Orbit Group Limited (202203675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203675

Orbit Group Limited

27 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs required in the property including cold floors, cold walls and issues of damp and mould.
2. Report concerning flooring coverings and that the landlord had fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 that the resident was not happy with.
3. Report of damage to her personal belongings such as the sofa and TV after contractors fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018.
4. Associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(m) and 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s report concerning floor coverings and that the landlord had fitted nonmatching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 that the resident was not happy with.
2. The resident’s report of damage to her TV and sofa after contractors fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018.
Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. The resident’s report concerning floor coverings and that the landlord had fitted nonmatching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 that the resident was not happy with was considered by this Service in its determination of 30 March 2021 (case reference 201906190). The resident may wish to consider taking further legal advice on this matter if she wishes to pursue it.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. The resident’s report concerning damage to her personal belongings such as the sofa and TV after contractors fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 was not brought to the attention of this Service until 2022.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a bungalow.
According to the tenancy agreement the resident is required to pay the weekly rent. The resident is required to “grant access as and when required” and to “promptly report to us [the landlord] any disrepair or defect for which we are responsible either in the property or the common parts”. The internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident.
According to the tenancy agreement the landlord is required to maintain “the structure and outside of the property including the roof, outside walls, floors, windows, windowsills, drains, gutters and external pipes, chimneys and flues and chimney stacks”. It is required to maintain the “internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plaster work, skirting boards, doors and door frames, doorjambs, security equipment (but not painting and decorating”. It is required to maintain “kitchen and bathroom fittings”. It is required to maintain installations “for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation (including sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings) and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas and electricity (but not plugs or non-association appliances”. It is required to maintain “heating and water heating equipment and electrical equipment and installation”. This consistent with the landlord’s repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy details:
1. It has a “zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. It takes a “proactive approach across all areas of our business to ensure issues of this nature are not seen as acceptable and we ensure that support is offered by us to our customers to ensure that any issues are resolved satisfactorily”.
2. It will “treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy”.
3. It will “ensure accurate records are kept when reports of damp and mould are made”. A “risk rating will be determined in line with current regulations (e.g. Housing, Health and Rating Safety System, Decent Homes Standards etc)”.
4. It will “ensure that our responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. Its “inspections and responsive repairs to diagnose and alleviate damp… will be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible in accordance with the responsive repairs policy”.
5. It will “promote the benefits of our complaints process and the Ombudsman to our residents as an appropriate and effective route to any resolution required”.
6. It is “committed to engaging with third party specialisms/partners and will utilise their services as appropriate in order to provide an effective resolution to damp and mould issues, fuel poverty concerns and aftercare solutions that will be of benefit to our customers”.
7. It will “embrace new technology solutions regarding the diagnosis and management of damp, mould and condensation concerns”.
The Decent Homes Standard requires social housing to free from dangerous category one hazards as set out in the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Social housing must be in a reasonable state of repair and provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. Thermal comfort requires “dwellings to have both effective ventilation and efficient heating”.
The landlord’s complaints policy in operation up until September 2022 was a two-stage policy. The policy was amended in September 2022. For both policies, the landlord will acknowledge complaints within five working days. At stage one it will respond within ten working days with a potential extension. It may extend the timescale for a response “initially by a further ten working days”. If more time is needed it will “contact the customer to discuss this and explain the reasons why”. The revised policy (September 2022) states that it will respond within ten working days “from the acknowledgement of a complaint”. For both policies it will aim to respond at stage two within 20 working days. It may extend the deadline if the review requires “a more in-depth investigation”. In this event it will “contact the customer to advise when we expect to be able to respond to the request for review”. The landlord’s policy states that it would not consider “issues that have been previously through our complaint procedure, or that happened over six months ago, unless there are valid reasons as to why the issue was not raised sooner”.
The landlord’s compensation policy details:
1. Statutory compensation referencing the Right to Repair which is applicable to secure tenants of local authorities.
2. Compensation and redress “if a customer has experienced quantifiable loss as a result of any incident we are responsible for or anything else we have failed to do”.
3. It advises residents should take out home contents insurance. It may compensate if damage is “as a direct result of something we have done or failed to do”, if the damage is the result of an incident in another property we own, and the incident is our fault”. Any claim should be made by a resident “within one month of the incident that caused the damage”.
4. It may award compensation “if the standard of service we provide is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect”. It will “only pay it if the customer has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience”.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines; emergency repairs are carried out within “four and 24 hours), routine repairs are to be carried out within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are major repairs “that are grouped together and included within stock investment programme”. If a damp and mould case is reported, “we will conduct a risk assessment” to determine “whether a repair is required”. If a repair is required it will be raised “on the relevant priority in line with our damp, mould and condensation policy”.
The resident referred to an earlier complaint that was determined by this Service on 30 March 2021 concerning “failures in handling the repairs at the property” for which maladministration was found. This included a leak in the kitchen and damp. She had advised the landlord that the damp had been an ongoing issue since she had been decanted (temporarily moved) and moved back into her property in June 2018. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to her landlord of 20 July 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. The resident’s earlier complaint has been referenced within this report’s summary of events. This is to provide some further context as the landlord was still in the process of evidencing its compliance with the orders that had been made. This issue has not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment of the current complaint.
The resident raised further complaint issues after her stage after the landlord logged the stage 1 complaint. One of the issues that was raised by the resident at a later point, concerned a lack of ventilation in a newly installed combined door and window unit in the lounge. This Service wrote to the landlord with this additional point, however, by this time the landlord had already issued its stage two complaint response on 20 July 2022. The landlord therefore raised a further stage one complaint in respect of the lack of ventilation in the combined door and window unit. As its response at stage one and two to the new complaint referred to matters that had already been discussed in its final complaint response, this has been summarised in the summary of events below. The landlord’s approach to this complaint issue has been considered in the assessment and findings section of this report.

Summary of events

The landlord raised a works order for a new combined window and door unit on 6 April 2021. The work was marked as complete in the landlord’s records on 14 April 2021.
The resident phoned the landlord on 4 June 2021 regarding the new window and door unit. The resident advised that it did not have any vents in it and as she had issues with damp and mould she was concerned that no vents would make the damp worse. The resident requested a call back. The resident phoned the landlord again on 8 June 2021 to chase up the call back.
The landlord raised a works order on 9 June 2021 to install three trickle vents into the newly fitted lounge door and window combination unit.
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 June 2021 as she was unhappy that the works order had not been raised as per a phone call that the landlord had made “the other day”. The landlord’s records do not detail this phone call.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2021 regarding the lack of trickle vents. The landlord’s records indicate that the contractor was only aware of a recall for the door vents the previous week. The contractor had informed the landlord that the triple glazing was “specifically requested” by the resident. The contractor stated that it did not order a unit with trickle vents as it contradicted the triple glazed element. It would have to drill 10mm holes into the new frame and cover this with the vents. It had left a voice mail for the resident to explain this.
