Orbit Group Limited (202219418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219418

Orbit Group Limited

6 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
This report will also look at the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling; and
2. record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom house with her family. The tenancy began in August 2021 and is a five year, fixed term assured shorthold tenancy.
The records confirm the resident has a heart condition and her children have respiratory problems. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Legal and Policy Framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As per Section 11 of the Act, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for making sure the structure and outside of the home are kept repaired, including outside walls and will also repair certain parts of the inside. This includes inside walls, floors and ceilings, doors, door frames and plasterwork but not painting and decorating inside. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. Section 9a of the Act implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the Act, ventilation.
The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable time of being notified of them. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy lists three categories of repair. Emergency repairs include any repair required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident at risk, or that adversely affects the structure of the building. These repairs are carried out within between 4 and 24 hours. Routine repairs include any repair that is not an emergency and these are completed within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are major repairs such as roof or fencing replacements.
The Responsive Repairs Policy states that, in the event that a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord will conduct a risk assessment before determining whether a repair is required. Should a repair be required, this will be raised on the relevant priority in line with the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy.
The landlord says in its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy that it will ensure it treats residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy and will recognise that having mould in a home can be distressing. It will ensure it is supportive in its approach, ensuring good communication throughout. It will ensure its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. 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.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure states that, if the information received on an inspection request suggests that the property has significant issue with damp or mould, children or elderly customers in habitation, an illness that may be exacerbated by damp/mould and/or any disability, the customer must be contacted within 5 working days to book an inspection, unless the residents are not available. It adds that inspectors should contact the resident to arrange an appointment and the inspection should take place within 20 working days, (28 calendar days), and mould treatments should be raised on a seven calendar day Damp, Mould and Condensation repair priority.
The landlord has a Compensation Procedure for when it has identified failings in its service. It states it may award compensation if the standard of service is considerably below the standard residents could reasonably expect. It will only pay it if residents have experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience. It will pay compensation if the resident has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to its failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and which the resident has told it about. The policy does not provide any specific compensation minimum or maximum amounts, although the landlord’s Compensation Guidance states it will pay up to £400 for time, distress and inconvenience, and up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy has two formal complaint stages. The landlord will acknowledge both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, with an additional 10 working days if it requires more time to complete its investigation. If a complaint will take longer than 20 working days to resolve, it will contact the resident to discuss, explain why a complaint may be taking longer to resolve and advise when it expects to be able to provide the response. The landlord will aim to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days, with an additional 20 working days if the investigation is more in-depth and requires more time to complete.

Summary of events

On 23 November 2021, the landlord carried out an independent damp survey of the property. It should be noted that the records the landlord provided to this service give no indication as to what prompted the survey. The report made several findings, which were as follows:

The pointing to the chimney stack was noted to be in poor condition;
Electronic moisture meter readings indicated penetrating damp, due to external defects relating to render bridging the damp proof course (DPC);
There was evidence of condensation throughout the property;
The existing extractor fan fitted to the bathroom was found to be insufficient and there was no extractor fan in the kitchen;

The report recommended works to repair the external defects, eliminate the bridging effect on the DPC and install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2021 to say that a damp surveyor attended the property and informed her there was damp and mould in the walls and loft insulation. She said she wanted the landlord to address the issue, along with compensation for her daughter’s bed that was damaged by the damp and mould.
On 19 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to raise a stage 1 complaint and stated:

Since she started living the property, she had had numerous problems with it; the main problem being the damp and mould issue, which was present even before she moved in.
The landlord had come to look at the property on 12 October 2021 but did not consider that the damp and mould was serious.
Since that date, it had got worse and was affecting her daughter’s toys and getting into the floorboards, walls and skirting boards. The mattresses were starting to smell of damp and there was mould growing on the wooden bed slats.
Her daughter had a cough, which she believed was due to the mould.
She did not think the landlord should have moved her into the property while it was in that condition.
There were other issues apart from the damp and mould, such as the heating not working, poor water pressure, rubbish left by the builders and poorly installed fence panels.
She had done everything the landlord had suggested to fight the mould but it had become worse since its visit.

