Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202218016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218016

Notting Hill Genesis

31 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s reports of the condition of the property and repairs required to the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident held a private rented assured shorthold tenancy of a one bedroom studio flat on the seventh floor in a purpose built block. This was held by the landlord as temporary accommodation. The tenancy commenced on 10 February 2022. The property is owned by the local authority who hold the freehold of the property and the landlord leases the property from the council. The landlord’s lease with the council commenced on 14 February 2022 and expires on 14 November 2024. The landlord has advised this Service that the council is intending to demolish the block as part of a wider redevelopment of the estate.
The landlord has advised this Service that it became aware during the course of the tenancy that the resident has mental health issues.
Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible to repair “the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, outside walls, outside doors, windowsills including necessary external painting and decorating, internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames and skirting boards”. It is responsible for the chimneys, stacks and flues, “pathways, steps or other means of access, plasterwork”. It is responsible to repair installations such as “basins, sinks, bath, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes”. It is also responsible for “electric wiring”, as well as “water heaters, and central heating installations”.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for paying the rent, reporting disrepair and the resident must “allow the landlord, and/or their agents to enter the premises at all reasonable hours to inspect the condition or to carry out repairs or to do other work”.
Under the terms of the landlord’s lease with the council the landlord is to pay rent to the council. The lease confirms that the landlord’s responsibility is to “keep the property in good repair and condition” and to “renew and replace from time to time the landlord’s fixtures and fittings at the property which may become beyond repair at any time during the term”. The council is responsible under the terms of the lease for the “cleaning, maintaining, decorating, repairing and replacing the retained parts”. This includes “lighting”, “lifts”, “security machinery”, “fire prevention detection and fighting machinery”, “floor coverings”, “caretaking security cleaning and maintenance staff for the building”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint via the resident’s “preferred method of communication (preferably phone call) within two working days”. It will respond at stage one within ten working days, and it will contact a resident within two working days of a review request. If the complaint cannot be resolved “without the need to go the review stage this needs to be recorded on the system”. It will send “a formal letter confirming what has been agreed” to a resident. When accepted for stage two, the response will be issued within 20 working days and this will be investigated by a “lead manager”.
Its definition of a complaint mirrors the Ombudsman’s Code which defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It details that “a resident doesn’t have to use the word complaint in order for us to consider their contact to be a complaint”.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy details:
1. The landlord will consider financial compensation “where we have failed to follow our published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against our service standards”.
2. Compensation may be awarded as follows:
  1. For a missed contractor appointment – £30.
  2. Right to repair for residents who have this right as stipulated in the tenancy agreement.
  3. Cyclical works – “where there has been a service failure”.
  4. Loss of room or facilities – based on “a percentage of daily rent”. Living room – 20%, bedroom – 25%, “no access to cooking facilities” – 30%, “no access to bathing facilities” – 30%.
  5. “Loss of heating and/or loss of hot water due to failure to carry out a repair in the property” calculated at a rate of “10% of the daily rent for each day without heating or hot water” or “£5 per day” based on “whichever figure is the highest”.
  6. “Complete loss of facilities” “where residents experience a complete loss of rooms or facilities meaning they have no sanitary provision of any kind, no supply of cold water either from a tank or rising main, no habitable rooms (bedrooms and living room) and they have not been offered a decant”. Amount payable is “100% of daily rent after the first 24 hours”.
The landlord’s repairs policy details:
1. Emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours with any “further work also completed within 24 hours within reason”.
2. Routine repairs are to be “completed within 20 working days from the date of report”.
3. The policy defines a “vulnerable person – a person who if works were not completed for them there would be significant impact on their physical or mental health that would lead to them being unable to remain in the property”. It states that “if there are circumstances, conditions or risks that would require a quicker response, we will assess the case on its merits, and may agree to carry out the repair on their behalf or as an emergency”.
4. Where “the responsibility to carry out the repair” is not the landlord’s responsibility “staff will always pass on the details of said repair to the relevant party and liaise to ensure its satisfactory completion”.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out the landlord’s repairing responsibilities and these are reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a “reasonable” time frame.
The resident has mentioned both to the landlord and this Service the effects of the repairs have had on her health. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has health issues described. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However, this Service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure. This investigation has considered reports from prior to the resident’s tenancy commencing which is around six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint being made of 19 May 2022.

Summary of events

The landlord instructed an electric safety check on 11 January 2022, and a gas safety check was undertaken on 20 January 2023, prior to it being let to the resident on 26 January 2022 and within the landlord’s schedule of condition dated 26 January 2022 it detailed that the property was in “good” condition. The landlord has confirmed that the schedule of condition was a record of its post void inspection. It detailed that the main front door had a key and intercom. It did not detail in the report whether the intercom was actually operational in the resident’s property or whether a handset was present.
The landlord’s email records from 7 February 2022 detail that the resident viewed and accepted the property on 8 February 2022 with the tenancy start date being 10 February 2022.
On 14 February 2022 the resident sent a text message where she raised repair issues including the fact that there was no intercom, no chain on the front door and holes in the bathroom that needed to be blocked.
The resident chased up the repair issues by email on 16 February 2022. Along with the repairs already reported on 14 February 2022 she reported that the door lock was stiff, that there was “no vent in the bathroom – this can cause mould in the long-term” and two plugs that did not work in the bedroom/living area.
The landlord emailed back on 17 February 2022 concerning the repairs reported by the resident to advise that “there should be an intercom with handset in the property”. It explained that it was the council “who are responsible for this”. It would arrange for a door chain to be fitted. It would inspect the door, the three holes reported, the vent in the bathroom and any plug sockets that were not working during “the welcome visit and arrange a repair”.
The resident emailed back on 17 February 2022 to advised that “there is no intercom with handset in the property”. She requested this to be reported to the council “at your earliest convenience”.
The landlord’s housing officer conducted a “welcome visit” on 23 February 2022. A record of the visit stated that the condition of the rooms in the property and cleanliness was “very good”. The record detailed that repairs were required; “need door entry system, renew spyhole to front door and hot water tap check” and a repair to “overhaul extractor fan no background hum” was recorded.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February 2022 reiterating the repairs that she had advised of previously, along with a repair required to the “hot shower tap” which was dripping in bathroom. She reported that the “kitchen hot tap pressure is very low”. She advised that the “hot water barely comes out in the kitchen”. She reported a repair required to a “peephole” in the front door. The resident chased up the landlord by sending a text message on 2 March 2022 to provide “an update”.