The resident phoned this Service on 23 June 2021. She advised that the landlord was due to arrange an inspection but that this was outstanding. This was in relation to repairs that were outstanding from the resident’s previous complaint determined by this Service on 30 March 2021.
The resident phoned the landlord on 24 June 2021 regarding the lack of trickle vents for the combination unit in the lounge. She advised that she had been expecting a visit from the contractor. The landlord advised her that the contractor had reported that trickle vents were not needed for the window. The resident requested a follow up call.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2021 to request confirmation from the landlord and a copy of any letter sent to the resident “setting out the details and outcome of the inspection, including when the inspection took place and when any repairs were completed”.
The works order that was raised for the trickle vents to the lounge combined door and window until was marked completed on 6 July 2021 in the landlord’s records.
The landlord’s internal emails of 7 July 2021 outlined that this Service had contacted the landlord to chase up the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs. It advised that the resident be contacted to arrange an appointment and detailed that “this cannot be up for discussion or a question of responsibility if we do not do this now we will receive a failing order from the Housing Ombudsman Service”. The landlord confirmed internally by email that an inspection had been arranged with the resident for 14 July 2021.
The landlord instructed a contractor on 15 July 2021 to carry out a damp and mould survey to “identify causes of damp and mould and any rising damp”.
The landlord raised a works order on 15 July 2021 following the resident’s report regarding “pipes in bathroom and toilet leaking”.
The landlord raised a works order on the same day regarding the back door advising that a new back door had been fitted but it “does not sit flush with the bottom frame – there is a large gap between door and frame”.
In an internal email of 15 July 2021, the landlord outlined the resident’s “list of repairs”. It advised that this would be shared with this Service “to shut down the order from their side”. This detailed the following:
1. A works order had been raised for a damp and mould survey. Its damp survey was “to cover any issues of rising damp coming through the carpet”. The “quarry tiles in front of window may be removed depending on damp survey report”.
2. That there “is no need for trickle vents on the triple glazed window”. Its contractor advised that “this would be counterproductive. Customer needs to open window to ventilate”.
3. It had raised a works order to deal with an issue that the “door that does not sit flush” in the lounge.
This works order regarding the leak in the bathroom was marked as completed on 4 August 2021. The works order regarding the back door not sitting flush with the bottom frame was also marked as complete in the landlord’s records on 4 August 2021 but not charged for.
The damp survey works order was marked as completed on 4 August 2021. The undated survey indicated “suspected rising damp to the back external and side elevations”. It recommended damp proof injections, the installation of a “whole house loft ventilation system”, and the installation of two new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It detailed the resident’s report concerning cold walls and floors in the property and recommended cavity wall insulation and a “further investigation to the sub floor”.
The landlord chased up its contractor by email on 11 August 2021 with regard to the issue already reported with the resident’s back door. Photographs were sent to the contractor who was informed that this Service was investigating the resident’s complaint and that the resident was “reporting insects are getting in from under the door because of the gap”.
The landlord raised a works order on 11 August 2021 as a recall in connection with the leak from the toilet as a “part was fitted and resident told it need to bed in but it’s not and still leaking into the bowl. Resident is on water meter so urgent”. The work was marked as completed on 6 September 2021. The record details “follow on materials required”.
The resident phoned the landlord on 20 August 2021 as an appointment had been cancelled by the contractor on 16 August 2021 for the leak from the toilet. She advised that the plumber attending that day did not have the materials to undertake the work. She was unhappy as she had been assured by the contractor that the repair would be undertaken that day.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 August 2021 concerning some outstanding repairs as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In this letter she advised of two missed appointments on 14 and 24 June concerning the vents for the combined window and door unit. She advised that the contractor had attended on 4 August 2021 regarding a “toilet leak in bowl”. She advised a washer had been put in the cistern but it was “still leaking water into bowl”. She stated that the plumber due to call had been sick on 16 August 2021 and an appointment had been rescheduled to 20 August 2021. She stated on arrival that the plumber was “very offhand” and had “lifted the cistern, went outside to make two calls”. He “said it had to be rebooked, whilst still on phone and left”. A contractor had arrived on 24 August 2021 regarding the window vents. She stated that the contractor “took a high-power drill and made holes in window”. She was “fed up with waiting in for nothing”. She asked “when is a plumber coming to sort the toilet”.
The landlord chased up the contractor again on 31 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 concerning the works order for the back door not sitting flush with the frame.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 3 September 2021 stating that it had sent “two different installers out and both have said there is no problem” with the door. “They believe the customer is comparing the door with her neighbour”. The contractor advised “they are just not the same” and that the “gaps may be bigger than on an old timber door but all the seals are in place and performing as they should”.
The resident phoned the landlord on 6 September 2021 to check an appointment was going ahead for the toilet. The landlord confirmed the appointment.
The landlord’s internal email of 6 September 2021 stated that it had received the damp survey. In an internal email of 7 September 2021, the landlord advised that a letter would be sent to the resident to confirm the works that would be undertaken. In an internal email of 9 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that the work being undertaken would be to:
1. Inject the external walls with a chemical damp proof course;
2. Repoint the external wall;
3. Treat and clean mould in bathroom and kitchen.
4. Install a loft ventilation system.
5. Install new extractor fans in bathroom and kitchen.
It raised a works order on 9 September 2021 instructing the recommended works from the damp survey.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2021 following the resident’s letter of 24 August 2021. It advised that it would not be installing trickle vents into the combined window and door unit. This was due to the fact that the “new doors and windows are triple glazed, there is no requirement to install the trickle vents”. It advised that its subcontractors had attended to look at the door and confirmed that “there are no issues with the door and therefore no further repairs will be carried out”. It advised that its contractor had attended the property with regard to the toilet leak and had confirmed that there was no fault found with the toilet and “that the previous repair had resolved the issue”. It advised of the work that would be undertaken to the property following the damp survey as set out in its internal email of 9 September 2021. It advised that “no further damp surveys will be carried out at the property, as we have identified the cause of the matter and are completing the above repairs to eliminate the issue”.
The landlord raised a works order on 13 September 2021 to request for the “toilet to be replaced”. It stated that the resident “reports that the toilet is now dripping from the rim of the bowl inside from two places”. The work was marked as completed on 16 September 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 September 2021 concerning a voice message she had received that someone would be calling regarding the toilet. However, she had not heard anything. The landlord did not have a record of the appointment. The resident advised she was very unhappy with how the repair had been dealt with. The resident requested an update following the damp survey that had been carried out on 11 August 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2021 advising that she wished to make a formal complaint. This detailed:
1. The landlord had failed to deal with a leak from the toilet. It had sent contractors on several occasions. She reported that one contractor initially fitted a washer, an appointment was then cancelled and rearranged. Another contractor reportedly said “job can’t be done no parts”. A further contractor had called and “tightened something”. She reported that the water was dripping “either side now constantly”. She advised that a further contractor fitted another washer reportedly stating “wrong one put in”. She reported that the same contractor returned and advised a new cistern was required, however he advised that as the “toilet is all rusted up” it would need to be replaced and would be reported.
