Orbit Group Limited (202324425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324425

Orbit Group Limited

22 August 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs related to damp and mould in his property.
2. The landlord’s handing of repairs to a toilet.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations at his property.
4. The landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1 bed flat located on the ground floor of a low-rise block. His landlord is a housing association. The tenancy started in February 2014.
The landlord has told this Service that it is aware of the resident’s poor mental health. It has agreed that the resident is provided with confirmation of appointments in writing as a reasonable adjustment.
The resident has raised concerns about several issues with the condition of his property and the landlord’s handing of repairs. Many of these issues are linked, including the order in which repairs were attempted.
A leaking toilet was first reported in mid-November 2022. Records state that the landlord attended on the same day and fixed the issue.
It is unclear when concerns were first raised about damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The resident’s local MP got in touch with the landlord about this issue in December 2022, stating that the resident had made a report in November 2022 with no response. Checks were arranged to see if the extractor fan in the bathroom was working effectively and for potential leaks in the kitchen in January 2023 after contact from local media. A damp and mould inspection also took place in early January 2023.
The resident told the landlord that his flat was infested with mice in January 2023. A pest control contractor visited the block where the resident’s flat is located and recommended installing traps in some properties, including the resident’s flat. In early February 2023, contractors did minor work to the resident’s flat to facilitate the pest control contractor laying traps.
Checks were done in May 2023 to see if works to address issues with the extractor fans had been carried out, with the landlord confirming that repairs had been done in February 2023. Shortly after this, the local authority got in touch with the landlord to say that the resident had approached for help with addressing issues with the condition of his property. The local authority asked for confirmation on whether a further damp and mould survey would be done later that month and offered to attend if this was an emergency. The landlord told the local authority that no further surveys were planned but that it would carry out a joint inspection if required.
In mid-May 2023, the pest control contractor struggled to gain access to the resident’s flat. It told the landlord that it had tried to gain access in April too and checked the contact details it had for the resident, with the landlord confirming the contact details were correct.
Repairs to the bathroom radiator were raised in June 2023. At the same time, the landlord decided no further damp inspections were required after recovering the initial damp report which had been mislaid, with all outstanding works identified in the initial report raised with contractors.
In July 2023, the local authority carried out an inspection of the resident’s flat under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It told the landlord that there were no category 1 hazards but noted the following defects:
1. dry mouse droppings on the floor beneath the kitchen base units
2. plinths supporting the kitchen base units had come apart
3. a hole under the toilet waste pipe
4. rust on the surface of the bathroom radiator
5. the bathroom extractor fan did not stay on for long enough once switched on
6. all defects identified were low scoring on the HHSRS risk matrix and the likelihood of a hazard arising within 12 months was minimal.
The landlord told the local authority that it was addressing the first three points identified and that the rest were being treated as a ‘standard 28-day repair’. Works were then raised to fix the bathroom extractor fan and the radiator. Records state that the resident asked the contractor who came to fix the radiator to leave after he was told that it just needed painting.
In August 2023, the resident asked for a copy of the inspection report for his flat and for confirmation on when the area behind the kitchen base units would be cleaned as ‘it is making me ill.’ The pest control contractor inspected the property, found no mice activity, and prepared for a deep clean in affected areas of the kitchen. It told the landlord that it would need to repair any holes found and to reinstall the plinths. The resident asked whether kitchen units would be removed to do this work. The landlord responded that no units would be removed during this work.
Around early September 2023, the resident told the landlord that the deep clean had taken place but a lingering bad smell remained. The landlord responded by telling the resident that another contractor was investigating closing holes in brickwork at the corner of the kitchen. The resident continued to express concerns about the smell in the kitchen, which may be linked to damp as well as the mice infestation, and that the area under the kitchen units was still dirty as they had not been removed during the deep clean. The landlord told the resident in response that it would arrange for remaining debris under the kitchen units to be cleaned up.
