Orbit Group Limited (202204426)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204426

Orbit Group Limited

6 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of water ingress into the property causing damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association. The tenancy started in May 2012.
The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her son.
This Service asked the landlord if it has any vulnerabilities recorded for the household. It replied, “n/a.” The resident told the Ombudsman that her son has respiratory problems and eczema.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence, she referred to historical issues of water ingress, damp, and mould within the property. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which took place. As the substantive issue becomes historical, it is increasingly difficult for the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
While the historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to more recent events following the resident’s reports of water ingress from December 2020 onward. Any references to historical incidents are for context purposes only and will not form part of the investigation or assessment of the complaint.
The resident said that the landlord’s actions impacted her son’s health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, this Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident and her family.
This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. Within this investigation, the Ombudsman has investigated events up to the date of the landlord’s final response of 22 August 2022. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions following its final response, it remains open for her to contact the landlord directly and raise a new complaint.

Landlord’s obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In determining whether a property is unfit for human habitation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the key question is whether a property is “not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition” because of several factors, which include repairs, freedom from damp, and ventilation.
The landlord’s complaint policy states “where a customer tells us that they are unhappy with something about our service, there are times when the quickest and most effective way to resolve this is informally outside of our formal complaint procedure. Where this is the case, we will discuss it with the customer, and will only ever resolve an issue informally with full and explicit agreement with the customer.”
The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaint policy. It aims to acknowledge all complaints within 3 working days. At stage 1, it aims to issue a response within 10 working days. It may extend this timescale by a further 10 working days if required. At stage 2, it aims to respond to all requests for a review within 20 working days. If it is unable to respond within this period, it will contact the resident to advise when it expects to be able to respond.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classifies repair requests in the following categories: emergency, routine and non-responsive. Emergency repairs should be attended within 4 to 24 hours. A routine repair should be attended within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are major repairs that are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may offer compensation if the standard of service provided is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect.

Summary of events

The landlord’s call log shows that between May 2012 and December 2021, the resident called the landlord more than 20 times to report an ingress of water into her property from the property above. These calls took place between 2012 and 2014, with further reoccurrence in 2016 and 2017. More recently, reports were made from 28 December 2020 and throughout 2021.
The landlord’s call records show that the resident contacted it about the water ingress on 28 December 2020, 25 January 2021, 19 March 2021, 20 May 2021, 17 June 2021, 3 July 2021, 18 August 2021, 24 August 2021, and 14 December 2021.
The resident made a complaint on 14 December 2021. She said:
1. The water leak caused damp, mould, and a damp smell within her property.
2. It caused health issues and affected her sleep as there was a constant dripping noise coming from inside the walls.
3. Contractors attended numerous times, but the leak was still not fixed.
4. Both her and her son experienced breathing issues and chest infections due to the damp and mould.
The landlord’s records from the date of the complaint state that the resident reported water ingress, bad mould, and condensation. It recorded that the property manager suggested faults with vents or gaps to the brickwork. At this time, it was noted as an ongoing issue causing ill health to the resident and her son.
A work order was raised on 14 December 2021 to investigate the above issue. This is marked as “deleted” on the landlord’s system as the order was raised incorrectly. This was followed up internally by the property manager but there is no evidence to show another work order was raised. The resident chased for a response on 30 December 2021. She said she felt the landlord was not taking the damp and mould seriously and reiterated it was causing respiratory problems within the household.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 February 2022 and 23 March 2022. She explained the problem was getting worse and she could hear water dripping inside the walls when it rained. She was concerned about her son. He had developed a rash on his neck and chest and was prescribed an inhaler. She felt this was due to the worsening mould within the property.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with an informal complaint response. It said it had reached a resolution regarding the leak on the bedroom ceiling. It apologised contractors did not contact the resident regarding their most recent visit. It explained the work order was raised against the block rather than the resident’s property. It said it could not give the resident any appointment details and said the issue had been escalated to its contracts manager. In addition, it asked the repair team to provide an update. It said considering the above, it had closed the complaint file.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She escalated the complaint on 23 March 2022.