2. The resident had not received any results from the damp surveyor who she stated had called on 11 August 2021. She asked if he had been asked to “look at the floors for cold and damp”. She advised that the kitchen cupboards were damp and wished to know what was going to be done to address these issues.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had contacted the landlord on 7 October 2021. She had advised that contractors had been out with regard to the toilet six times and each one had not finished the work. She advised that she had sent two letters complaining. The landlord’s records indicate it was “unaware if they have reached us”. It asked for a call back as complaint was due to be raised.
The resident’s councillor emailed the landlord on 15 October 2021 with a complaint on behalf of the resident. This concerned a leak to the toilet “between the cistern and the bowl”. The councillor advised that it had been reported “some months ago” and that “five separate workmen have turned up and, despite promises to return or arrange for someone else to repair the leak, it is still leaking and there is now wet permeating the plaster and the property smells damp”. The councillor advised that “for a simple repair to a leaking cistern it does seem ridiculous to take over two months to arrange and repair the leak”. The councillor requested a response and also a response to be sent to the resident.
The landlord emailed internally on 19 October 2021 as it had been contacted by the local authority who advised that it had been receiving phone calls from the resident relating to issues from 2016. It had explained to the local authority that it would “only to complete the works ordered by the Housing Ombudsman”. The local authority had advised that the resident stated that “her flooring is freezing cold”. It stated that the local authority had agreed that “we have done mostly all we can to resolve the issues, by replacing the flooring and underlay”. It advised that the local authority was “aware of the numerous visits made” to the resident’s property. However, it stated that the local authority had asked if “any neighbouring customers have complained about the same issue”. It had been requested that the landlord carry out a “welfare check” to “finalise with the customer that the works already completed (replacement underlay and flooring) are satisfactory and the property is not freezing cold”.
The landlord’s property manager advised in a further internal email of 19 October 2021 that he was “not sure what another visit will achieve here apart from going over and over everything again” with the resident. It advised that a letter had been sent “outlining what we will and won’t do”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2021 stating she had “written two letters to the complaints department” to which she had not had a response. She referred to her leaking toilet. She advised that she had sent a complaint on 14 July 2021. She advised that the first appointment was 4 August 2021 and after “six in all – problem not solved”. She stated that the “last appointment was 20 September”. She advised that the landlord had told her that “a new toilet would be put in” however “I have heard nothing”. She advised that the water company had told her that she was “using the equivalent of seven showers a day, 1,383 cups of tea and 415 pint a day (sic)”. She advised that her water usage was up “24 percent since April”. She wished to be “compensated for all the stress and misery and cost of the water I have lost”.
The resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 25 October 2021 with regard to her complaint raised by the councillor on 15 October 2021. In this she advised that she “had no response from anybody”. She referred to the issue raised concerning the toilet in which she advised that the contractor had told her that “he would put in for a new toilet as this one was rusted in so much he could not fit a new cistern in”. She asked for compensation for water loss that she was paying for as a result of the water leaking.
1. She raised an issue concerning “cold floors” in the property. She referred to a letter that she was expecting to receive but stated that she had not received this. She referred to a list of repairs given to the landlord on 14 July 2021. She requested a copy of a “structural engineer’s report” following a visit to inspect for damp in the property. She advised that “it is like a wind blowing up from the floor, never mind how much heat is on, never mind all the damp I have here still”. She also advised that the walls were cold in the property.
2. She advised that she had been “living in the bedroom for 3 years” and that she “should be able to sit in my home and feel warm and comfortable”.
3. She requested a response to her letters and questioned “what is the communication problem”?
The landlord chased up a response to the complaint in an internal email of 25 October 2021 after it states a phone call had been made by the councillor the previous week. In a further internal email of 26 October 2021,the landlord advised that the toilet had been repaired on 17 September 2021. A request was made for the resident to be contacted to “confirm if the toilet is still an issue”. The records detail that a phone call was attempted to the resident which went to voice mail. An internal email referred to the resident’s letter of 25 October 2021 citing the last appointment referred to by the resident of 20 September 2021. The email advised that an order had been placed for a new toilet.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint acknowledgement letter on 26 October 2021 to the councillor who raised the complaint on behalf of the resident. It advised that the resident had “reported this issue in July 2021 and has several visits since to rectify the issue however, this is still ongoing”.
The landlord raised a works order on 26 October 2021 to “arrange an urgent install of a new toilet cistern”. The work was marked completed on 29 October 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2021 advising that she was dissatisfied with the work undertaken to install the new toilet and that it was not flushing properly. The landlord issued a recall to its contractor on 1 November 2021 to resolve the flushing issue. The work was marked as completed by the contractor on 24 November 2021. A further works order was raised on 1 November 2021 to request follow up work to “make good the tiles behind the toilet”.
The landlord’s internal emails of 4 November 2021 detailed its intention to carry out a joint visit with the local authority. It detailed the recommended works following the damp survey that had been carried out. It reiterated the work that would not be carried out with regard to a trickle vent being installed in the new combined door and window unit and the realignment of the back door.
The landlord’s internal emails of 5 November advised that the resident had phoned and an inspection had been booked on for 12 November 2021.
In a further internal email 15 November 2021 regarding the joint visit with the local authority, the landlord stated that it had not heard back from the resident concerning the date “but it is still the plan to do a joint inspection”. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether any inspection took place on 12 November 2021.
The landlord advised in another internal email of 15 November 2021 that the local authority had been in touch as it had been receiving calls from the resident. The local authority had referred to the resident’s reports that he flooring was “freezing cold”. The landlord stated that the local authority had agreed that the landlord had “done mostly all we can to resolve the issues, by replacing the flooring and underlay”. It referred to “numerous visits” that had been made that “confirmed the flooring was not cold”. The local authority had asked the landlord to see if other neighbouring residents had complained about the issue. It had also asked the landlord to undertake a welfare check and to “finalise with the customer that the works already completed (replacement underlay and flooring) are satisfactory and the property is not freezing cold”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 19 November 2021. It advised that it was upholding the resident’s complaint concerning the leak from the toilet. It sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on the same day following the councillor’s email of 15 October 2021. It understood that the complaint concerned the “delays in repairing the leak from your toilet and bowl”. In this it detailed:
1. It had become aware of the leak on 15 July 2021. Appointments had been scheduled for “4 August 2021, 16 August 2021, 20 August 2021, 6 September 2021 and 20 September 2021”. It advised that two of these appointments on 16 and 20 August 2021 had been cancelled “due to unknown circumstances”.
2. It advised that “our contractors have reported the issues had been resolved following their visits”. It had understood that the “main issue lies with the cistern being rusty which has caused the further problems in resolving this issue long term”.
3. It arranged for the toilet to be replaced and the work was completed on 29 October 2021. However, “further works are being carried out to your toilet due to the toilet not flushing”. It advised of follow on works that had been scheduled for 25 November 2021.
4. In respect of the cold flooring, it would arrange a further visit to inspect the flooring after “the works have taken place so they are able to identify if there are any further issues”.