In mid-September 2023, the resident told the landlord that there was a strong damp smell in the kitchen after heavy rain. He felt this indicated there were other leaks in the property other than the hole in the kitchen, stating that the damp is ‘heavy in the air and making it difficult to breath.’ The landlord told the resident that contractors had called him several times to try and arrange appointments for repairs and attended twice but could not gain access. The resident responded that there had been no messages or ‘missed appointment’ cards from the contractor.
A couple of days later, the landlord told the resident via email that the contractor was on site again today and that it could not make appointments if the resident did not answer the phone. The resident responded, telling the landlord that he was having health difficulties that day, the contractor had gone away before the resident could answer the door, and that the landlord had previously agreed to giving advance notice of appointments in writing as a reasonable adjustment.
On 26 September 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about how his property had been managed and issues with providing confirmation of appointments in writing. He followed up his request with an explanation that he felt his landlord was unlawfully discriminating against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments for his disability. An acknowledgement of a stage 1 complaint was given to the resident on 12 October 2023. The resident was told on 27 October 2023 that a complaint response would be provided by 10 November 2023.
In early November 2023, the landlord noted that the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom was still not working properly and that this appeared to be linked to mould growth. A damp and mould inspection identified the following:
1. damp was present in the bathroom which was caused by condensation and a plumbing leak
2. the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were operational
3. mould treatment was needed above the bath in the bathroom plus a new extractor fan installed
4. the leaking toilet cistern needed repairing
5. a new radiator was needed as the existing one had been ‘severely damaged by condensation’
6. a draught was entering via the kitchen base units, with the units needing to be taken out and the existing hole filled due to ‘a grim, dank and musty smell coming from this area’
A 3-stage mould treatment was then applied to the bathroom later that month. Works to repair a leaking toilet cistern were carried out in early December 2023.
In mid-December 2023, the resident told the landlord that the mice had come back and were in his ceiling. He also expressed concern about humidity in the property, that the bad smell had not gone away, and that this was making him feel ill. He requested that the ceiling was removed to deep clean, see where mice were coming in, and to install effective ventilation. The landlord’s response stated a contractor would be in touch about the hole behind the kitchen base units, that it believed this would address the issue with the bad smell, that the current extractor fans may not be extracting air out of the property and would be replaced by a new ventilation system, and that it would tackle the mice.
Towards the end of December, the landlord recommended that hatches were installed in the bathroom and kitchen ceilings for access. Contractors investigated the feasibility of installing the hatches and the new ventilation system for the resident’s property around this time, expressing concerns about the landlord’s plans and asking for clarification on the order in which works should be done. The new ventilation system was approved for installation in early January 2024.
On 28 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had received his complaint on 11 October 2023, no complaint response would be provided just yet as the investigation was still underway, and to expect a response by 12 December 2024 – this appears to be a typing error on the part of the landlord.
A stage 1 complaint response was given on 17 January 2024. This defined the resident’s complaint as being about damp and mould in his property, the pest infestation, repairs to the toilet, and refusal of a management move. For damp and mould, the landlord stated that issues were first reported in December 2022 and that works had been done to repair leaks, mould washes had been applied to the bathroom in November 2023, and work was underway to replace the extractor fan with a more effective system. For the pest infestation, the landlord stated that a deep clean had taken place in August 2023 with a further deep clean arranged for September which did not take place due to issues with access. Repairs to the toilet had been competed in early December 2023. A management move had already been refused in June 2020 and the resident continued to not qualify for this.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on the same day. He explained that he was doing this because of delays with repairs, errors in the stage 1 response about the status of various repairs, and as he denied refusing the landlord access to the property. Escalation was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 January 2024.
The pest control contractor carried out another survey in mid-January 2024. This found another mice infestation in the property. Holes behind the kitchen base units and at the side of the flat were identified as potential entry points. Mice had been heard in the ceiling void of the property but there was no access to place bait in this area. The contractor recommended that hatches were built into the ceilings of the kitchen and bathroom, sealing potential entry points, and placement of rodent bait boxes.
Further repairs to the leaking toilet cistern were raised in mid-February 2024.