The landlord raised a works order assessed as a “medium” priority for day to day routine repairs on 10 March 2022 to supply and fit the security chain and peephole, to supply and fit a shower mixer tap, to restore two power sockets in the studio room as “they are not working”, to refix a shower rail in the bathroom and to “investigate reason for low hot water pressure to kitchen tap and overhaul tap to resolve this or advise”.
The landlord emailed Lewisham council on 10 March 2022 regarding the repair required to the “mechanical extractor fan”. It advised that this would be council’s responsibility as “the individual flats are linked to a communal extraction system that runs to the roof”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2022 to advise that it was “now following up on the issues identified” during the visit and in the resident’s email. It advised in response to the resident’s queries that it had reported the intercom and vent to the council and would “update” once a response was received. It advised that if the resident had not heard anything “within 14 days” to let the landlord know so it could be chased up. It had arranged for the security chain to be fitted to the front door and the door to overhauled. It “wouldn’t just block holes unless there was a reason for doing so”, it was getting quotes for a repair to the “hot shower tap” and the two plugs.
The resident sent a number of chase ups for the repairs by text message, email, phone call between 11 March and 1 April 2022. The landlord emailed the resident of 1 April 2022 to advise that its contractor would be “doing all the works identified” “including the electric works” on 28 April 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2022 to report “mould in the property”. She advised that the “mould is coming out in different places in the property”. This included the “bedroom walls, the floor carpet, the floor where the hot water cylinder” was located. She advised that it “has been affecting my breathing as I am asthmatic and cannot be living in a property where there is mould”. She advised of an issue with the “hot water cylinder is no longer heating water like it used to”. She stated that it was “costing me a fortune to top up for electricity”. She advised that “turning on the heating is pointless and plays on my consumption as it’s so cold in the property including the water and when I heat it up and turn off the heating afterwards it gets immediately cold”.
The landlord emailed the resident back the same day and advised that “it sounds like you have a condensation problem which would be exacerbated if you don’t use the heating unfortunately”. It stated that a visit could be made “about the mould and hot water issues” on 20 April 2022.
The resident emailed back on 14 April 2022 to advise that she did “turn on the heating in the property” and that she was advising that “regardless of me doing it, it gets really cold in the property after turning it off”. The landlord’s housing officer confirmed an appointment with a colleague who would visit the resident on 29 April 2022. The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 April 2022 to advise that the housing officer’s colleague visited that day and left a card as the resident was not in. She was not sure why that was the case as it was “not what was agreed”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 May 2022 attaching a letter from her GP to advise “how my health has been impacted” since she moved to the property. She referred to outstanding repairs and stated that the contractor had “started carrying out” work in the property on 28 April 2022, which was 52 working days after her initial report. She confirmed the sockets were repaired and then stopped working again. She stated that the contractor had advised that there “may be a break in the electric circuit”. She advised that the bathroom vent was still not being repaired and that the contractor had said it was “not in the repairs listed for him to do”. She advised that the hot water cylinder was leaking. She advised that since mixer taps were put in the bathroom “the water pressure is completely off from all taps in the property and has been like this since 28 April 2022”. She stated that “I have not been able to cook as it’s only hot boiling water that is coming out of the kitchen taps and unable to shower without the water pressure or the water flow stopping”. She advised that living at the property “has been quite stressful since moving in”. She reported the “hot water cylinder leaking”. She requested “immediate help/assistance with all these issues”.
The resident chased up the landlord again on 3 May 2022 asking for a phone call to “discuss repairs and issues within my property”. The landlord’s call records detail a call was made the same day; however, details of the call are not recorded on the call log.
The landlord raised a works order on 6 May 2022 in response to a report from the resident concerning the cylinder above to “repair the leak from the water tank in the cupboard”. This was marked as a “containable leak” with a medium priority.
The resident sent further text messages between 4 May and 6 May 2022. The landlord responded on 6 May 2022 to advise that it had spoken to its contractor and “they were going to send me a report into the plumber’s findings”. As this had not been received the landlord “chased it up”. The landlord advised that it needed to check that “the variation of cost will resolve things”.
The resident sent a text message to the landlord on 9 May 2022 with a photograph showing damp marks on a carpet. She advised “please see the mould is expanding in my property due to a leak of the cylinder”. She had taken time off work thinking “someone was going to come and repair this”. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether an appointment had been made for this day. She would be unable to “let anyone to fix this leak until Thursday this week”.
The landlord’s housing officer conducted a visit on 17 May 2022. The records from the visit detail that the “pressure of hot water is poor”, the “cylinder repair should be done Thursday 19th”. The record reported the issue with the “mechanical extraction system”. The landlord’s repair records detail that the work was completed on 19 May 2022. The contractor recommended that the landlord install a new cylinder. The landlord’s record states that “both immersing heaters are so badly corroded that they cannot be removed, applying too much pressure would result in cracking the cylinder”. It reported that the “drain off valve is faulty. It does not work”. Two “minor leaks” were found on the “bottom compression fittings on the pipework which were tightened”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2022 to advised that the contractor had attended “but the job remains incomplete due to the fact that there is a lot more issues with the hot water cylinder and the leak has not been stopped because it has not been traced”. She requested information on the landlord’s compensation policy due to the “inconveniences/constant issues” since moving to the property.
The resident emailed the council and the landlord on 19 May 2022 with her initial complaint in which she stipulated “this is for the attention of everyone that is included in this email chain”. She referred to the landlord’s “obligations by law” to “deal with repairs”. She detailed:
1. The repairs she had reported previously that were outstanding and the effect that the outstanding issues were having on her health. She advised of “asbestos in the property that is affecting my health”. She advised that the landlord had “fixed some of these raised issues”.
2. She advised that before she moved to the property “there was no intercom”. She was not sure whether the landlord had raised the issue with the council “but this is a major inconvenience and has been from the moment I moved into the property”.
3. She referred to the vent in the bathroom. She was unaware of whether the landlord or the council “is responsible for this repair and when can I expect the repair to be done”.
4. She referred to the “kitchen hot tap pressure” being “very low” and requested this to be repaired. She advised that “I am unable to shower or cook because of the water pressure in the property”. She stressed the urgency of this but that “not much is being done or I am not getting updated enough about it”. She stated the contractor “left the job incomplete on 29 April 2022”.