5. It agreed “there has been service failings”. It apologised for the “inconvenience and upset this may have caused. It offered compensation of £596 comprising £70 “gesture of goodwill payment for the identified service failings”, £20 for missed appointments, £106 “calculated at £1.00 per day from 15 July 2021 to 29 October 2021 and £400 “gesture of goodwill payment for the distress and inconvenience caused”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage one. She advised of cold and damp that remained in the property. She advised of the survey that had been carried out by a surveyor that year and that the surveyor had advised of “some outside work” which would be completed. She stated that a recommendation to install a loft system was not appropriate as she “would not be able to pay for the system”. She advised that “the cost of electricity has doubled”. She advised that she did use the extractor fan but that “a stronger one would be helpful in the kitchen”. She advised of security concerns if she was to “leave the window ajar” to ventilate the property and this would be especially the case “at night”. She stated that she “had been moved out twice and the problem has not been resolved”. She advised that she was “ignored and left with cold and damp, as if it was my fault”.
The resident phoned the landlord on 24 November 2021 as she was very upset after some contractors had turned up following her cancelling an appointment. She reported that the contractors had been rude to her and upset her. She reported that the contractor said that he would not do anything with regard to the toilet. She wanted an update from the landlord.
A works order was raised by the landlord on 25 November 2021 to renew the toilet cistern with a “low level cistern which would cover the tiles and have a better toilet seat”. It was marked as complete on 10 December 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2022 concerning her complaint and outstanding matters. She referred to previous letters she had sent to the landlord she advised were dated 25 October 2021, 20 November 2021 and 5 December 2021. She referred to the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 19 November 2021 which stated that if she wished to “discuss this matter further to contact”. She advised she did contact in writing and “left a message with your colleague who sent you an email, all within the specified time”. She advised that she had also “telephoned on two consecutive days last week and your colleagues sent an email and stated that they would request a call back” however she had not had a response. She believed the landlord had ignored parts of her letter of 5 December 2021. She detailed:
1. A request to clarify whether accepting compensation with regard to her complaint concerning the toilet would “then negate the other topics”. She referred to the cold floors and damp. She advised that “tenants should not have to pay for some contraption put in their property which at present costs around £60 to run, which will be double as the prices rise”. She asked why the landlord continued to ignore her reports of cold floors.
2. She restated that she was unwilling to have the system installed in the loft due to the cost. She advised that the damp surveyor had referred to work to inject “into the brickwork to try to stop the rising damp”. She advised that if the contractor “had not told me the thing would have been installed without me knowing the cost” which she felt was “very underhand”. She had rang the contractor the previous day to ask when the “injecting the brickwork would begin” however this did not seem to be referred to. She advised that she had also written to the repairs manager to state that she “would not be able to afford the cost of the thing to be put in the loft”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 to advise that she had some outstanding work with regard to damp in the property. She advised that she had people out but that the job was not completed and the damp has come back. She requested a call back.
The landlord’s records detail that damp works were completed by 23 February 2022. The record does not detail what specific works were undertaken.
The resident called in to speak to the landlord on 18 March 2022 as she wanted a copy of the damp survey report. She was also wanting to chase up her complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that an internal email was sent to the complaint handler. It also detailed that a copy of the damp survey was to be posted to the resident that day.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2022 referring to her previous letter of 11 January 2022 – stating “no response” from her landlord. The resident advised that she had not heard anything after being advised by the landlord’s contractor that work had been completed at the property. She advised that she had requested a copy of the surveyor’s report which had not been provided. She advised that “the floors are so cold and a draught blowing up”. She stated the “extractor fans are not adequate” and referred again to the issue of cost concerning the “air ventilation system purifier. She advised that “no one from Orbit sent me any paperwork or communicated with me”. She advised no one had rung her or responded to a letter and email. She referred to the issues she had previously raised of “no vents to allow damp out of the windows” and referred to the door which “does not fit” and that “insects get in”. She advised of “damp next to patio window, which was only rendered”.
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 25 April 2022 to request an update. It enclosed the letter from the resident dated 11 April 2022 above.
The landlord emailed internally on 6 May 2022 concerning a visit that it had made to the resident’s property on 4 May 2022 with the local authority. It summarised the outcome of the visit. It would install “two new extractor fans in bathroom and kitchen to replace the current ones. It advised “as a gesture of goodwill we will treat and clean the mould off the walls for the customer”. It advised that there were “no obvious building defects and the issue from condensation we believe is down to customer lifestyle”. “Having storage heaters set to low (17/18c) and drying clothes inside without ventilation”. It had raised works orders for “mould wash and installation of new extractor fans”.
The landlord raised a works order on 6 May 2022 to “treat and clean mould in bathroom, kitchen, lounge and bedroom”. It also raised a works order the same day to remove the existing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and to install new high-performance fans.
The local authority emailed the landlord on 13 May 2022 as it wished to discuss the report from the joint visit undertaken on 4 May 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 May 2022 as she advised that she had not received the landlord’s stage two response to her escalation request of 11 January 2022 and a further chase up on 11 April 2022. The resident had referred to issues concerning inadequate floor insulation throughout the property, her report of insufficient ventilation of a patio door and the landlord’s complaint handling. She wished for the property to be inspected, for patio door trickle vents to be fitted and for the complaints procedure to be followed and a written response to be provided in a timely manner. This Service therefore wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2022 outlining the issues the resident had referred to.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 27 May 2022 to confirm that the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two had been sent to the relevant team but that it had not been completed. It would update this Service once it had investigated the issue.
The landlord wrote to this Service again on 31 May 2022 to advise that it had sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
The landlord’s acknowledgement letter of 31 May 2022 detailed that it would respond by 30 June 2022. It could see that the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response “in November 2021”. It added a list of other points that the resident had raised in her letter. This included:
1. Tiles have been stripped on the kitchen wall.
2. Damp in the property.
3. Water dripping from windows.
4. Damage caused to the resident’s sofa and TV.
5. Cold floors within the property.
6. The resident had stated that the incorrect lino that had been laid in the kitchen.
7. A request for a new toilet to be installed.
The resident phoned the landlord on 7 June 2022 asking if someone would be attending to drill holes in the floor as “recommended by the surveyor”. She asked for an update. The resident phoned again on 13 June 2022 to ask why no more work was to be done at the property.
The landlord raised a works order on 14 June 2022 to remove the existing extractor fans “in bathroom and kitchen and fit two new high performance fans”. A variation request was submitted by the contractor on 21 June 2022 and this was approved by the landlord on 4 July 2022.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 28 June 2022 regarding the damp survey recommendation from 11 August 2021 to undertake a further investigation into the sub floor. It asked if another contractor may be able to carry out some tests.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 July 2022 to advise her that it was extending the timeframe for a complaint response at stage two by ten working days. This would mean a response would be issued by 29 July 2022. It advised that this was because it was “still investigating your issues, to ensure a full and final response is provided”.