The landlord visited the property on 31 March 2022, 6 weeks after the complaint, to discuss the outstanding repairs with the resident. It is not clear what the outcome of the visit was; however, the resident called it on 2 April 2022 for an update. The landlord told her it had only picked up the case four days ago and that things “would not happen that quickly”. It explained that its main concern was to, “track down this damp report from last year and then deal with their recommendations”.
The resident called the landlord on 11 April 2022 to chase her complaint and the landlord told her it was in the process of arranging for removal of the rubbish that was left in the attic from the void.
She told it that her children were sharing their bed because of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to thank her for her patience while it investigated her complaint. It stated that it was not yet in the position to conclude its investigation and was, “liaising with all relevant parties to assist in providing” a full response.
The resident called the landlord several times from 13 April to 4 May 2022 for an update on her complaint and to ask when the landlord would remove the rubbish.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the contractor would remove the rubbish left following previous works on 10 May 2022 when it came to repair the air vents but it would not take any rubbish left by the previous tenants, which should have been cleared during void works.
The landlord advised on 12 May 2022 that it should be issuing the works specification on 13 May 2022 and that the contractor “would probably contact” her the following week to discuss gaining access to start the works.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 10 June 2022, which stated:

It understood the resident felt there had been an issue with the property before she moved in. It stated it had no information to support this.
It had carried out an inspection shortly after the resident moved in and arranged a mould wash. It said, although the resident was unhappy with the information provided by the member of staff who conducted the inspection, they, “adhered to the correct processes in connection” with the findings.
In order to fully resolve the resident’s concerns, it arranged for an area manager to carry out an inspection and asked the resident to provide a list of works she wanted completed. It confirmed that the area manager put all the works into a single work order for ‘ease of monitoring and administration’.
The work order from the 23 November 2021 survey was passed to the contractor, who confirmed they would start on 17 June 2022. The landlord said it had emphasised that the repairs needed to be completed as quickly as possible.
Following a conversation with the resident on 10 June 2022, where the resident said the case handler had agreed to provide her with a payment to replace items that had been damaged, it had spoken to ‘a number of departments’. It confirmed that the information that had been given was incorrect, and the resident would have to make a claim with her contents insurance provider.
It agreed that the issues the resident had raised should have been resolved sooner and upheld her complaint. The landlord acknowledged it had not fully complied with its complaints policy, particularly when it gave her incorrect information regarding her damaged belongings.
It offered the resident £728 compensation, which it broke down as follows:

£10 for a failed appointment;
£70 for failings in service provision;
£250 for distress and inconvenience;
£150 for the failings in the management of the resident’s complaint;
£248 for a delay of 248 days in starting the works from 5 October 2021.

The landlord called the resident on 30 June 2022 and made a case note that stated: “No request to review the case – merely wants the repairs completing and someone to communicate with her – stage 2 withdrawn”.
Following further contact from the resident, copies of which the landlord has not supplied, the landlord wrote to her on 5 July 2022 to acknowledge she remained unhappy with the outcome of her stage 1 complaint and would like its decision to be reviewed. It understood the resident was requesting a review because of the condition of her property and that she should not have moved in until the repairs had been completed. She added that the damp and mould were making her daughter ill.
The resident chased the landlord on 2 and 4 November 2022 for an update and stated:

Within a month of moving in, a surveyor recommended a number of repairs. Although some had been completed, others were cancelled;
It had carried out a mould wash but the mould was growing back and there was an area with spores that measured about 1cm;
The operatives who completed rendering and work on the loft insulation left rubbish behind, and this had still not been removed;
She was told she would be reimbursed for damaged items and then told this was not the case;
Her child kept getting throat and chest infections;
She was due for abdomen surgery, which would require a recovery period of six to eight weeks. She said she would need the outstanding repairs to be completed beforehand as she could not continue to share a bed with her children because of mould.

On 1 December 2022, the landlord carried out a further independent damp survey and the report noted the following findings:

There was damp and mould to the front and rear external walls and blistering plaster to the chimney breast.
Damp staining and mould to the kitchen ceiling and dampness to the rear hall flooring.
An electrical moisture meter testing showed high moisture readings in the living room that caused timbers to swell. Laminate flooring had become distorted due to excess moisture in the timber flooring.
It found that many of the air vents had been installed so low through the wall that they were either in contact with the ground or they had become partially blocked.
Water dripping onto the timber flooring from the underside of the bath.
It recommended a number of works including work to the chimney breast, installation of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen and internal decoration and re-plastering.