The landlord raised an emergency work order on 23 March 2022. This was marked as no access, although the landlord’s records state no internal access was needed. A further work order was raised on 5 April 2022. The landlord’s records say that a contractor had previously advised external works were needed. The work order was marked as completed, however the related comments state it was cancelled.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2022 to acknowledge her complaint dated 23 March 2022. It promised to keep her updated.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord’s call log shows the resident contacted it to follow up. A further repair appointment was arranged for 26 May 2022. Records show the contractor did not attend on this date. The resident was dissatisfied as she took the morning off work, yet no one contacted her to reschedule the appointment.
The resident was informed a new complaint handler had taken over the case on 27 May 2022. She was promised a call back by 1 June 2022. There is no evidence within the call log to show the resident was contacted.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 June 2022. She said the landlord had not detected the source of the water ingress and had not responded to her request to escalate her complaint. The same day, the resident’s councillor wrote to the landlord about the ongoing problem.
A surveyor attended on 8 June 2022. The resident said the surveyor took photos and marked the damage on the ceiling and walls so it could be assessed if the leak was getting worse. The landlord raised a work order to address the cause of the leak in a neighbouring property. However, there was some confusion about whether a missing air vent was also responsible for some of the problems experienced by the resident.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord removed flaking paint from the resident’s window box and applied a mould treatment to all accessible areas. The landlord noted further works were required once the water ingress was resolved.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2022. It said:
1. There was limited information about when the resident first reported the problem to the landlord, however it estimated it was around a year ago.
2. She had made many phone calls to request updates and chase up the works.
3. There were discrepancies between different areas of the business regarding which works were required to provide a solution.
4. On some occasions, it was recommended that rendering was carried out to the external walls, while on other occasions contractors were instructed to investigate potential issues with the roof. None of the suggested works resolved the issue.
5. It arranged for an area inspector to investigate on 8 June 2022. Following this, it determined the cause of the water ingress was from the balcony of the property above and decking that was installed by previous residents.
6. Works were raised as a temporary measure. These included:
  1. mould wash
  2. stain blocking treatments
  3. removing all flaking paint and plaster.
7. Further works were raised to be carried out on the balcony above. Once these were completed, further remedial work to the resident’s property would be assessed to ensure the damp and mould did not return.
8. It acknowledged and apologised for the excessive delays, identifying the cause of the problem. It awarded the resident £70 compensation to reflect the service failure and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 21 June 2022. She said:
1. She needed a specific time frame regarding the works to the balcony above.
2. Her home had extensive damage, causing distress to her family and physical harm to her son.
3. The issue persisted for 2 years, and she was not confident it would be dealt with in a timely manner.
4. The complaints process had taken over a year and not all the facts were considered or investigated.
5. The problems were first reported to a property manager in December 2020.
6. She felt she was entitled to a larger settlement to represent the impact on the household, the time she spent following up, her son’s health and the increased cost of heating a damp property.
7. She wanted specific timescales for the work to be completed, details of the person overseeing her case and the next steps in the complaint process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 30 June 2022 and said a final response would be issued by 22 July 2022.
The landlord requested an extension on 22 July 2022 until 5 August 2022. This date elapsed and so the resident chased for a response. The landlord issued its final response letter on 22 August 2022. It said:
1. There were multiple failed appointments before it arranged for an area inspector to attend the resident’s property and scope the required works.
2. The required works were raised, and the issue was resolved.
3. It upheld the complaint and awarded £407 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. failed/missed appointments: £80
  2. service failings: £70
  3. distress and inconvenience: £150
  4. exceeding repair timescales: £107.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 6 October 2022, an internal email from the area inspector said that following repairs to the upstairs balcony, they attempted to contact the resident for the internal repairs without success. It is noted within an internal email that the inspector assumed she had decided to do the redecorations herself. There is one entry in the landlord’s call log dated 6 October 2022 but there are no notes in the description box and no information about any outstanding tasks or call back requests.
In November 2022, the resident said the leak started again in one of the bedrooms. She explained between 4 November and 2 December 2022 that she made at least 10 calls to the landlord and left several voicemails with no response.
On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted her MP requesting support. On 8 December 2022, she received acknowledgement from the landlord promising a full investigation.
This Service has not been provided with full records of what happened during this period or evidence of the actions taken by the landlord. There are records of the landlord raising an inspection request on 19 December 2022 and 10 January 2023, but these requests were marked as closed and no work orders were raised.
The landlord raised a priority work order on 16 February 2023 to conduct a mould wash and treatment to window frames, seals, and surrounding walls. Stain block was applied. This was completed the next day.