The resident phoned the landlord on 7 July 2022 regarding her floors. The landlord’s records detail a note made on 13 June 2022 and that the call could not be transferred to the property manager. It details that the resident was advised that if she was not happy she could file a complaint and then go the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 July 2022 as she stated that she had not received a response from her landlord to her stage two complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2022 to request a response in line with its complaints procedure. A response was requested by 20 July 2022. The landlord responded the same day to advise that it had extended the timescale for its response and enclosed its letter to the resident of 4 July 2022.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2022 referring to the previous request for action of 24 May 2022. A second request for action on the resident’s complaint was made requiring the landlord to respond to the complaint no later than 20 July 2022.
A external surveyor carried out an inspection at the resident’s property on 18 July 2022 regarding damp. This detailed that there was evidence of condensation, damp or mould growth in the property. It detailed that “the cistern is too big for the space it occupies”. It detailed that “the floors in this room and throughout the property are notably cold under foot, the window and door to the rear garden is triple glazed, but the door is too short and leaves a gap below, no damage to walls and ceilings”. It details in one room that the windows are operable but seals are starting to deteriorate”. It detailed that there was “mould growth around window reveals, some on ceiling and external wall junctions and some low down on external walls. Strong smell of damp from cupboard under sink”. It details that there were trickle vents in the lounge windows.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 July 2022. In this it detailed:
1. The resident’s report of the leaking toilet cistern of 15 July 2021 had been repaired on 29 October 2021 “after several appointments”. It had been decided that “a new cistern should be fitted to ensure there were no further issues”. The new toilet was fitted on 10 December 2021.
2. With regard to the resident’s report of the “wrong floor being fitted”, it was “an appropriate flooring type and was replaced correctly”.
3. It had “raised several works orders relating to damp and mould at your property, first in September 2021 and again in May 2022”. It was aware that “some of these are still outstanding” and an apology was given that “these works have not been completed sooner”.
4. Rendering works had been arranged for July 2021. This was “pushed back to December 2021 and finally completed in January 2022 due to a large backlog”. It “took considerably longer than it should have”.
5. With regard to the resident’s report of “cold flooring” “there are no further works needed”.
6. It offered £842 compensation comprising £42 in respect of the delays attending to the toilet leak, £50 for “inconvenience caused during leak repairs”, £270 for “delays resolving the damp issues”, £150 for “inconvenience of having to chase completion of these works”, £180 for “delays completing rendering” and £150 for “delays in escalating and responding to your review request”.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 28 July 2022 to advise that it had phoned the resident who had stated that she was not happy to have “that mould stuff sprayed around again. They have done it before and it don’t work” (sic). It reported the resident was not happy that the rooms would not be decorated after the works. It cancelled the works order and asked the landlord to raise a new works order “once tenant allows access and is happy with what is to be done”.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2022 to advise that a stage two response should be sent no later than 3 August 2022. Failure to meet the deadline could result in the Ombudsman issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The letter set out an issue reported by the resident to this Service concerning damage to the resident’s personal belongings such as the sofa and TV.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 4 August 2022 to request that the landlord issue its stage two response no later than 11 August 2022. The landlord was advised that failure to meet the deadline would result in the Ombudsman having to take further action. This could including issuing and publishing a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The landlord wrote to this Service the same day enclosing its final stage two response of 20 July 2022 above.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response of 20 July 2022 and referred her complaint to this Service on 10 August 2022. She advised this Service that the landlord had not addressed her report of dripping water from windows in its response. She also had advised that she had mentioned cold walls to her landlord and the patio door not reaching the floor which was allowing insects to enter the property. To remedy she wished the landlord to install double glazed windows with trickle vents, to renew the patio door and to carry out work originally recommended by the surveyor.

Events following the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord’s records indicate that the work was to install the two extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom was completed on 18 September 2022, three months after the order was raised.
The resident’s MP sent a letter to the landlord on 21 September 2022 to raise a further complaint with regard to the resident’s request for a copy of the damp survey from August 2021 and to highlight issues with damp flooring. The landlord acknowledged the MP’s complaint request on 23 September 2022.
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 27 September 2022 with regard to the resident’s reports of “ongoing issues with the flooring being cold and also the patio doors and windows”. The MP stated that the resident had not received this. She had also referred to the complaint issues previously raised regarding the damp and cold floors.
The landlord’s internal emails of 27 September 2022 stated that the landlord had visited the resident’s property and it stated that it had “done everything we can”. It reiterated the work that had been carried out including the extractor fans and a kitchen and mould wash. However, it advised that the resident had refused the mould wash. It was considering “having floor tested” and was chasing up a response about this. It stated that it “agreed its customer lifestyle that is a cause for the cold in her property
This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2022 to advise of the earlier letter to the landlord of 24 May 2022 discussing the issues raised by the resident in relation to “flooring, insulation, the ventilation through patio doors and the landlord’s handling of the complaint itself”. This Service referred to the landlord’s final complaint response letter of 20 July 2022 and that the response did not appear to address the ventilation issue with regards to the patio doors. The resident had also reported that the “water dripping from windows” and “cold walls throughout the property” which had not been addressed. This Service requested that the landlord respond in full to these points by 14 October 2022.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident’s MP on 4 October 2022. In this it detailed:
1. It understood that the complaint related to the issues the resident was experiencing in “getting the surveyor report which was completed on the property”. It also concerned “ongoing issues with damp flooring”.
2. It advised the MP that it had received correspondence from the resident concerning “ongoing issues with the dampness in the property and coldness of the flooring”. It advised that the resident had also “raised concerns with the back door and windows in the property and the lack of trickle vents”.
3. It had carried out a joint visit with the local authority to the resident’s property with some family members and “it was confirmed there was nothing wrong with the property”.
4. It advised that new flooring had been put in around 7 years’ ago including “new underlay and carpet”. It advised that there is nothing more that it could do to “assist your constituent further”.
5. It advised that a new patio window and door had been put in the year before with “new triple glazed glass”. It had been “confirmed by the manufacturer that trickle vents would neutralise the benefit of the extra insulation that triple glazing provides and so these would not be installed”. It advised that it had advised the resident to “open one of the two windows to allow air flow to enter”. It stated that this “could also be done on the safety latch”.
6. It stated that a damp survey had been carried out and as a result the “recommended works were carried out where applicable however, your constituent has confirmed that they would not have a loft ventilation system in the property due to the cost of running this. Therefore, this has not been carried out”.
7. The landlord advised that it did not uphold the complaint. It advised that a request for review could be made.
The landlord emailed this Service on 13 October 2022 in response to the email sent to it on 29 September 2022. It advised that it would raise a “new stage one for the patio door ventilation”. It advised that the resident’s original complaint had referred to one point concerning a toilet leak.
The resident maintained contact with the landlord sending letters on 23 October 2022 and 2 December 2022. She referred to the issues previously raised concerning damp in the property and the lack of ventilation in the triple glazed combined window and door unit.
This landlord was contacted by this Service on 14 November 2022 asking if a new stage 1 response in respect of the patio door ventilation had been responded to. A request was made for the landlord to respond in relation to the resident’s reports of cold walls and water dripping through the windows. The landlord wrote to this Service the same day to advise that the ventilation issue had been addressed in another response.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 December 2022 as she wished for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. This Service wrote to the landlord on 16 December 2022 to request it to escalate the complaint concerning the issue of poor ventilation meaning that the resident needs to fully open the window which at the time of year makes her very cold.