5. The issue of the electrics and the “two plugs that do not work in the bedroom/living room”.
6. The leak from the hot water cylinder that she states had become evident in “early April when a stain started appearing on my carpet right in front of the door”. She states that this was raised to the landlord on 13 April 2022 and that “there is still an open job for it”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 May 2022 to advise that it would be “getting quotes” for a “new hot water cylinder and also pump to increase the water pressure”. It was arranging for an electrician to “resolve the issue with the temperamental plug sockets in the bed/sitting room area”. It would “cover the cost of a new intercom system” and it would contact the council to “arrange for it to be connected up to the main system”. It would hope to be “in a position to approve contractor(s) no later than next week”.
Between 25 May 2022 and 27 May 2022, the resident continued to send text messages concerning her outstanding repairs. She requested a call back from the landlord and “clear dates and indications and when all issues will be fixed”. In her later text of 27 May 2022, she advised at this point that she had “been without drinking water for a month now” and that she wished to “raise a complaint” and requested a link. The landlord texted back on 25 May 2022 to advise again it was obtaining quotes for the new hot water cylinder and pump “which should hopefully resolve pressure issues”. It would advise further once the contractor was chosen.
The landlord provided this Service with a copy of the council’s complaint acknowledgement which was dated 20 May 2022. In this it advised that the “repairs part of your complaint will need to go directly to Notting Hill Genesis”. It would provide a response by 13 June 2022.
The landlord emailed the council on 27 May 2022 to advise that “there is no intercom system in the flat meaning the tenant is unable to be buzzed should she have a visitor/delivery at the main entrance”. It requested that the council arrange for the fitting of a “new handset in the property and connect it up to the main intercom system”. The council emailed back the same day to advise that the works order had been raised with its contractor “who will contact the resident”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2022 following a phone call to the resident to advise that it was “not aware” “until today” that “in the kitchen the cold water was not coming out of the tap”. It admitted that there had been “some confusion with what you had meant and my own understanding”. It would request the contractor to return. It had raised a works order for a new hot water cylinder and a pump to “increase water pressure to the bathroom”. It hoped to “instruct a contractor early next week”. It had contacted the council regarding the “installation of a handset and its connection to the current intercom system”. The cost of this may be “the complete responsibility” of the landlord or a joint responsibility between the landlord and the council. Due to the “many and varied problems” it advised that it was “prepared to move you to an alternative studio flat” once one became available but understand that the resident “would rather wait until you understood more about your rehousing options before making a definite decision”.
A works order was raised on 27 May 2022 to “remove existing hot water cylinder” and to “supply and fit new hot water cylinder/immersion heater”. The order was to also “supply and fit booster pump to ensure that hot water is supplied to bathroom at a good pressure”. The repair logs detail that the new cylinder was completed but no completion date was given. A follow up electrician was requested “to run a new spur from fuse board to pump” due to there being “no power sources within cylinder cupboard”. The record details that “after completing install identified cold water storage tank is barely filling up. This is due to poor incoming pressure and a failed imperial fill valve connected to (possibly) an asbestos cold water storage tank”. It detailed that the resident “will only have enough hot water for approximately four inches of water in the bath”. The “tank must be sampled before any works can be carried out”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 May 2022 to advise that she was “shocked and disappointed” that she had been left “without drink water for a month which is unacceptable”. She advised that she had also explained her “frustration” during a visit by the housing officer on 17 May 2022. She advised that “all of these issues have been affecting my mental health”. She advised that the “carpet in front of the hot water cylinder in the property is now lifting due to the leak of the cylinder and the carpet has significantly changed colour”. She requested when the intercom would be fixed. She advised that “I understand that this is complex and not fun to deal with, but it’s been my reality since moving”. She advised of being “unable to send deliveries to my house”. She stated that “when loved ones come to visit” she had to “go downstairs to open the door each time”. She requested compensation for “all the issues and problems I have been facing”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2022 to advise that she had tried to ring but there was no answer. She advised that the contractor had attended regarding the issue of “no drinking water”. However, the problem was not fixed, and the contractor was to submit their report the same day. She stated that she had to take annual leave due to the “constant issues in the property”. She had no annual leave left “which means I am not getting paid for the time taken off”. She requested that the landlord advise on compensation. She would seek “legal advice”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 May 2022 to advise of issues with the contractor “not giving us the information that we require merely making noises about the installation of a pump”. An apology was made as “we cannot seem to get a definitive answer from them”. It would involve a “new contractor in rectifying this”. It advised that a new contractor had been instructed and that a cylinder and pump had been ordered. The contractor had advised that it hoped to fit this on 1 June 2022. It offered a viewing at an alternative property. It advised that it would “consider compensation but we would only do this once your housing issues have been resolved”. It advised that the council had raised a “works order” with the contractor for the intercom. The resident advised by text on 31 May 2022 that she was available for repairs that were due to be carried out 1 June 2022.
The resident sent a text message on 6 June 2022 to advise that she had left a voicemail and requested a phone call. The resident sent another text message the same day as she had missed the landlord’s call.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 June 2022 to advise that the plumber who attended the previous week had identified further problems that “will likely require the replacement of the cold-water storage tank”. Additional “electrical works are required within the cupboard to connect the pump to the mains power supply”. It apologised that the “works that we were hoping would rectify the hot water issues at the property have not done so”. It made a formal offer of an alternative property and offered for a “contractor that could move any heavy items”.
The landlord sent a text message on 6 June 2022 concerning a viewing at a different property that it had arranged for 10 June 2022. The resident emailed the same day to advise that she was happy to view the alternative property.
A works order was raised on 10 June 2022 for an electrician to “run a new spur from fuse board to pump that was recently installed”. “If tank confirmed not to contain asbestos” work would be undertaken to renew the tank. A request was made to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The work was marked as completed though it was clear whether this was on the same day. It was not clear from the records whether this was the electrical work or the work to renew the tank.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 June 2022 to refuse the alternative property which was a smaller property the “same price” as the current property. She requested that the landlord undertake the works required to her current property. She advised that the contractor had not fixed the “two sockets in the living room”. She asked how long it would take the landlord to respond to her complaint of 19 May 2022 sent to the council, landlord and her MP. She stated that “given there is mould and asbestos in the property” how the landlord would proceed with this as she had “less than two months of my tenancy with you”. She requested advice regarding the compensation requested. She requested a letter that the landlord’s housing officer had advised could be sent for her employer to detail “everything that has happened since moving”.