On 20 December 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response, which stated:

It understood the contractor was due to attend the property on 17 June 2022 to start the works but they did not go ahead, which caused the resident to escalate her complaint.
It apologised for incorrectly withdrawing the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said this was not the service it aimed to provide.
After it had re-raised the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it arranged for ‘an independent building pathologist’ to visit the property and carry out a ‘specialist assessment’. The landlord’s Area Maintenance Manager also visited the property on 19 December 2022 to discuss the repairs that remained outstanding.
In the interim, the resident agreed that the landlord would be replacing the extractor fans, install humidistats in the bathroom and kitchen, and carry out mould washes of all affected rooms.
As all other works were ‘major and intrusive’ it was agreed they would begin those in the New Year. During a conversation with the Area Maintenance Manager, it was agreed that the resident would move to temporary accommodation while the major repairs were being completed.
It upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £1,214, which was made up of the £728 it offered in its stage 1 response and a further £486, which it broke down as follows:

£186 for a further delay of 186 starting the works;
£150 in recognition that the landlord incorrectly withdrew the stage 2 complaint and the delay responding to the resident’s complaint;
£150 for the failings in service provision.

The resident approached this service on 27 February 2023 and, on 3 March 2023, she called the landlord to say that both her children were poorly because of the mould in the property and they were all sharing a bed due to the children not being able to sleep in their bedrooms.
The records suggest that the resident and her family were decanted, on or around 20 March 2023 and that, following completion of works at the end of May/beginning of June 2023, the resident moved back into the property shortly afterwards.
The resident contacted this service on 28 September 2023 and reported that, when she moved back into the property, some repairs remained outstanding. She said the landlord had not provided any dates for when it planned to complete the remaining works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the health of her children had been detrimentally affected by the damp and mould in her property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her children’s health but this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. However, this service can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience and time and trouble arising from a landlord’s service failure

