughout the property from various sources. This resulted in the visits of a plumber, roofer, and central heating engineers. At times there was uncertainty as to the cause of the leak and the resident could only identify the damage that was occurring to the fabric of the property rather than the source. In instances such as this it would have been reasonable for the landlord to send a surveyor who could carry out a comprehensive investigation and raise the necessary jobs to rectify the problem.
When effecting repairs the repairs are not completed until any related damage to the fixtures, fittings, and decoration are also addressed. The resident reported water damage to her stairwell, plaster, decoration, flooring, ceiling, damp and mould (addressed later), from the various water leaks and it was only on 17 September 2022 that the landlord recorded a job completion for most of these outstanding matters. This was 126 working days from when the resident first sought to report the issues on 21 March 2022.
However, it is noted that on 15 November 2022 the landlord was still waiting for radiators to be removed for decoration work to take place that was related to water damage.
Furthermore, given the resident’s efforts to communicate and update the landlord about the spread of water damage the landlord’s overall management to address the reported leaks was unreasonable. It failed to identify the root cause and failed to produce an action plan following the differing opinions from its trades professionals whether the issue was internal or external.
In January 2023 the resident informed the Ombudsman that there were leaks in the property that were getting worse. It is not known if these are related to earlier leaks or are new.
As the leaks do not appear to have been resolved as of January 2023 and the time taken to resolve repairs which included making good any damage to fixtures, fittings and decoration were not fully completed up to November 2022. For the reasons set out, the failings in its response to leaks at the property amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property

The resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in the property on 29 March 2022. She continued to report the increasingly pungent smell from the damp throughout April 2022 and May 2022. She described significant issues in the attic and on the stairwell walls. This included mushroom growth from a ceiling. The resident said she provided photographic evidence to the landlord. This should have been sufficient evidence of a significant hazard that required urgent attention rather than a routine repair.
The landlord was aware that there was a young family residing at the property and it had been informed that one of the resident’s children was taken to hospital due to a severe asthma attack. There was no evidence of specific action taken by the landlord to mitigate this hazard while it sought to identify/resolve the leak or leaks.
There is evidence that on the 6 May 2022 the landlord offered to provide the resident with a dehumidifier. This would have provided a means of helping with the impact on the resident and her family. However there is no evidence of the dehumidifier being supplied until 30 June 2022.
This Service has seen no evidence of a specific damp and mould policy relevant at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord completed a self assessment in February 2023 following the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. However, at the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not display examples of a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. Nor did it evidence that it had sought to identify an effective solution to the resident’s repeat reports of the issue spreading.
With the potential of up to three leaks contributing to the damage, and differing opinions from trades professionals regarding the root cause it would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have instructed a specialist surveyor to determine the underlying cause. There is no evidence that this was done.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Knowing that there was a young family, one of who had been reported as vulnerable due to asthma, should have prompted a quicker response from the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy includes a guide when there has been a loss or severe limitation of rooms within the property. This redress option was briefly considered by the landlord during its stage 2 complaint review. Although the landlord increased its compensation offer this was specifically in recognition of its delays handling the resident’s repairs. There was no consideration of the distress and inconvenience that the effects of the leaks and mould growth had had on the resident for approximately 6 months.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property. It is therefore reasonable that a further compensation amount has been calculated. This has been based on approximately 20% of the resident’s weekly of £161.16 per week over the 6 months that the issue continued to affect her. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.

Knowledge and information management

The landlord acquired the resident’s property as part of a stock transfer and became responsible for it on 21 March 2022. There was a delay in the landlord adding the acquired properties to its contractor databases. This prevented the resident from raising repairs as its contractors were unable to verify the property address.
The landlord would have known that it was acquiring additional stock. However on 29 March 2022 internal communication discusses that requested information about the transferred properties and residents had not been provided. It states that work had not been done as there was “a lot to input.” This did not demonstrate that the landlord was managing information efficiently. Its failure to apply or adhere to a plan to ensure the newly acquired stock was on its system in a timely manner caused an avoidable drop in the level of service offered to the resident.
Two months after the stock transfer (May 2022) there is evidence that the landlord needed to communicate with the previous landlord about the property’s repair history. This demonstrated that the landlord did not have a clear record of the property. Two further instances on 9 and 10 February 2023 showed that the landlord emailed its contractor saying it was “unsure who to email” but required information about out of hours repairs at the property and that it was unable to find information in the shared folders. This is evidence of a gap in the landlord’s information management and record keeping 11 months after the stock transfer.
Works were identified on 27 July 2022 by the landlord that required the removal of 2x radiators. There is evidence that the landlord’s process of raising a purchase order number was not completed until 15 November 2022. The precise date the work was completed was unclear but it appears to have been in December 2022. Therefore the repairs to the resident’s property were delayed approximately 6 months. It was unclear from the evidence supplied by the landlord whether this delay was due to the lack of staff training or a system error. None the less there was no evidence of further communication with the resident or record keeping regarding this repair order until its resolution on 15 November 2022. This was only brought about following the landlord’s stage 2 investigation and response.
Although the landlord provided this Service with summaries of its repair activity it did not provide detailed repair records or the call records associated to these repair requests. The lack of information hampers the ability of this Service to properly investigate the issues and make recommendations.
Good knowledge and information management (KIM) is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Without good KIM, a landlord could be severely hamstrung in delivering its core purpose efficiently and effectively. The landlord’s failure to ensure that the resident’s transferred property was on system undermined its ability to provide its services and effective complaint handling to the resident. It was unable to readily access repair records and its contractors unable to recognise the resident or property to assist her. The resident’s repairs were delayed as a direct result of this failure. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and an order has been made below.