The resident sent a text message to her landlord on 16 June 2022 to advise that the contractor had called and advised her that they “weren’t told that I didn’t have a handset in the property”. She had tried to ring the landlord whilst the contractor was at the property but “there was no answer”. The landlord’s call records detail a missed call on this date. She advised that the contractor had mentioned that there were no “pipes connected for an intercom”. She advised that she was “concerned about the impact of how this property has been constantly affecting me and the repairs being done because the communication is poor/non-existent”. She requested a phone call from the landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 June 2022 to update advising that “this email is part of the ongoing dealing with your complaint”. However, it did not reference that this was a formal complaint response. It would “continue to keep you updated both by email and telephone call”. In this it detailed:
1. It had instructed the council using the wording “there is no intercom system in the flat meaning the tenant is unable to be buzzed should she have a visitor/delivery at the main entrance. Would someone be able to supply and fit a new handset in the property and connect it up to the main intercom system please”. It felt that this was “fairly self-explanatory for the council to understand. It would contact the council to “see if this can be progressed promptly”.
2. It had asked for a “quote to renew the cold water storage tank above the hot water cylinder and run a spur from the consumer unit for the electric pump to be connected up to”. Its contractor would contact to arrange an appointment. It advised that the previous contractor “will not be returning”. It had contacted its contractor regarding the “two plug sockets”.
3. It acknowledged that the resident did not “wish to take up the association’s offer of the studio flat” due to it being “smaller that your current studio flat and didn’t feel that you should pay the same rent as you currently do because of this”. It advised that the rents are set “not according to floor space but by the type of unit that is let”. It recognised that the resident’s property “falls short of the standard we would expect”. It felt that the offer made “is the best option”.
4. It advised that during the “most recent visit there was not an issue with mould”. It stated that “there is asbestos within the panels to the old ‘heating cupboard’ and we have closed these and locked them shut in other properties”. It advised that “there is the possibility that the cold water storage tank contains asbestos”. It stated that it would test this and “it would be removed in accordance with policies and practices relating to this”.
5. It would consider compensation in relation to “hardship, distress or inconvenience caused to a tenant because of service failure”. It stated that “the loss of a room or amenity would also be subject to possible award of compensation”. It requested the resident to advise if she had “specific issues that you should be compensated for”.
The landlord emailed the council on 20 June 2022 regarding the works order to install “an intercom system including handset as the property did not have one when we set up the lease”. It advised that the contractor had attended “but did not realise that it required a new handset”. The landlord enquired as to whether the follow up work was “reported back”. It also requested a “likely timescale for resolution of this matter”.
The landlord provided a letter to the resident dated 20 June 2022 for her to give to her employer concerning the “numerous problems” that had become apparent with the property “from early on including serious issues such as inadequate hot water supply and a leak from the hot water cylinder”. It advised that “some of the works have involved contractors being at the property for between three and four hours or even longer at a time and all contractors who have attended at your property have attended on multiple days”.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 20 June 2022 in connection with the renewal of the cold water storage tank above the hot water cylinder, together with running a spur from the consumer unit for the electric pump connection. It advised that its “engineer was delayed on another job and unable to attend at the end of last week”. It stated that its contractor would contact the resident to agree another date for repairs.
The council emailed the landlord concerning the intercom on 21 June 2022 to advise that a quote was being chased as it “needs two engineers to fit metal conduit outside of flat to the front door, trunking down hallway with fire clips, new cable to pulled in and new ATP handset”. It would update the landlord once further information was available.
The resident sent a text message on 14 July 2022 to chase up the repairs. She advised that her “electric pump was meant to be done about two weeks ago”. She had a missed appointment “for the second or third time now”. She had had “no update for my intercoms”. She requested the landlord to ring her back.
The landlord emailed the council on 14 July 2022 for an update on the intercom and whether a quote had been received. It stated “it is quite frustrating for the tenant who is missing visitors/deliveries unless someone rings her”.
The council emailed the landlord on 20 July 2022 to advise that the work for the intercom was scheduled for 22 July 2022.
The landlord’s housing officer conducted a further visit on 22 July 2022. The records detail that there were no issues that needed to be raised.
The resident sent a text message to her landlord on 22 July 2022 following the landlord’s housing officer who had visited the property that day. She advised that a contractor had attended the same day for the intercom but was “unable to do the intercom because they thought I had one in the property and just needed repairing”.
The resident sent further text messages, emails and phone calls between 28 July 2022 and 8 August 2022. The landlord’s records detail that it phoned the resident on 29 July 2022, though it is not clear whether the phone call was successful. The resident was chasing up the landlord regarding compensation and a repair that was required to her fridge.
The landlord’s housing officer emailed the resident on 11 August 2022 to advise that it had considered the resident’s request for compensation. It advised that “it is good that issues are now resolved relating to your property”. However it recognised that the resident “incurred much inconvenience in having to report problems and also wait in for various contractors who didn’t always resolve things at the first visit”. It offered £150 compensation comprising £100 for the resident to get painting and decorating materials and £50 as a “goodwill gesture”. The landlord would drop off a spare set of keys. The email did not detail that this was in response to the resident’s complaint of 19 May 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 August 2022 reiterating her concerns. In this she detailed:
1. A summary of the repairs previously raised and the issues she had experienced as “it’s apparent most of it has been disregarded by your organisation while assessing my compensation”.
2. She advised that her tenancy had started on 10 February 2022 and on “16 February 2022 I had already raised concerns/repairs that needed to be carried out in the property and it’s been ongoing since to present if I am quite honest”.
3. She felt “utterly insulted with the level of compensation granted to me and failed as a tenant who has endured continuous hardship with my flat since moving”.
4. She explained that there had been a “missed appointment, coming back and not completing the job (being lazy about it)”. The fact she had to “book time off for contractors”. She advised of “miscommunication and no knowledge of the repair”. She felt that she was “not being heard when communicating with your organisation about issues that are affecting my daily life in my flat that I rent and pay for without fail every month despite the flat was ruled as inhabitable”.
5. She requested an “appropriate level of compensation”. She referred to the landlord’s repairs policy and the fact that her repairs “were not completed within 20 working days”. She stated “several appointments have been missed and rescheduled”. This had “resulted me losing money at work which I should be compensated for”.