The landlord raised a works order on 9 February 2023 for a water leak under the sink. This was marked as deleted in the landlord’s records.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2023 to extend the timeframe for a stage two response to 15 March 2023.
The landlord in internal emails between 15 and 16 February 2023 advised that it had visited the resident and “raised a building pathology inspection”. The email did not state the date of the visit. It had organised “mould treatment”. It stated that the other issues raised by the resident are “historic issues”. It was “unsure we can ever make her satisfied with our response”. It suggested a phone call, however advised “we have done all we can”.
The landlord acknowledged a stage two complaint on 4 March 2023 regarding the ventilation due to the lack of trickle vents. It issued its stage two final response on 4 May 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning damp and mould. It referred to a “number of works” that had taken place.
1. It had “renewed flooring in the lounge – dug up concrete slab, resealed with damp proof membrane and put down three layers to help keep the heat in (vinyl, underlay and carpet)”.
2. It had replaced “large lounge window to prevent any draughts coming through”.
3. It had carried out an inspection on 24 January 2023 in respect of the report of cold flooring. It had inspected the property on 8 February 2023 and it was reported that there was poor ventilation “due to the fans being switched off to prevent heat loss”. It was also reported that the “storage heaters in the property were not being used, which has further contributed to damp and mould issues”.
4. It had attempted to address the mould by carrying out a “mould treatment”, however, it advised that the resident had refused this. It would arrange for a building pathologist to attend to complete a full inspection.
The building pathology assessment was carried out on 6 July 2023. This reported that trickle vents were installed in the windows. It reported that there were “raised relative readings” to the solid floor throughout the kitchen and in the bathroom that “could be related to historic or ongoing escapes of water, emanating from plumbing, waste/and or below ground drainage pipes, serving the adjoining bathroom area, requiring further investigation”.
The resident has since advised this Service that the landlord has obtained a government grant and has recently installed loft insultation in the property. It has installed a loft hatch and two further extractor fans which she advises are not intrusive and do not blow cold air in the property. It will be replacing all windows and doors in the property. She advised that the floor would need to be taken up in line with recommendations from an intrusive survey and that the skirtings would be removed in the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The lino would also need to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in the property including cold floors, and issues of damp and mould.

This investigation has considered the landlord’s overall response to the issues raised by the resident, whether it acted appropriately and in accordance with its own policies and statutory obligations, and its communication with the resident.
With regard to the patio door, the initial installation was carried out within a reasonable timescale after the works order was raised on 6 April 2021. It was completed on 14 April 2021. With regard to the issue of trickle vents, the landlord’s records were inconsistent. On the one hand, a works order had been raised on 9 June 2021 which was marked complete on 6 July 2021. However, its later communication advised that it would not install trickle vents and this was confirmed in writing to the resident in its letter of 9 September 2021. This indicated that there were some record keeping issues and the landlord should ensure that it keeps clear and detailed records. Accurate and complete records ensure that a landlord is able to monitor and manage outstanding repairs and enables it to provide accurate information to its residents. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) provides recommendations that the landlord could use to improve its record keeping practices.
It is clear that the landlord had checked with its contractor whether trickle vents were required in the newly installed combined window and door unit. This was a reasonable course of action so that the landlord could satisfy itself, on advice from a qualified installer, that this was not necessary. It did then confirm this in writing to the resident as mentioned. It confirmed its response to the issue in its further stage one complaint letter of 4 October 2022. However, as this Service had referred to the issue in the email of 24 May 2022 prior to the landlord’s stage 2 response being issued of 20 July 2022, it would have been appropriate at this point for the landlord to confirm its response to the issue. The changes to the Approved Document Part F of the Building Regulations requiring trickle vents to be installed in most replacement windows did not take effect until 15 June 2022 which postdates the landlord’s installation. It is understood that the landlord has since obtained a government grant to replace all the windows and doors in the property. It will then need to consider the relevant Building Regulations as stipulated.
The resident raised a further issue with the patio door on 11 June 2021 that this did not sit level with the floor. The landlord did not raise a works order until 15 July 2021 for this which caused delay in dealing with this issue. The works order was marked complete on 4 August 2021 but not charged for indicating that no work had been undertaken. The landlord did chase this up on a number of occasions with the contractor which was reasonable to do. The contractor finally responded on 3 September 2021 to advise the landlord that there was no fault with the door. This would explain why there was no charge for this works order and there were no further works orders or recalls for the door detailed in the landlord’s records. The position was then communicated with the resident in the written letter of 9 September 2021. There was delay in advising the resident, however, this was not solely the landlord’s fault. However, the landlord’s external survey highlighted the issue on 18 July 2022 and advised that the door was indeed too short for the frame. No record has been seen that any further action was taken on this issue and given a qualified surveyor had identified an issue with the door, the landlord was obliged under its repairing obligations to remedy this. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident’s report of the toilet leaking of 15 July 2021 led to an initial timely response in that the landlord raising a works order the same day. As the resident reported the issue again on 11 August 2021 a recall was issued. This was detailed on the landlord’s records as urgent, however, the works order was not completed until 6 September 2021. According to the landlord’s repairs policy this should have been completed within 24 hours and the delay was therefore unreasonable. With failed attempts to repair the toilet the landlord finally raised a works order to fit a new toilet on 26 October 2021 and the work was completed just outside of the emergency repair timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy on 29 October 2021.
Despite a new toilet being fitted, there was a defect reported by the resident on 1 November 2021 with the flushing mechanism which was making waste come back up. Following the recommendation to fit a new low-level cistern the work was marked as completed on 10 December 2021. This meant that the issue with the leaking toilet and the defect with the flushing mechanism took nearly five months to rectify. This was considerably outside of the landlord’s repairs policy above causing unnecessary distress to the resident, along with the time and trouble in pursuing the matter over this period of time. The landlord’s communication was inadequate and it failed to keep the resident updated about the reason for any delays and its progress in resolving the issue. The resident therefore had to unnecessarily pursue the matter with the landlord.
With regard to the issues of damp and mould, the landlord appropriately instructed a damp surveyor on 15 July 2021 in line with its policy above to make use of specialists and in line with an order set out in this Service’s previously determined report of 30 March 2021. The surveyor made a number of recommendations and after receipt of the report, the landlord acted quickly to raise a works order to carry out the recommended works. It also wrote to the resident on 9 September 2021 on receipt of the report, to advise her of the work that would be undertaken which was appropriate so that she was aware of what would be done. However, in this letter it advised the resident that no further damp surveys would be carried out as the cause of the damp had been identified and works would be carried out. This was not appropriate. Until the works were carried out, it would be unclear as to whether this would result in a lasting remedy to the damp and mould issues.