Complaint handling

The resident initially made a formal complaint on 29 March 2022. She described that this was necessary having made multiple unsuccessful calls to the landlord and its contractors to report leaks at her property. Although the landlord made attempts to arrange repair appointments, the landlord chose to close the resident’s complaint. It considered that it had satisfied the resident’s concerns and followed its “quick fix” approach. Although this process is included in the landlord’s complaint policy, it states that a quick fix is used with the agreement of the resident. There is no evidence that the resident agreed to this approach.
The landlord’s communication with or about the resident during stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure (ICP) appeared at times to adopt a defensive tone. This demonstrated the landlord not being understanding and empathetic with the resident’s situation. For example on the 6 April 2022 the resident felt it necessary to email the landlord’s CEO as she did not feel her repair or complaint was progressing. The response said that some repairs can take longer and “in future please take this into consideration.” This response did not demonstrate that the landlord was acting sensitively to the resident’s concerns of a potential health hazard at the property.
Another communication response by the landlord on 3 May 2022 said that it had informed the resident that it had closed her complaint as a quick fix on 30 March 2022 and she had not said that she was unhappy about this in her email on 1 April 2022.The emphasis being that it is for the resident to object to this course of action rather than the landlord seeking her agreement to it.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords should seek feedback from residents in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the drive to encourage a positive complaint and learning culture. There is no evidence that the landlord sought feedback from the resident. There was no evidence that it checked or recorded the resident’s satisfaction of a quick fix and the decision to close the complaint was entirely that of the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and its stage 2 response provided within 20 working days. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to meet these time frames at both stages of its ICP. This was not appropriate and not in line within the landlord’s own complaint handling procedures.
Although there is communication from the landlord to inform the resident of delayed responses at stage 1, there was no evidence that these extensions had been discussed or agreed with her. The emails simply told the resident that the response would be delayed and there was no evidence of a prior discussion or explanation. Furthermore these updates were on the days that the resident expected a response. This was not appropriate because the landlord’s complaint handling policy states that in the exceptional circumstances that a response time needs to be changed, the landlord would agree new timescales with the resident.
Within the resident’s communication with the landlord, notably on 6, 25 and 30 April 2022 she refers to mould growth in the property due to the leaks. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s responses lacked precise reference to mould and lacked an action plan to resolve this potential hazard.
In this case, it is not disputed by the landlord that there were delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s communication noticeably improved from stage 2 of its process. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging delays in providing its complaint responses and in escalating the resident’s complaint. It increased its offer of compensation from £25 to £250 for these complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response on 14 October 2022. This was in recognition of the time and trouble that that its failures may have caused.
Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the complaint made. It has a chance to learn from outcomes and put things right for the resident. Although efforts were made during stage 1 of its ICP the delays and communication tone contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s increased compensation offer went some way to recognise this however it did not adequately address the distress and inconvenience that the complaint handling delays caused. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation and the order is set out below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of leaks at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Its knowledge and information management.
3. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to correctly identify the source of the water leaks at the property and failed to resolve the boiler and roof repairs within its routine repair time frame. The resident’s continued to report ongoing leak concerns in January 2023.
The landlord failed to demonstrate any proactive efforts to mitigate the hazards associated with damp and mould. There was evidence that the promised dehumidifier was not delivered for 55 calendar days leaving the family exposed to the reported hazards.
The landlord failed to ensure that the property and resident details was on its system. This impacted the resident’s ability to request a repair and delayed it being resolved.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its policy time frames. It did not demonstrate that it had included the resident in its decision making to close her initial complaint nor when extending (on two occasions) its stage 1 response deadline. The landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in its responses.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of staff to apologise to the resident for the issues encountered.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £3,088.02. This comprises:
  1. £1,200 offered at stage 2 if not already paid.
  2. A further £600 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of leaks at the property.
  3. A further £838.02 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould at the property.
  4. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s delays as a result of its knowledge and information management.
  5. A further £200 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
If it has not already done so the landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to provide the resident with a copy of the roof inspection report that it was waiting to receive and referred to in its stage 2 response. A copy of this report should also be provided to this Service.
If it has not already done so since completion of the associated repairs, the landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to complete a damp and mould survey at the property. It should determine if its repairs have eliminated the cause of damp and mould. A copy of this report should be provided to this Service.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise using this case. It should provide a report on the way it handled the complaint and repairs, to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight Report on damp and mould and the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). The review should include consideration of:
1. The landlord’s process and procedures to ensure its customer resource management and contractor systems are updated with newly acquired stock.
2. The landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to repairs, including reports of damp and mould.
3. The processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping specially in relation to repair actions and repair appointments. This includes recording actions undertaken by its contractors.
4. Appropriate staff training with regards to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports detailed above.