The landlord raised another work order on 27 March 2023 following reports of an intermittent leak in the resident’s bedroom. The records provided show this was deleted. A note on the landlord’s system states the resident “called to advise that the leak is coming from the above balcony and has nothing to do with a leak in her bedroom. It is now affecting three properties, the balcony needs fixing, a plumber is not needed. It is a job that is going to take several days to fix and is not something that can be fixed by an emergency call out. We will be closing the job this side.”
The landlord issued a letter titled “complaint review post-stage 2” on 20 April 2023. It said:
1. Major works were completed from 20 to 21 July 2022. Follow up works within the resident’s home were not completed.
2. A work order was raised to adjust the balcony doors which were not closing correctly allowing damp and mould into the property. The doors were adjusted on 22 March 2023. A leak within the boiler cupboard was also resolved at this time.
3. It apologised for not acknowledging the resident’s concerns about her son’s health within the stage 2 response.
4. The landlord made changes with how stage 2 complaints were managed and it was confident that moving forward, all points within complaints would be addressed appropriately.
5. It was aware an outstanding leak was unresolved, and a work order had been raised to inspect this.
6. It was committed to following up with the inspection and ensuring that the recommended works were raised and completed successfully.
7. It reevaluated the compensation figure awarded at stage 2 and said it would compensate the resident:
  1. failed/missed appointments: £80
  2. service failings: £70
  3. additional service failings post stage 2: £70
  4. distress and inconvenience: £400
  5. exceeding repair timescales: £390
  6. poor complaint handling: £150
  7. overall poor customer service: £150.
8. The landlord said it would review the compensation if more work was required and said any remaining works would be completed within its timescales.
In summary, the resident was compensated £170 at stage 1 and £407 at stage 2. The landlord then increased the stage 2 compensation to £1310 within the post stage 2 review, making a total award of £1480.
Following the above, the resident said she contacted the landlord at least 6 times to chase for an update.
The resident contacted this Service again in July 2023. She said the landlord informed her the job had been completed and the case was closed. She explained she was still experiencing intermittent water ingress causing damage within her property and the landlord was not communicating with her at all. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to urgently contact the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2023 with a second post-stage 2 response. It said:
1. An appointment to investigate the leak took place on 24 April 2023. It was noted that a leak was coming from a privately-owned property above. Contractors were unable to gain access to inspect this property. This information was passed to the responsive repairs team. It apologised for the delay in contacting the resident and acknowledged the level of service was far below what the landlord expected.
2. An area inspector would visit the property alongside contractors to properly identify the issue and resolve any ongoing problems. The resident would be contacted within 7 working days to make an appointment.
3. The landlord has an ongoing repairs transformation project to overhaul its repairs process. It also created a new role within its complaints team to oversee appointments.
4. It awarded an additional £421 on top of the compensation offered within its stage 2 response and the first post-stage 2 review. This was comprised of:
  1. £70 to recognise the lack of communication following the appointment in April 2023
  2. £100 to recognise poor complaint handling and lack of oversight of the appointment previously raised
  3. £150 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused
  4. £101 to recognise the additional repair delay of 101 days.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 August 2023 to advise that she had not been contacted by the landlord and no inspection had taken place. She provided photos inferring recent mould growth internally and external photos showing staining/potential mould growth to the exterior of the property.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress into the property causing damp and mould.

The landlord’s records show the resident reported similar water ingress issues in 2012-2014, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2021. It is concerning the landlord has not evidenced the outcome from its previous investigations into the substantive issue or what actions were taken as a result. This is a significant omission. As similar issues had been reported during the resident’s occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the water ingress reported in December 2020 required active management and close oversight.
Based on the evidence provided, it is clear the landlord repeatedly failed to manage its investigation into the ingress of water and the subsequent repairs. The resident reported the ingress of water from the upstairs balcony in December 2020. The landlord’s first post-stage 2 response said major works were completed in July 2022, around 2.5 years later. This falls significantly outside of the landlord’s repair policy which states that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Follow up works within the resident’s home were not completed. It was inappropriate for the landlord to assume the resident would complete the internal redecorations herself. It provided no evidence that it attempted to contact the resident to follow up on the internal repairs.