There was delay in the contractor carrying out the recommended works. The works order was marked completed on 23 February 2022 which was just over six months after the damp survey was undertaken. The landlord’s records were unclear as to exactly what work had been completed. It did not detail that any extractor fans had been fitted at this point. This again demonstrates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. The delay was unreasonable, and the resident was left for an extended period of time in a property affected by damp and mould. The installation of the two extractor fans was further delayed. The landlord’s records detail that the fans were not fitted until 18 September 2022. This was almost a year after the surveyor’s report and outside of its repairs policy timescales above. This was not the approach described in the landlord’s damp and mould policy with states that it has adopted a “zero tolerance” approach and that it would “ensure that our responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. There is no record that indicates a risk rating was carried out in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy above. The damp and mould policy outlined its obligations under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System, and Decent Homes Standards. The landlord failed to carry out work in a timely manner and this would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is recognised that one of the recommendations was rejected by the resident due to the cost, ie the whole house loft ventilation system. Records have not been seen that the landlord explained the benefits of the system and costs associated to help the resident to make an informed choice about this. The resident’s concern was understandable with the rising cost of energy. The landlord’s website refers to signposting for support and energy advice and this would have been an appropriate step for the landlord to take. However, no record has been seen that this was made available to the resident.
The landlord’s internal email of 6 May 2022 took the stance seen by this Service in other cases of damp and mould that the “issue from condensation we believe is down to customer lifestyle”. Whilst it is accepted that insufficient ventilation would exacerbate issues of damp and mould, the fact that the surveys identified the need for intervention, indicates wider issues. This email indicated that the landlord agreed to clean and undertake a mould wash “as a gesture of goodwill”. The landlord’s repairing obligations are clear under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as replicated in the tenancy agreement. It needed to further consider steps that needed to be taken to determine the cause of the damp and mould and the steps needed to resolve it.
The surveyor’s report from 18 July 2022 advised of a “strong smell of damp from cupboard under sink”. It would be expected from this report that the landlord would conduct a further investigation to ascertain whether all leaks were resolved. However, records have not been seen that this was investigated. A leak in the kitchen was part of the resident’s previous complaint determined by this Service in 2021. From the evidence provided, it is not clear that a lasting remedy has been found to this, or whether this relates to a new leak from pipework. Either way, further investigation was warranted. It is concerning that the landlord’s records show that it deleted a works order to investigate a leak under the sink which was raised on 9 February 2023. The records do not indicate why that was the case.
The pathological survey from 2023 has also referred to “historic or ongoing escapes of water from plumbing, waste/and or below ground drainage pipes, serving the adjoining bathroom area, requiring further investigation”. This was the position in 2023. This means that issues of damp that the landlord was blaming the resident’s lifestyle have been ongoing over a prolonged period of time. The evidence points to the fact that the root cause of the damp issue had not been sufficiently addressed.
It is positive that the landlord has introduced a damp and mould policy in April 2022 which as mentioned refers to a “zero tolerance” approach as recommended in this Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021). The Spotlight report and follow up report gives a number of recommendations that the landlord should self-assess against in considering what revisions may be required to its policy in light of the findings of this investigation. The government has recently published (7 September 2023) guidance on understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home. It is recommended that the landlord reviews this guidance and uses this to help inform its damp and mould policy review.
The resident’s reports of cold floors were mentioned in the initial surveyor’s report of 4 August 2021 where it was recommended that cavity wall insulation be considered and “further investigation to the sub floor”. The cold floor were also reported nearly a year later by the surveyor on 18 July 2022 who commented that the floors throughout the property were “notably cold”. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any action concerning the reports of the cold floor to determine the cause. As mentioned above the Decent Homes Standard requires landlord to ensure properties have a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. Thermal comfort requires “dwellings to have both effective ventilation and efficient heating”. The landlord’s communication on this issue was lacking and the landlord reported in its stage two complaint response of 20 July 2022 that no action would be taken without any explanation as to why this was the case. The landlord did ask its contractor if it could investigate this issue on 28 June 2022 and instruct a different contractor. However, no record has been seen that the issue was addressed by the landlord following this. This again was a failing by the landlord.
There was evidence during the investigation of the lack of communication by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s enquiries. The landlord’s records show a number of call back requests that were made by the resident but not responded to by the landlord. This evidenced a lack of empathy and a willingness from the landlord to address the resident’s concerns. The lack of communication is further referenced in connection to the resident’s complaint letters below.
In summary, the landlord took some action initially with regard to the replacement combined window and door unit replacing this within its repair policy timescales. However, there was delay in addressing the issue of the trickle vents, though the delay was not entirely the landlord’s fault. Whilst the issue with the length of the door was communicated by the landlord to the resident on 9 September 2021, its later survey of 18 July 2022 identified an issue with the door. Despite this, no records have been seen that the landlord did any further work to address the issue. The repairs to the toilet were delayed over a five-month period which was unreasonable. The repairs to remedy the damp and mould in the property were also unreasonably delayed, leading to the resident unnecessarily having to chase this up on several occasions and causing her distress along with the time and inconvenience involved. The landlord failed to follow its repairs policy timescales and repairing obligations. It failed to follow its damp and mould policy in its handling of the residents reports of repairs required in the property. It failed to address the issue of cold floors reported by the resident that was referenced by the surveyor on 11 August 2021 and again by the surveyor on 18 July 2022. Its communication to the resident was inadequate and it failed to appropriately respond to her call back requests and written communication. These failings combined amount to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Turning to the landlord’s complaint handling, the resident clearly asked for a formal complaint to be raised when she wrote to the landlord 25 September 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge this request. It was not until the councillor raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf on 15 October 2021, that the landlord acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2021. This was outside of its complaints policy timescales for an acknowledgement. Its stage one response was sent on 19 November 2021 which was 39 working days after the resident’s letter of 25 September 2021 and 25 working days after the councillor’s complaint submission and similarly outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord contacted the resident regarding the complaint to advise of any extension at this point, or to advise when she could expect a response, which would have been reasonable under the circumstances.
The resident’s escalation request to stage two was made on 22 November 2021. Whilst this letter did not specifically state that it was an escalation request, the landlord’s acknowledgement letter of 31 May 2022, six months later, referred to the resident’s letter sent in November 2021. This evidenced that it had received the escalation request at that point. The resident had to chase a response on several occasions to her complaint up until 11 April 2022. As she was getting no response from the landlord, she then felt the need to contact this Service. It would reasonably be expected that following a contact from this Service, that a landlord would progress a resident’s complaint. Despite being chased by this Service on more than 1 occasion, the landlord only responded to this Service on 4 August 2022 enclosing its stage 2 complaint response letter dated 20 July 2022. The stage 2 response took 165 working days after the escalation request was made by the resident. This was an unacceptable length of time for the resident to wait for a response.
The landlord’s communication during this extended period from 22 November 2021 to its final complaint response was inadequate. It failed to keep the resident updated on the subject matter of her complaint letters. She wrote several letters that the landlord did not respond to during this time, hence why she contacted this Service.
Prior to the landlord sending its stage two response, it incorrectly advised the resident on 7 July 2022 that if she was not happy she could raise a complaint or contact this Service. She had clearly done both of these things. The lack of adequate response by the landlord would have caused considerable inconvenience, time and trouble as well as unnecessary distress to the resident in having to chase the matter up on multiple occasions. The evidence clearly shows that there was poor communication with the resident in managing her complaint or responding to the resident in a timely manner as mentioned above.