The landlord’s response to damp, mould and outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have experienced a great deal of distress, while living with damp, mould and outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a property that was in a poor state of repair for so long. This would have been made worse by the fact the resident has serious health issues and was looking after young children at the time.
Following the damp survey, completed on 23 November 2021, there is internal correspondence that dismisses the findings of the inspection report. There are internal records that state, “this report is not worth the paper it’s written on” and that the recommendations are, “about as much use as a chocolate fireguard”. The correspondence adds that, “overall the property looks in good condition” and suggests that the problems could be due to, “some lifestyle issue”.
Although the landlord is seen to dismiss the findings and recommendations of the damp survey, it is unclear from the records why it disagreed with the report. The records fail to present any reasoned arguments against the surveyor’s recommendations and suggested that the report was, “put together as a polite way of saying they have no interest in doing this work”.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, ‘Damp and Mould – It’s not lifestyle’, published in October 2021 states that, “It is crucial that landlords avoid paternalistic attitudes, automatically apportioning blame or using language inferring blame on the resident. We have seen examples of this with landlords initially assuming that the cause is condensation due to the resident’s lifestyle”. The term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice to live in that way. The follow up Spotlight report published in February 2023 states that, “although we have seen some good practice in this area, such as the removal by landlords of the word ‘lifestyle’ from all internal and external publications, it is clear that the culture of blaming the resident and their lifestyle can still prevail”.
The Ombudsman will therefore make a recommendation that the landlord considers the findings in the Spotlight reports when training staff to follow its own Damp and Mould Procedure. This is in order to emphasise the importance of not apportioning blame for damp and mould on residents, and avoids using terms such as ‘lifestyle’, which suggest that mould and damp are caused by the way people live their everyday lives.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to make such comments about an inspection it had commissioned, especially when the survey was an important element in addressing a report of serious damp. If the landlord doubted the quality of the inspection, there is no evidence it considered commissioning a further survey in order to get a second opinion, or that it discussed its concerns about the survey with the resident or with the surveyor. It is evident that the landlord’s views about the surveyor’s comments, and the fact it did not take them seriously, discouraged it from progressing the recommended repairs. This would therefore have contributed to the delays in starting the works.
This Service’s spotlight report states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. The landlord’s actions in this case do not demonstrate that it took the matter sufficiently seriously, or that it took prompt action to resolve the issues.
Although the landlord took the positive and proactive step to commission damp surveys in November 2021 and December 2022, the works were not completed until May/June 2023.This was around a year and a half after the first survey. As such, the landlord’s actions were not in accordance with its Damp and Mould Procedure, which states that, “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”.
Although the landlord was seen to disagree with the findings of the initial survey, the second survey in December 2022 backed up those findings and made similar recommendations. Had the landlord acted appropriately on the recommendations of the initial survey and followed its Damp and Mould and Responsive Repairs policies, it would have been able to demonstrate that it responded promptly and appropriately to the residents reports. Instead, the landlord failed to follow its policies, without reason, which resulted in excessively protracted delays. This caused the resident and her family to live in a damp property that internal correspondence had referred to as being “plagued with mould” for much longer than was necessary.
There is nothing to indicate that the landlord made any effort to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed. It is not evident that the landlord undertook a risk assessment as required by its Repairs Policy. It did not offer the resident dehumidifiers, or provide sufficient advice on how to manage condensation, Taking such action would have demonstrated that the landlord was taking the matter seriously and trying to provide some relief for the residents while the remedial works were outstanding. The lack of support from the landlord made the living conditions worse than they would have been had the resident received the appropriate help.
Although it was appropriate that the landlord carried out mould washes, the information from the inspections shows there was water ingress from external walls, which required remedial works to address. This would have explained the worsening damp and mould problem within the property, despite actions taken to remove the mould.
Although the landlord identified there was moisture and water ingress from external walls, the work to rectify this was unreasonably protracted. The repairs had been raised in November 2021, and were due to start on 17 June 2022. However, they were not completed until around May and June 2023. It is not clear from the records why the works arranged for June 2022 did no go ahead. Although there is internal correspondence that attributes this to the resident refusing the works, this appears to be contradicted in the landlord’s stage 2 response, which states: “I understand that” the contractor, “was due to be attending your property on 17 June 2022 in order to start these works” but “this did not go ahead, which then caused you to escalate your complaint”.
It is unclear why the resident would have refused the works on that date after she had told the landlord, shortly after receiving her stage 1 complaint, that she, “wants the repairs completing”. It was therefore inappropriate to attribute the delay to the actions of the resident without providing a proper record of why the works did not proceed on the planned date. It should be noted that, even if the works had started on 17 June 2022, this would have still represented a delay of eight months from when the initial damp survey took place.
The lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the structure and its fittings within the property at any given time. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control.
It is evident that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made any effort to provide the resident with regular updates, provide estimated completion dates or to keep her informed at any point. The evidence shows the resident was consistently left to contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information. This suggests she made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a resident focussed approach, or to provide regular updates, would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether the works would progress. This service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, the landlord’s records demonstrate a lack of effective collaboration or proactive monitoring while dealing with contractors. This would have contributed significantly to the excessive delays in completing repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the Responsive Repairs policy of completing repairs within 28calendar days.
It is not evident that the contractor had communicated regularly or effectively with the resident, yet the landlord did not identify or seek to address the lack of contact. The landlord made no attempt to identify, with its contractor, a single point of contact the resident could approach for queries. In addition, there is no evidence it gave consideration to appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs.
The landlord failed to demonstrate it had undertaken a risk assessment, which is a requirement under its policy, or that it considered the urgency of the matter. Given the nature of the resident’s and her children’s vulnerabilities, it was a particularly significant omission that the landlord did not complete a risk assessment in this case
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states that, where extensive works may be required, the landlord will consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage. The need to move the family sooner may reasonably have been identified had the landlord carried out a risk assessment in line with its policy. It was appropriate that the landlord decanted the resident while it undertook the intrusive works; however, given the nature of the resident’s vulnerabilities, there is no indication it properly took the risks into account in terms of prioritising the decant or the outstanding repairs.
It is also noted that the Damp and Mould Policy states that the landlord will ensure that surveys to establish the presence of any damp and mould are carried out by competent officers during any void period. The two damp inspections confirmed extensive damp and mould in the property, and the initial inspection was only carried out around 2 months after the resident moved in. The initial survey found that the damp was being caused, in part, by the condition of external walls. It can therefore be reasonable to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that there was presence of damp in the property before the resident moved in. This indicates that the void inspection failed to identify any damp, or any of the factors that contributed to the problem that had subsequently been picked up by the two damp surveyors. Given the severity of the damp soon after the tenancy began, it is unclear why this was not identified while the property was void. By failing to carry out sufficient checks to ensure the property was safe from potential hazards, this demonstrates the landlord failed in its duty of care towards the resident and her family