There were avoidable delays in the landlord investigating the source of the water ingress. From December 2020 to December 2021, the landlord referred to a damaged air vent causing water ingress into the property each time it rained but contact notes from December 2020 and January 2021 also reference the water ingress being caused from the balcony of the flat upstairs. Within its stage 1 response the landlord referred to roof investigations and rendering to an external wall but evidence of this has not been provided to this Service.
The Ombudsman appreciates it can be difficult to identify the source of a leak/water ingress. This is why investigations must be managed effectively and handled with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously, proactively managed the investigations or completed a full survey at the earliest opportunity. Given the history of leaks, conflicting opinions of the cause, and unsuccessful repairs at the property, this Service would expect the landlord to check the quality of works throughout and ensure an effective and lasting repair had been completed.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the ingress of water into the resident’s property, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of this, repair logs, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Some of this information has been provided but this does not evidence the landlord’s decision making at the time. For example, the work order history supplied shows work orders to investigate reported leaks were raised multiple times. It is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment or why the work orders were closed, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord does not hold more detailed records and cannot evidence active management of the repairs.
The Ombudsman appreciates that due to data protection reasons, it is possible that the landlord would choose not to share records from the neighbouring property with this Service. Nonetheless, the landlord ought to be able to outline a timeline of events to explain its actions in investigating the leak and summarise its communications with the owner of the upstairs property and updates to the resident.
It is of particular concern that the landlord neglected to assess the property to consider its habitability, considering the length of time the resident and her family had been living with damp and mould and the number of rooms affected within the 2-bedroom property. The resident told the landlord that the environment contributed to higher heating costs, and she repeatedly made the landlord aware of her distress and the impact on her and her son’s health. There is no evidence to demonstrate the landlord considered the resident’s heating costs, the vulnerability of the occupants, completed a risk assessment, completed a damp and mould assessment, or offered interim support early on.
Despite the number of visits to the property, the landlord did not take steps to reduce the impact of the water ingress on the resident untilJune 2022 when it attended to scrape off flaking paint and plaster and apply a mould treatment as an interim measure. This was followed up by a mould wash and stain block in February 2023 (after the stage 2 response was issued).It is acknowledged that a work order was raised for a temporary repair in March 2022.However, there is no record of any repairs being completed.Considering the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess whether any interim measures could be taken early on to reduce the impact on the household or whether a decant was required. The landlord’s failure to consider these actions is a significant one and evidenced that it missed opportunities to actively listen to the resident and understand the impact upon her and her household. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord failed to treat the matter with the seriousness which it required, considering the condition of the property, the health and safety concerns raised, and how long the matter was ongoing for.
The Ombudsman also identifies that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout the case. The resident was not updated regularly and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates. The landlord did not evidence it had returned calls as promised and the resident was not provided with a schedule of works or an action plan with defined timescales. Further, there were delays responding to emails. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear her living conditions were impacting her son’s physical health and her mental health. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable household.
Considering the length of time that the resident and her family lived at the property where water ingress affected much of the 2-bedroom flat, the Ombudsman concludes that the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to address the impact on her. The landlord was put on notice about the problem in December 2020. As of 30 August 2023, the resident said the matter was unresolved. The landlord made 2 increased offers of compensation after the completion of the internal complaint process and whilst this shows it took further steps to address its failings, it was significantly outside of the complaint process. This demonstrates the landlord failed to achieve a resolution in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the actions promised in its second post stage 2 response have not been evidenced as taking place and as of the date of this report, the resident has said that she still does not have a date for a further inspection or remedial works. This is inappropriate and indicates a lack of oversight and ownership by the landlord.
The landlord has confirmed the resident’s weekly rent as:
1. £171.70 from April 2021
2. £178.74 from April 2022
3. £191.25 from April 2023.
The landlord has not evidenced the weekly rent charged from April 2020.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by this Service in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of amenity. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The order considers the weekly rent specified above up to the date of the stage 2 response of 22 August 2022. The Ombudsman recognises the resident reported further problems in November 2022, however this falls outside the scope of this complaint. The property is comprised of 2 bedrooms, a bathroom, and a combined kitchen and living room.