6. The ongoing issues for the “past six months” had been “emotionally exhausting and quite distressing”. She remarked that she just wanted “a resolution and to be able to enjoy my flat – I’ve not been able to do that since I moved into the property which really upsets me given how much I pay to live here”.
7. She attached a picture of the hot water cylinder and advised that “the flooring colour has changed significantly” since the landlord’s housing officer visited on 22 July 2022. She was “unsure if it’s leaking or this is the condensation/mould that is getting worse in the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2022 with a stage one acknowledgement apologising for a late response. It advised that “due to the seriousness of your concerns” it had decided to respond officially “through our complaints procedure”. It would respond “in writing within ten working days”.
On 22 August 2022 the resident sent a text message to advise of an attempted break in at the property whilst she was away. She requested a phone call as she advised that she did not “feel safe” and was unable to “sleep in the flat anymore”. The landlord’s records show that a call back was made by the landlord on the same day.
The resident sent a further text message to her landlord on 24 August 2022 requesting a phone call regarding a repair to the door and also rehousing. The landlord’s records show a phone call was attempted by the resident on 24 August 2022. A works order was raised on 24 August 2022 to “carry out splice repair to damaged frame to ensure that lock and door are secure again”. The work was marked as complete on the same day.
The landlord emailed the council on 25 August 2022 to advise that the “mechanical extraction system has still not been repaired”. It stressed that “it is very important there is adequate ventilation as there are no windows” to “the bathrooms”.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 26 August 2022. In this it detailed:
1. Following the “numerous interactions you have had”, it felt that the housing officer had “tried hard to resolve the issues you have highlighted as they have arisen”. However, it apologised for the “many issues” that the resident had to “deal with since you moved in on 10 February 2022”.
2. It updated with regard to the outstanding repairs. It had reported the vent to the council on 10 March 2022 and was going to chase this up with the council. It advised that there was “confusion over the issue of no water coming from the kitchen tap”. It stated that it only became aware of this on 27 May 2022. It advised that it had been “complicated with various contractors involved”. It had arranged work to fix the “hot water pressure in kitchen and bathroom” on 28 April 2022. However, it had been “unhappy” with the contractor and had instructed another contractor who completed work on 21 June 2022. It accepted a service failure for the delay. It had fixed the double socket on 7 July 2022 on a “recall”. It had installed a new hot water cylinder on 1 June 2022 “after we were aware of a leak on 6 May 2022”. It had “different contractors saying different things which added to the delay”. It apologised for the inconvenience and the “inadequate hot water caused”. It advised that the “increased cost to you will be part of our compensation”.
3. It offered £624.12 compensation. This included £224.12 covering 26 days “we were aware” of the water issue in the kitchen calculated at “30% of the daily rent for loss of use of the kitchen”. It awarded £250 for the “general distress” for the “number of repair issues and service failures”. It awarded £150 already offered for the decorating and goodwill gesture.
The resident chased up the landlord via text message on 26 August 2022. The landlord’s record show a further call back was attempted by the resident on the same day but it was a missed call.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 September 2022 following a visit to her home that morning. It would “discuss your request for increased compensation, in the form of two rent free months due to water loss in the kitchen” internally. It would also chase up outstanding repairs with the council for the vent, it would repaint the bedroom and hallway, carry out further repairs “to the door frame following the attempted break in” and see if it could increase security.
The resident’s solicitor emailed the council on 2 September 2022 to advise that it was acting on the resident’s behalf. It referred to the offer made by the landlord of £624.20 and two months’ rent free” which was offered “as compensation for the distress caused by the ongoing repair issues” at the resident’s property. It advised that the resident did not think that the compensation was sufficient. It reiterated the resident’s complaint issues. It advised that “given the toll it has taken on her mentally and physically, our client feels that your offer is woefully inadequate and seeks compensation of at least £10,000”. It advised that the resident may consider referring her complaint to this Service, or “legal action”.
The landlord sent a follow up to its stage one response on 6 September 2022. In this it stated that in order “complete the complaint” the landlord advised; that it would chase up the council regarding the vent, it would repaint the bedroom and hallway and carry out further repairs to the door which it understood had been completed on 6 September 2022, it would consider adding a “London bar” to the door and provide the resident’s housing file. It had increased the compensation offered within its stage one complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2022 to request an escalation of her complaint to stage two and to request a copy of her housing file. She did not go into detail regarding the complaint in this email and gave permission for her solicitor to act on her behalf. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord’s internal email of 9 September 2022 requested a stage two reviewer. It advised of the background to the resident’s complaint. It advised that the property was one of around 200 properties it managed. It advised that the council “are responsible for all external and structural repairs”. It advised “a number of repair problems” became apparent “at an early stage of the tenancy”.
The landlord emailed the council on 15 September 2022 to chase up the previously reported repairs and to request an update. It advised that “the tenant in question has put in a series of complaints about the condition of the property and this is one aspect of the complaint which is currently at stage two of our process”.
The landlord made a referral on 27 October 2022 following a surveyor’s visit regarding damp and mould. In this the landlord advised that the “tenant’s complaints are related to poor quality decorating works rather than issues of damp and mould”. The landlord’s visited the resident on 14 November 2022 and recorded “no issues found”.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 9 November 2022. In this it detailed:
1. An apology that the resident “felt the need to raise a complaint”.
2. It reiterated the issues raised by the resident in her complaint.
3. In respect of the report of “no working intercom” it apologised for “the issues you’ve encountered”. It confirmed that “the intercom should have been working when you moved into the property”. It explained it was the council’s responsibility to undertake the work. However, it “should have been picked up during any void works”. It was “not clear from all the information” “how soon it was reported to Lewisham and why it wasn’t repaired until 22 July 2022”. It acknowledged a “service failure”. It offered £50 compensation “as a goodwill gesture”.
4. It had reported the vent to the council on 10 March 2022 “as again this is their responsibility”. Its stage one response had advised that this would be followed up. It acknowledged a service failure “as it shouldn’t have taken so long”. It offered £50 compensation “as a gesture of goodwill”. It stated that “if this repair is still outstanding” for the resident to advise the landlord.
5. It apologised for the issue of “no drinking water/cold water in the house for two months”. It advised that this was “brought to our attention on 27 May 2022 and repaired on 21 June 2022. It was satisfied that the compensation offered of £224.12 was “in line with our procedure”.