In addition, the records indicate there was confusion around whether or not the landlord had cleared the items left by previous tenants before the resident moved in, which is a requirement under the landlord’s Void Policy. The landlord should reasonably have ensured that the property was free from rubbish belonging to the previous tenant or created as a result of the void works before the tenancy began. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to take appropriate action when its contractor told it that it would, “take the rubbish but not the old tenants rubbish”. In the circumstances, the landlord should have arranged for removal of all the rubbish that was left at the property, regardless of whether it was left by operatives or previous tenants.
The landlord did not dispute that the damp and mould had damaged the resident’s belongings. It was therefore inappropriate for it to refer her to her contents insurer. In addition, it is not disputed that the landlord was at fault for providing inaccurate information to the resident that it would reimburse her for her damaged items, and for incorrectly raising her expectations. The landlord acted appropriately when it offered compensation in recognition of this error. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord allows the resident to claim against its own insurance provider for the items she had lost due to its lack of action in dealing with the damp and mould problem. In addition, the resident had made the landlord aware of the impact of the condition of the property on their health and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to have signposted her to its insurer so she was aware of how she could make a personal injury claim.
It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation of £728 at stage 1, which it later increased to £1214 in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord’s offer of redress falls significantly short of recognising the impact on the resident caused by excessive delays, poor communication and the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs and pursuing her complaint. Due to the severity of the delays, and the cumulative impact these failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman concludes that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that repairs were outstanding, the cumulative impact of the outstanding works on the resident’s occupation of the property, and loss of the children’s bedroom for 18 months (from November 2021 to May 2023). The resident has paid approximately £480 per month in rent during the relevant period. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident. the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £1,728 compensation for the impact on the resident of a house that was in a poor state of repair. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that it is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints leaflet states that the landlord, “will contact you within 5 working days to acknowledge your complaint. We will investigate your complaint fully and keep you regularly updated throughout your complaint”. The Complaints Policy commits to communicating with residents clearly and regularly, in a way that is agreed with them, throughout the complaint investigation of their issues. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that, “when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt”. In addition, it states that, “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. The only indication it had acknowledged her concerns was when it wrote to her, nearly three months later, thanking her for her patience and informing her that it was not yet in the position to send a response. It took the landlord around 5 months to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 19 January 2022. This represents a failure to meet the expected service standards set both by the landlord’s own policy, which undertakes to respond to stage 1 complaints within a maximum of 20 working days, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Apart from its holding response of 11 April 2022, there is no evidence the landlord made any other contact in the interim. It failed to inform her the response would be late, agree a new timescale or offer an apology. Although the landlord did apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response, it did not explain why it had failed to send any holding replies, which meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. This suggests a potential flaw in the way the landlord keeps track of active complaints, and the lack of a system for alerting the landlord to update residents when delays are ongoing. This would have added to the resident’s distress and uncertainty as to whether the works were progressing, and would have caused her the unnecessary inconvenience of having to repeatedly contact the landlord to get some reassurance her concerns were being addressed.
The landlord acted inappropriately when it withdrew the resident’s stage 2 complaint following a conversation that indicates an assumption the resident did not wish to escalate her concerns. There is no evidence any further checks were made to ensure the resident was ‘satisfied’ with the initial response. In addition, the landlord made no efforts to obtain written confirmation that the resident was happy for her complaint to be closed. This resulted in confusion and additional delays in progressing the landlord’s investigation.
It took the landlord around 5 months to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Again, the landlord’s communication was minimal, and the resident was left to chase the landlord for months, without being given any holding replies or estimated response times. The landlord’s complaint handling was excessively protracted and this would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress at having to wait so long for repairs to be completed.
Although the landlord has acknowledged its service failures, admitted its communication was poor and that repairs were not completed within a reasonable time, it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Neither did it commit to making any changes to its service as a result of the failings it had identified. In addition, even after it had upheld the stage 1 complaint and advised the resident that its contractor would be in touch shortly with regard to the repairs, most of the outstanding works were not completed for a further year. Over this period, communication from both the landlord and its contractor remained poor throughout. The Ombudsman expects landlords to handle complaints in line with its Dispute Resolution Principles, Be Fair, Put Thing Right and Learn From Outcomes. It is evident that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint did not follow these principles
It is positive that the landlord offered compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaints, and in recognition of withdrawing her stage 2 complaint in error. However, the amount offered did not adequately reflect the length of the delay, the poor complaint handling and the impact this would have had on a vulnerable resident.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all. The landlord did not provide a repairs log and the only way of identifying any information that pertains to repairs, contractor visits and completion dates is through internal correspondence and the contacts the landlord made to the resident. There does not appear to be any system in place where repairs data is shared between the landlord and its contractor, which can be accessed if any queries are raised or if the landlord needs to check on the progress of works. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The excessive delays to complete repairs, along with a consistent lack of communication from both the landlord and its contractor, poor record keeping, poor contract monitoring and a failure to follow its policies and procedures meant that the resident and her children were left in a damp property that was in a poor state of repair for around 18 months.
The landlord consistently failed to follow its complaints policy and its complaint handling was excessively protracted. It took around 3 months to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 5 months to respond. Following its severely delayed acknowledgement, it failed to provide any further updates, or give any assurances it was investigating her complaint. The landlord erroneously withdrew the resident’s stage 2 complaint without obtaining any written confirmation. When the landlord re-opened the stage 2 complaint, the complaint handling was again severely protracted to the extent that it took 5 months for the landlord to finally respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, its lack of any effective repairs tracking system, and failure to evidence any repairs logs was a major contributing factor in the excessive delays and poor communication the resident experienced over a lengthy period of time.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Arrange for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person (or another format such as email or letter, if preferred by the resident) for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £3,442, which is calculated as follows:

i. £1,728 in recognition of the amount of time that repairs were outstanding and the cumulative impact of the outstanding works on the resident’s occupation of the property and loss of a bedroom for 18 months;

ii. £1214 the landlord has offered in its stage two response for the failures it identified in its stage 1 and stage 2 investigations;

iii. An additional £200 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling;

iv. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping which contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Carry out an inspection of the property and to agree an action plan with the resident that includes how and when it will update her on the progress of any outstanding repairs, explain the work that needs to be done and provide dates for when any outstanding work is expected to commence. The landlord to send the Ombudsman a copy of its action plan within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to confirm if there are details about her condition or other circumstances that she would like it to be aware of when arranging repairs or other visits. It should then ensure that its relevant systems are updated with any information the resident provides. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that this action has been completed.
2. Review the issues relating to the liaison between it and its contractor highlighted as part of this investigation. In doing so, the landlord should ensure that robust contract monitoring arrangements are in place. Evidence of the actions taken should be provided to the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Carry out a review of the learning from this case and what improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of record keeping, complaint handling and contract management and the landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the reviews. Evidence of the actions taken should be provided to the Ombudsman.
2. Provide training or guidance to its staff on the importance of following its Damp and Mould Procedure and not apportion blame for damp and mould and avoid using terms such as ‘lifestyle’, which suggest that mould and damp are caused by the way people live their everyday lives.

Recommendations

Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Provide training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delay in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise that staff should not assume residents want to withdraw their complaints and to ensure they obtain proper confirmation from the resident that they do not wish to progress their complaint before closing it.
2. The landlord should provide the resident with the necessary information to enable her to make a claim on the landlord’s own insurance for items that were damaged by damp and mould due to the landlord’s failure to act in a timely manner, and for any personal injury caused by the condition of the property. This would prevent any claim impacting on the resident’s own insurance premium.
3. The landlord to review its voids policy and procedure so that it can ensure properties are free from damp and mould prior to being re-let and that all items left by previous tenants are cleared before new tenants move in.