There was water ingress, damp, and mould to both bedrooms and the living area from 28 December 2020 to 22 July 2022, a period of 81 weeks. While the water ingress appears to have temporarily stopped in late July 2022, no internal repairs had taken place as of the date of the landlord’s final response. As such, the resident and her family had been living in poor conditions for approximately 86 weeks. Considering the size of the property, the number of occupants, the number of rooms affected by the leaks and the impact on the overall living space and enjoyment of the home, the Ombudsman concludes that compensation calculated using 15% of the weekly rent from 28 December 2020 to 22 August 2022 should be paid to the resident. This is based on 5% for each room impacted. As the landlord has not provided the rent for the entire period the matter was ongoing, the Ombudsman used an average weekly rent of £180.55, calculated using the information available. Therefore, the Ombudsman awards compensation of £2329.10 to recognise the loss of amenity caused to the resident during the period specified above.
The Ombudsman also considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident because of the landlord’s failure to remedy the ingress of water in a timely manner, its failure to treat the repairs with the appropriate urgency, its failure to acknowledge the household vulnerabilities, the missed repair appointments, and its poor communication throughout. In this case the Ombudsman considers the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident to be significant over a prolonged period. She explained that returning to a damp and mouldy home after work negatively impacted her mental health and wellbeing, on top of her concerns for her son’s health. Additionally, she reported that the frequent dripping within the walls and the strong scent of damp impacted her sleep. In recognition of the detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman requires the landlord to compensate her £700 for the distress and inconvenience as outlined above.
Within the resident’s complaint escalation request to the landlord, she said she was experiencing additional costs to heat a damp home. The landlord failed to address this within its final response. The Ombudsman recognises that some time has passed since the events, and it would cause a notable burden on the resident to collate evidence of her increased heating costs at that time. As such, the Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate to make a specific order for financial reimbursement for the actual heating costs incurred by the resident. Instead, the Ombudsman considers it fair and reasonable for the landlord to contribute £385 towards the resident’s additional heating costs. This is calculated at £5 per week for each week that the leak/water ingress was ongoing (up to the date of the landlord’s final response), minus the 28-calendar day repair timeframe in the landlord’s repair policy. In making this award, the Ombudsman has considered the varying heating usage across the seasons.
At this stage, the Ombudsman has seen no conclusive evidence to determine whether the water ingress reported by the resident in November 2022 was a new leak or whether the repair in July 2022 was unsuccessful. Nonetheless, the landlord recognised in its letter dated 20 April 2023 that a leak/water ingress was occurring in the bedroom, and it promised to inspect and resolve this as part of its post-stage 2 review. It is concerning that, as of 30 August 2023, the resident reports that the matter remains unresolved. An order has been made for the landlord to investigate this.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of water ingress, damp, and mould within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to keep the resident updated throughout. There were delays investigating the root cause of the water ingress and progressing repairs. It provided no evidence to demonstrate it considered the household vulnerabilities or whether the property was habitable. It did not follow up with the resident to check if repairs to stop the water ingress were successful and it neglected to complete internal repairs within a reasonable time frame. Although it apologised and awarded compensation, this was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration by the landlord.

The associated complaint

The resident made a complaint on 14 December 2021. Under its policies, the landlord should have issued a stage 1 response within 10 working days. In this case, it decided to consider this as an informal complaint and did not issue a response until 2 March 2022, approximately 11 weeks later. Considering the nature of the resident’s complaint, it was inappropriate for the landlord to consider it informally.
The landlord’s policy said it would only resolve an issue informally with full and explicit agreement with the customer. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord obtained such agreement from the resident to deal with her concerns on an informal basis. Further, the landlord decided to close the resident’s “informal” complaint without her consent and without explaining her right to escalation. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to use the complaint process to address its failings and put things right.
The resident made it clear on 23 March 2022 that she was unhappy with the informal response. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 April 2022. This is outside of the timescale within its policy. Its internal emails around this period demonstrate it was aware the complaint was ongoing, yet a stage 1 response was not issued until 20 June 2022, more than 26 weeks after the resident initially raised a complaint in December 2021, and 12 weeks after she escalated it.
The resident escalated her complaint for a second time on 21 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2022, almost 9 weeks later. The landlord has not provided a reason for the lengthy delays the resident experienced throughout the complaint process.
It is evident the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in aprotracted process and a lack of clear and meaningful updates. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint handling delays effectively blocked access to the complaints process. This further compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns. It also prevented the resident from accessing this Service and contributed to further delays resolving the substantive issue. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable, and added further confusion and distress to the resident.