6. In respect of the “hot water pressure in kitchen and bathroom” it advised that a “job was raised on 23 March 2022 and a mutually agreed appointment booked in for 28 April 2022”. It was “not happy with the report submitted by the contractor and so we sent another contract who fixed the issue on 21 June 2022”. It advised that the issue “proved more complicated than originally envisioned”. It apologised for the “inconvenience”. It awarded £100 compensation.
7. In respect of the resident’s report of “mould/condensation on walls” it advised that it “did not feel there was an issue with mould on the walls”. However, during investigation it had identified that “the painting of the walls was not done to a high enough spec”. It had offered £100 in compensation. It had “decided to get contractors out to do this instead”. It offered a “gesture of good will of £40”.
8. It advised that the sockets in the bedroom were fixed on 7 July 2022.
9. It advised that the “hot water cylinder leaking which result in stain/mould on carpet and inadequate showers, resulting in loss of money to cover electricity” was brought to its attention of 20 May 2022. It advised that on “1 June 2022, a new hot water cylinder was installed”. It apologised for the “inconvenience that the inadequate hot water caused”. It advised that it would “usually ask for proof of extra top up to the electric meter or a comparison bill to show the increase, but given the circumstances and to avoid further delays, I am offering £60 in contribution towards increased electricity bill”.
10. It advised that “there are lots of lessons that we can learn from your experience to alleviate a repeat of these issues for future tenants”. It advised that “a post void inspection should be carried out on the property”. This should contain “a checklist of things to look out for and signed off as ‘seen and in good working order”. It would take this up its “voids team” to “ensure this is done on all properties”.
11. It awarded a total of £914.12 compensation. This included:
  1. £100 for service failure for the delays to the intercom and vent repair.
  2. £224.12 for the loss of use of kitchen.
  3. £50 as an original gesture of goodwill.
  4. £100 for service failure in respect of the delay in repair to water pressure.
  5. £40 as a gesture of goodwill with regard to the painting to the walls.
  6. £60 towards the electric bill.
  7. £60 for missed contractor appointments.
  8. £250 for “general distress caused”.
  9. £30 for “delay in stage two response”.
The landlord’s damp surveyor attended on 11 November 2022. The surveyor’s report with photographs stated that the “resident states there is damp, mould and mushrooms on the walls and beds however on visual inspection no issue noted”. It reported that “marks on the wall appear to be poor paint job”. It stated that “marks on the bed appear to be stains not mould”. Protimeter readings were taken and photographs showing the readings on different walls in the property were described by the surveyor as “normal and consistent with base readings”. The surveyor stated that the reading for the bathroom was “as expected”. The report stated that the “resident says there was a leak from the water tank, the leak is now rectified and carpet is completely dry to touch”.
The resident referred her case to this Service on 11 November 2022 in which she reiterated the repairs and advised that it took the landlord “over six months to complete” these. She advised of the impact on her health and wellbeing and that the property was still in disrepair with issues of “mould, damp condensation and asbestos”. She queried why it took the landlord 10 months to send a surveyor regarding this. She wished the landlord to compensation her for “financial loss” and to “refund my full rent”.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord emailed the council again on 8 December 2022 to request an update on “the faulty mechanical extractor fan”. It reported that it had reported this on “three separate occasions but it is still not working”. The landlord’s records of an internal meeting of 8 February 2023, detail that the issue with the fan “may be outstanding”. It details that the resident was due to move out of the property the following week.
The landlord advised this Service in an email of 22 February 2023 that the property had been let to “an acceptable standard”. It advised that “a number of minor issues were identified after she’d moved in, which would not have been apparent during the void period”. It advised the property had since been vacated by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of the condition of the property and repairs required to the property.

The resident was signed up to her tenancy on 9 February 2022 with a tenancy start date of 10 February 2022. This was prior to the landlord’s lease commencement date with the council and could have exposed the landlord to risk if, for any reason, the council did not proceed with the lease, or if the resident moved in and there was then an unforeseeable event such as fire or flood prior to the lease commencement date. This was significant as the resident’s agreement was unlawful at the time it was signed. It meant that the resident was not protected in terms of her rights under the tenancy agreement. It could have also left the resident in an untenable situation of remaining homeless if for whatever reason the council reneged on the lease. Although it transpired that the resident was not affected by her tenancy agreement commencing at a time when the landlord did not have responsibility for the property, this was a service failing due to the risk to the resident’s tenancy status and rights for the few days prior to the landlord’s lease commencing with the council.
The landlord noted the need for a post void inspection in its stage two response of 9 November 2022, but failed to acknowledge that one had actually been completed on 26 January 2022. The landlord failed to provide the resident with the outcome of its post void inspection which detailed the condition of the property against its letting standards. This was therefore a failing of the landlord.
The inspection carried out by the landlord on 26 January 2022 did not detail the issue with the intercom. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this was checked at this time, though the landlord’s complaint responses indicate that it should have been. It recorded that the sockets in the lounge/studio room were in “good” condition. Though this does not indicate that they were actually working. Again the landlord’s record keeping was not sufficiently robust to give accurate information that would have helped to understand the condition of the property and to answer the resident’s subsequent concerns. This again was a service failing.
Following the resident’s initial reports of repairs to the property of 14 February 2022, and 17 February 2022 the landlord’s response was slow and a works order was not raised until the following month on 10 March 2022.
The landlord provided a suitable update to the resident by email regarding her repairs on 10 March 2022. However, it put the onus on the resident to contact the landlord if the council had not responded regarding the mechanical vent. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord given its repair obligations to the resident to have sufficient oversight of the completion of the repairs that were the council’s responsibility and to track these through to completion. No record has been seen of the initial report to the council concerning the intercom that the landlord referred to in this update indicating record keeping issues.
When the resident reported the issue she was having with mould on 13 April 2022 the landlord’s initial response was dismissive suggesting that if the resident did not have her heating on the issue of condensation would be “exacerbated”. It did not visit the resident on the agreed appointment date of 29 April 2022 and understandably, given the resident was not expecting a visit, she was not in. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident in advance given the change of date to check if the appointment was convenient. No records have been seen that this happened.