Whilst the councillor’s complaint made on the resident’s behalf only contained one issue, the resident’s earlier letter of 25 September 2021 referred to the damp in the property. The landlord also advised on 31 May 2022 after being contacted by this Service, that it would add the other issues raised by the resident to its response at stage 2 of its complaints process.
However, in its stage 2 complaint response of 20 July 2022, the landlord did not address the issue of the ventilation, the issue of the length of the patio door, the lino and damage caused to the resident’s sofa and TV. The resident was clearly very concerned regarding the excess water usage as she mentioned this in her letter of 21 October 2021 and that this had caused her a quantifiable loss along with the distress of dealing with the situation. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord specifically addressed this loss. A complaint response gives a landlord the opportunity to fully answer the issues raised to resolve a resident’s complaint. Even if the issue was historic, it should have addressed this in its response.
After the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and omission of the issues raised, this Service had to once again write to the landlord. The landlord contacted this Service on 13 October 2022 to advised that it would raise a new stage 1 complaint concerning the patio door ventilation. This should have been addressed in its stage 2 response. The resident had then contacted her MP to progress the matter.
The landlord’s complaint handling was similar to the findings of this Service’s previously determined complaint for the resident of 30 March 2021. This detailed that the resident and this Service had to chase the landlord for a response. It would be expected that the landlord’s complaint handling would have improved as a result of the determination made. However, the evidence suggests that further improvement is required and that there may be wider systemic issues in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint gave the landlord the ability to extend the deadline for a response which is a reasonable approach where a complaint is complex. It did extend the deadline in its letter of 4 July 2022. Its revised policy dated September 2022 also gives this ability to extend a deadline for a response. However, as can be seen the failure to respond at all to the escalation was a considerable failing.
The landlord made an offer of compensation in its stage 2 response of £842. This included £692 in respect of the delays in carrying out the repairs and damp works and £150 for the delays in escalating and responding to the review request. This did not address the landlord’s failure to log and acknowledge the resident’s initial stage one complaint of 25 September 2021. It is the opinion of this Service that this does not adequately reflect the delays and the landlord’s handling of the issues detailed in this investigation.
The landlord’s revised policy is non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It now states that the landlord would aim to respond within ten working days “from acknowledgement of the complaint”. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to respond to a complaint at stage 1 within ten working days of the complaint being logged. The Code is now a statutory requirement. The landlord must therefore use the self-assessment tool to carry out an assessment of its policy and bring this in line with the Code.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling at stage one was delayed. It did not raise a complaint at stage one as requested by the resident in her letter of 25 September 2021. It decided to respond at stage one to the complaint when this was raised by the councillor. This unnecessarily delayed its stage 1 response to the issues raised by the resident. Its delays at stage 2 of the process were unreasonable leading to multiple contacts by the resident and this Service before the landlord responded at stage 2. Though the landlord advised on 31 May 2022 that it would add the resident’s further complaint issues within its stage 2 response, not all of the issues were addressed. This led to further contact by this Service and the resident’s MP and the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint. Further delays meant that a final response was not made until 16 May 2023. The delays and poor communication issues caused unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience, as well as distress for the resident in pursuing the matter. These issues combined amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made as detailed below.

Reviews of policies and practices

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving: leaks, damp and mould, repairs and complaint handling. The relevant cases, and findings, are set out below:
1. 202215754: We found severe maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests in connection with leaks, damp and mould. We found maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling;
2. 202122354: We found severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property;
3. 202115952: We found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of damp in the property and maladministration for complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation, where similar issues have been identified. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in the property including cold floors, and issues of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the resident’s associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report concerning flooring and that the landlord had fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 that the resident was not happy with is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(b) the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings such as the sofa and TV after contractors fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property, although the initial installation of the combined door and window until was completed within its repair policy timescales. There was delay in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the trickle vents, although this was not entirely the landlord’s fault. The repair to the toilet was unreasonably delayed, taking five months in total to restore a fully functioning toilet for the resident’s use. The landlord unreasonably delayed the completion of works to remedy damp in the property. The final work to install the extractor fans meant that it took nearly a year for the work to be carried out. The landlord initially responded to the issue reported with the fitting of the door, however, it failed to then respond following the report of the issue by its surveyor on 18 July 2022. The landlord’s response to the reported issue of cold floors was unnecessarily delayed and no evidence has been seen that it undertook further investigation into this issue. There were issues with landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s communication was inadequate leading the resident unnecessarily having to chase up the landlord to find out what was happening with the repair work.
The landlord failed to log and acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 25 September 2021. This caused unnecessary delay in providing its stage 1 response, in which it did not respond to the other issues raised by the resident on 25 September 2021. The delays at stage 2 following the escalation request made by the resident on 22 November 2021 were unreasonable. This caused considerable inconvenience, time, trouble and distress to the resident in having to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord failed to respond after being contacted by this Service on more than one occasion. The evidence showed that the landlord’s complaint handling had not improved following the previous determination by this Service of 30 March 2021, indicating that there may be wider systemic issues. Its response failed to include issues that it said would be included, as outlined in its acknowledgement of 31 May 2022 and as directed by this Service. This led to a further stage 1 complaint being raised by the landlord and further delays experienced by the resident in the landlord addressing the complaint issues.
For the reasons set out above and in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report concerning flooring, and that the landlord had fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 that the resident was not happy with is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above and in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings such as the sofa and TV after contractors fitted non-matching tiles in the kitchen in 2018 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a director level or higher for the failings outlined within this report.
2. Pay the resident £842 (comprising £692 previously offered and an additional £150) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in the property including cold floors, and issues of damp and mould.
3. Pay the resident £1,100 in respect of the resident’s associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the property, and to produce a schedule of works to remedy underlying causes of damp and mould, such as leaks from pipes and/or underground drainage, together with its investigation into the cold floors in the property. It should inform this Service within a further eight weeks of effective completion of the works.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred including:
  1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident;
  2. Why it failed to follow the advice of independent contractors and surveyors, and its related decision making processes;
  3. Its lack of transparency with the resident in communicating the results of surveys undertaken, and advising why it did not adopt the recommendations of its independent contractors and surveyors.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues from April 2021 to present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure;
3. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last six months with regard to leaks, damp and mould. Where findings of severe maladministration and maladministration have been made, the findings should be incorporated into the review, along with the relevant case reference number.
4. Review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately, raise quotations for approval with major revenue, and progress works orders in an efficient and timely manner, updating residents where required, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures;
2. Respond to formal complaints appropriately, and keep complaints about outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses must provide completion timescales, and should not require new complaints to be opened for the same outstanding issue. It should ensure all relevant officers respond in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code;
1. Ensure its future compliance with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. A self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review;
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 12 weeks respectively to confirm it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the recently published government guidance – understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home to help it to inform its damp and mould policy review.