The Code makes it clear that a landlord must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access this Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted. Within this complaint, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident about this Service when dealing with the complaint informally or at stage 1, despite the ongoing delays. This meant the resident was not aware that she could access the Ombudsman’s dispute support service for impartial guidance during the initial stages of her complaint. This failed to meet the obligations of the Code.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the informal response, and stage 1 and stage 2 responses were inadequate and did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident. It stated the matter was resolved, without any evidence to support this. As such, the landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. Within both formal complaint responses, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated all the resident’s complaint points or explained what evidence it considered. It did not refer to its own investigation or policies, nor did it consider the household vulnerabilities highlighted by the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to thoroughly investigate and respond to the individual points raised and consider the impact on the resident and her family. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence to this Service to demonstrate how it investigated the resident’s complaint or that it learnt from the resident’s experience. Taken altogether, the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue, address and resolve the wider aspects of the resident’s complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship.
At stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord did not recognise its complaint handling failures. The landlord took steps to reconsider the matter by undertaking 2 further reviews and issuing 2 post complaint responses. While it is positive to see that the landlord continued to try to seek an effective resolution, this was significantly outside of the formal complaint process. As such, it missed opportunities to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
In its first post-stage 2 response, it offered the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests redress between £50 and £250 may be appropriate where there was a service failure of short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. This is not the case with this complaint. Considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat the resident’s complaint with the necessary attention, care, and importance it deserved, and it did not comply with the Code. As such, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord is unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s final response was issued on 22 August 2022. The second post stage 2 response was issued on 3 August 2023. This letter referred to events after the landlord’s final response, with reference to a lack of communication following an appointment in April 2023. As this event occurred months after the final response and compensation was awarded for events which took place after the final response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to record a second complaint to address issues which occurred after the internal complaint process had been completed.
The Code states that when responding to a complaint the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” In this case, the substantive issue was still not resolved a year after the landlord’s final response. This demonstrates a lack of ownership, active management, and complaint oversight.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in the landlord’s second post stage 2 review, it recognised its failings and outlined learning from the complaint and changes to its processes to improve its customer journey and complaint handling going forward. Nonetheless, the landlord missed opportunities to identify this at earlier stages.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the substantive issue for the resident but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the accumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, this constitutes severe maladministration. As such, appropriate orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of water ingress into the property causing damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve the water ingress or complete internal repairs within the timescales stated in its repair policy. The resident reported the issues in December 2020 and as of the date of this report, they remain unresolved.
The landlord did not act with a sense of urgency and did not consider whether the property was habitable in view of the vulnerability of the occupants. It did not effectively manage the repairs or keep detailed records, and it failed to keep the resident updated throughout.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. The ongoing property condition issues experienced by the resident indicate that it failed to learn lessons to improve its repairs service delivery.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy or act in line with the Code. It failed to escalate the complaint when requested. It failed to consider all the resident’s concerns and did not remedy the substantive complaint issue. It did not oversee repairs that were promised within its complaint response. After the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaint process, there was insufficient follow up action to ensure the matter was resolved. As of the date of this report, internal repairs are outstanding, and the resident reported that water ingress continues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a member of the senior leadership team for the failings identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within her household and ensure its internal records reflects those vulnerabilities.
3. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property and the property above (if it has not done so already). The surveyor must produce a report identifying the cause of the leak(s)/water ingress, recommendations to remedy this and a schedule of works. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord may redact aspects of the report to comply with its data protection obligations in relation to the property above.
4. Provide a schedule of works with defined timescales to the resident.
5. Pay the resident compensation of £3914.10. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer within its stage 2 response. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation as per stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £2329.10 to reflect the impact on the home and the resident’s use and enjoyment of it while the water ingress and internal repairs remained unresolved.
  2. £500 for failures in complaint handling.
  3. £700 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
  4. £385 contribution to the resident’s increased heating costs.
6. Contact the resident regarding events following its final response from August 2022 to establish if she wants to raise another complaint. The Ombudsman reminds the landlord that the second post-stage 2 response letter dated 3 August 2023 does not replace the formal complaint procedure.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Self-assess its complaint handling policy against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Review our damp and mould spotlight report and self-assess against the 26 recommendations contained within.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review our knowledge and information management spotlight report and self-assess against the recommendations contained within.