The fact that the extractor fan was not functional would exacerbate any issues with condensation and mould in a property, and furthermore the landlord advised that there were no windows in the bathroom so it was even more important to ensure that the fan was functioning correctly. No records have been seen that confirm that the bathroom extractor fan was ever repaired following on from the resident’s initial report from 16 February 2022. Whilst the landlord reported this to the council initially on 10 March 2022, the landlord failed to adequately keep track of the repair and to follow this up more urgently. The landlord failed to appropriately “liaise” with the council in line with its lease and policy. This issue was clearly outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage two response on 9 November 2022. This evidenced communication issues prevalent in this investigation between the landlord and the council who had responsibility for this repair. The landlord did not seek confirmation from the council to commit to a particular timeframe that it could have then passed on to the resident.
The landlord delayed sending its surveyor who did not inspect the property for damp and mould issues until 11 November 2022, seven months later, despite the resident raising the issue several times. This was an unreasonable delay from the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould on 13 April 2022.
The resident reported leaks from the cylinder on 3 May 2022 and to which the landlord raised a works order on 6 May 2022 and reportedly carried out repairs on 19 May 2022. This would have also caused damp issues in the property. Whilst some work to repair a “containable leak” was undertaken within a reasonable 20 working day timescale from the works order raised on 6 May 2022, on 19 May 2022, it was not clear from the landlord’s records whether the leak was in fact resolved given the resident’s subsequent email of 19 May 2022 that indicated that it had “not been traced”. The landlord’s records need to be clear that the leak had been remedied.
The landlord’s organisation and management of its contractors to undertake the repairs to the cylinder and tank was inadequate and its record keeping again was insufficiently robust to demonstrate exactly what work had been undertaken and when. Its records were unclear regarding exactly what work was undertaken on 10 June 2022. Whilst it is appreciated that the landlord experienced issues with a contractor, its procurement and appointment process needs to be sufficiently robust to ensure the quality of work to be undertaken. It needed to ensure full oversight and management of the work to be undertaken, given the complexity that it described in this work to resolve the repair issues.
It is important for the landlord to keep accurate and complete records to ensure that it has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and fittings within the property, enabling outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enabling the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) provides a number of recommendations that the landlord should use to improve its record keeping practices.
The landlord has since developed a damp and mould policy dated 13 February 2023 which is a positive step in tackling damp and mould issues and in line with recommendations from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report – It’s not Lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report one year on (2 February 2023). It developed a process map though this was from November 2022 and was not in place at the time of the resident’s report of damp and mould. The Spotlight report was however published in 2021 and this should have given the landlord sufficient time to develop its policy and procedure earlier.
There was delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of 27 February 2022 regarding issues with the water pressure. The works order was not raised until 10 March 2022 to investigate the issue. There was also delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of 3 May 2022 of only boiling water coming out of her tap. Whilst the landlord advised in its complaint response that it only became aware of the issue on 27 May 2022, the resident had clearly reported this earlier. The landlord’s stage two complaint response advised that it had raised the works order on 23 March which was a different date to the one reported earlier.
The resident advised that she had been without drinking water from 28 April 2022, however no records have been seen of a report from this date from the resident specifically about the drinking water. Despite this, the landlord was fully aware that there were issues regarding the water and water pressure on 3 May 2022 and it failed to fully investigate the issue. If it had conducted a proper investigation the issue of the drinking water could have been resolved at an earlier point. It was concerning that the resident reported “boiling water” coming out of taps only at this time that could have also been a scolding hazard and yet there was no sense of urgency from the landlord to carry out repairs. The repairs to fix the water pressure issue were not completed until 21 June which was 33 working days later and considerable outside the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. A loss of drinking water (essential to life) should necessitate an emergency repair response or the response timeframes indicated in the landlord’s policy above under the Right to Repair.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consider an offer of “an alternative studio flat” due to the circumstances that were being experienced by the resident with the ongoing repair issues. However, this was not offered until 6 June 2022 after “works that we were hoping would rectify the hot water issues at the property have not done so”. It also offered help with moving “any heavy items” and the apology was certainly warranted. As the resident was vulnerable with mental health issues that the landlord was aware of, it should have considered whether she could remain in the property at an earlier point, especially given the lack of amenities in the property that were evident to the landlord at least from 3 May 2022.
The landlord had provided no good reason why the works order for the additional work in relation to the tank was not raised until 10 June 2022 again indicating a lack of urgency in completing the work which was leaving the resident without basic amenities.
Following the resident’s report regarding the plug sockets made on 14 February 2022, it took the landlord 52 working days to repair the sockets on 28 April 2022, which then subsequently failed. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the contractor required or reported a need for further authorisation concerning the possible “break in the electric circuit”. In any event the landlord reported that the sockets were repaired on 7 July 2022 so in total the work took 99 working days to resolve. This was unreasonably delayed.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability in progressing the repairs in a timely manner. It was poor that the resident was left without basic amenities over a seven week period with regard to the repair to the water pressure. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues and had been advised by the resident of this. The landlord therefore should have considered at an earlier point any support or actions that it could take given these vulnerabilities rather than leaving her in a property with multiple ongoing repair issues, including the lack of a reliable water supply. It should have considered at an earlier point as mentioned whether it would have been more appropriate for the resident to be temporarily decanted whilst the work was completed. It is not surprising that the resident was ”shocked and disappointed” in the landlord’s response.
There were further communication issues and record keeping issues concerning the intercom system. The council may have incorrectly assumed a handset was present, and the landlord failed to track the progress of the work required to fix this issue. This cause considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident who reported the issue after she moved into the property on 14 February 2022. Communication with the contractors was the council’s responsibility for this repair under the terms of the lease and clearly the fact that there was no handset had not been relayed to the contractors in attendance, neither the scope of the work required. The landlord reported that the issue was fixed on 22 July 2022 which was 110 working days after the resident’s report which was an unacceptable delay, granted that this was the council’s responsibility. Nevertheless, the landlord should have ensured that it liaised with the council to ensure the earlier completion of the work.
In summary, the landlord started the resident’s tenancy prior to the commencement of its lease with the council which exposed both landlord, council and the resident to risks if there had been any unforeseen event which was poor practice. The landlord was unaware that a post void inspection was completed and did not share the outcome with the resident. This indicates shortfalls in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the condition of the property. The landlord’s communication and record keeping was not robust and this meant that the repairs required to be undertaken by the landlord and by the council were not progressed or tracked. The landlord failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerability in its consideration of the timescale to carry out repairs in line with its policy above, and as to whether it was appropriate for the landlord to remain in the property. It should have considered this at a much earlier point. The landlord unreasonably delayed the repairs and failed to ensure that the repairs that were the responsibility of the council were progressed and completed. These issues combined amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord failed to recognise that the resident had made a complaint on 19 May 2022 despite the resident stating that the email was “for the attention of everyone that is included in this email chain” which included the landlord. This was despite the landlord’s own complaints policy recognising that the word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used. This was not logged or acknowledged at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process which was unreasonable. The only acknowledgement was sent by the council on 26 May 2022. The landlord needed to properly liaise with the council with regard to the complaint handling and consider whether a joint response would be appropriate given the cross cutting nature of the issues raised by the resident. No record has been seen of any discussion or communication with the council regarding this possible route.
The resident’s subsequent expressions of dissatisfaction were made on 27 May 2022 and 30 May 2022 where she specifically expressed the desire to raise a complaint. She referred to legal advice and a request for compensation. This was clearly more than a service enquiry and the landlord failed to follow its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s (published 9 March 2022). In both documents the definition of a complaint which is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents” as mentioned above. The landlord referred to the resident’s complaint in its email of 16 June 2022 so this evidenced that it was fully aware that the resident had made a complaint.
The landlord only acknowledged the resident’s complaint formally on 17 August 2022, 62 working days after the resident’s complaint was made on 19 May 2022 which was considerably outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales. It finally decided that due to the “seriousness of your concerns” it would treat the matter as a formal complaint. It was clear that the resident’s serious concerns had been raised much earlier and in her formal complaint. Given that the resident was vulnerable the landlord should have identified a complaint had been made and ensured that it expedited its response to her complaint. It should review its approach to dealing with vulnerable residents to ensure that their voices and concerns are heard and actioned. It was clear from the volume of communication that the resident was desperate for her landlord to deal with the issues she raised and yet the landlord was slow to act and respond even though a complaint had been made.
The evidence leads to the conclusion that the landlord was reluctant to raise an official complaint. It is not clear why this was the case, however poor oversight, record keeping and communication has featured in this case throughout this investigation and this is another example of these issues. The amount of texts, emails and phone calls made by the resident were evidence of the ongoing distress that she was facing due to the delays and inaction by her landlord.
The stage one response was sent on 26 August 2022, which was 90 working days after the resident raised her stage one complaint of 19 May 2022 which was completely unreasonable and only after the resident pursued her complaint on 13 August 2022. The landlord’s response was ambiguous about how it was dealing with the resident’s complaint up to this point.
The resident’s escalation request of 8 September 2022 was acknowledged in line with the landlord’s complaints policy timescales the same day. However, the stage two response was delayed and not sent until 9 November 2022 which was 43 working days later. The stage two response did not give any certainty with regard to the repair needed to the extraction fan and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the council so it could give a more definitive reply regarding this. Whilst the landlord offered compensation of £914.12 this does not, in the opinion of this Service, adequately reflect the distress, detriment, inconvenience, and time that the resident experienced through the landlord’s failings. The number of repair issues that were ongoing and the impact of these on the resident, along with the level of contact by the resident in trying to sort the issues with her landlord was significant.
It is not clear why the landlord advised this Service in its email of 22 February 2023 that “a number of minor issues were identified after she’d moved in, which would not have been apparent during the void period”. As mentioned a voids policy and procedure would set out the standards that are to be achieved and any repairs issues could be properly identified and rectified prior to a property being let. If the issues were minor the resident would not have been left without drinking water for an extended period of time, or basic facilities. The landlord clearly recognised that the issues were not minor in its communications as the resident had been offered an alternative property.
In summary, the landlord failed to log the resident’s formal complaint of 19 May 2022 at stage one or progress this in a timely manner leaving a vulnerable resident without answers to the many issues she was experiencing causing further detriment to her. Communication issues were evident and the complaint response at stage two did not give a definitive response with regard to the repair required to the extractor fan, for which it needed to liaise with the council. It failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage one until 17 August 2022 which was 62 working days after the formal complaint was made. The delays in responding to the resident’s complaint caused additional time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matters. These failings cumulatively amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property and repairs required to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord started the resident’s tenancy prior to the commencement of its own lease with the council, exposing all parties to an element of risk, in the event of any unforeseen event, or in the event that the council did not sign the lease. Its record keeping was insufficiently robust so that it was fully aware of the condition of the property and could refer to this evidence when required. The landlord unreasonably delayed the completion of the repairs reported by the resident. It failed to ensure oversight and management of its contractors and it failed to liaise with the council to ensure completion of the work to the intercom and the extractor fan. The dysfunctional fan meant that there was insufficient air circulation in a room with no window, that would exacerbate damp issues within the property. It failed to remedy the issue with the electrics. It delayed the completion of work to the cylinder and water pressure and left the resident without access to basic facilities for a period of seven weeks. Despite its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities it failed to consider the suitability of her remaining in the property whilst repairs were to be carried out at an earlier point and at the time when the resident had little access to facilities in the property.
The landlord failed to recognise or log the resident’s complaint on 19 May 2022, despite her advising that this complaint was for “all parties”. It delayed logging the complaint at stage one until 17 August 2022 which was three months later. This was despite the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on several occasions, and her request for compensation. Its stage two response was delayed by two months. Its approach to the complaint handling and delays were significantly outside its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology from a director level or above. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £2,950 in compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £2,250 in respect of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property and repairs required to the property.
  2. £700 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and request for compensation.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identify learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Resident’s Panel outlining at minimum:
1. The learning points identified from this case and what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in dealing with repairs where a third party is involved, its approach in dealing with vulnerable residents and its approach in respect of the repair, management and maintenance of temporary accommodation. This should set out a clear timescale for actions, overall case management and oversight by named postholders and a monitoring process.
2. The intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 2 – Accessibility and Awareness, Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles and Section 5 – Complaint Stages with reference to timescales. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
3. The intentions and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website).
4. The intentions and a timescale to develop its voids management policy and procedures. This should also set out its approach to post void inspections.

Recommendations

It is recommended that
1. Share this report with Lewisham Council for its own learning.
2. During the course of its review of its service level agreements with local authorities, consider obtaining legal advice on the scheduling of its tenancy agreement and lease start dates within its temporary accommodation process.
3. Consider updating its Property Inspection Form to include an assessment of the property’s intercom, where applicable.