A stage 2 response was given to the resident on 16 February 2024. This stated that the complaint was about outstanding repairs to a hole behind the kitchen cupboard, investigation of pest issues, installation of new extractor fans, and replacement of the toilet cistern. It acknowledged that there had been issues with contractors contacting the resident by phone only and not in writing as per the resident’s request for reasonable adjustment. Repairs to the hole and to the toilet were touched on, with some delays acknowledged due to sending the wrong contractor to do works to the kitchen. The response explained that, although it appreciated that the resident had expressed concern about whether the upgrade of the extractor fan with a new ventilation system would be effective, this work would still be going ahead. The following was offered as compensation:
1. £70 for contractors not confirming appointments in writing
2. £50 for complaints handling issues regarding contractor appointments
3. £87 for delays in repairing the toilet cistern
4. £50 for the stage 1 complaint stating the toilet had been repaired when this was not the case
5. £49 for delays in removing the kitchen cupboard
6. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused
In mid-March 2024, the resident expressed concerns that works the landlord had promised to do had not yet been carried out despite the complaint responses. He asked the landlord to ‘renew my complaint’ on 20 March 2024 as the landlord had sent a contractor who could not remove the kitchen cupboard before repairing the hole. After this, the resident sent several messages to the landlord chasing for a response.
In early April 2024, the resident told the landlord that the contractor who had attended to install the access hatches had not been able to do this due to a ‘lack of instructions’ from the landlord and that a joint inspection should be arranged to identify where the hatches should be installed. He stated that other neighbours were now having problems with mice in their properties as well as damp and mould. He also apologised for the tone of his messages chasing the landlord for a response, stating that this was because he had become ‘very frustrated because I feel like I am going round in circles and being ignored.’
The resident has sent further emails to the landlord and this Service which state that there continues to be a strong unpleasant smell in the kitchen, hatches have still not been installed, and that he is finding the situation distressing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs related to damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy, introduced in April 2022, states that it has a ‘zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.’ It commits to timely responses to this issue, to diagnose and take action to alleviate damp as quickly and efficiently as possible in accordance with the repairs policy, and to consider the individual circumstances of the household along with any vulnerabilities if extensive works may be required.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs, defined as ‘day-to-day maintenance’ will be carried out within 4 to 24 hours if an emergency or within 28 days if not. Major repairs are defined as works that will take longer than 4 hours to complete, need coordination between different types of contractors or need specialist contractors, or need scaffolding. These types of repairs will be completed within 90 days.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and, where appropriate, keeping the following in proper working order:
1. the structure and outside of the property
2. internal walls, floors, ceilings, major internal plasterwork
3. kitchen and bathroom fixtures
4. installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water, and sanitation
5. appliances provided by the landlord for making use of the supply of water, gas, and electricity
Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, including flooring. The landlord also must keep installations for the provision of gas, electricity, water, sanitation (including sinks and toilets), hot water, and space heating in good repair and proper working order. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a similar term into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Section 10 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a property will be unfit for human habitation if one or more of the following defects makes the property not reasonably suitable for occupation in the current condition:
1. repair
2. stability
3. freedom from damp
4. internal arrangement
5. natural lighting
6. ventilation
7. water supply
8. drainage and sanitary conveniences
9. facilities for preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water
10. (England only) the presence of any prescribed hazard as set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (‘HHSRS’)
Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue. The landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable. A landlord can have a legal obligation under section 11 and/or section 9A to carry out works to repair or prevent damp and mould, depending on the root cause of the issue.
The landlord’s repairs records state that reports of damp and mould were first made on 16 January 2023. However, the local MP’s letter received on 16 December 2022 which highlighted damp and mould in the resident’s property should have been acknowledged and an inspection arranged in response to diagnose the root cause of the issue. The landlord’s records and internal correspondence indicate that a damp and mould inspection took place on 6 January 2023, which was not recorded in the repairs records, which identified issues with the bathroom extractor fan not working properly and a slight build-up of mould on the bathroom walls. This Service has not been given a copy of the inspection report. Records indicate that the extractor fan was checked on 14 February 2023 but there is no evidence in the repairs log of the landlord’s findings and what steps, if any, it thought were appropriate to take to resolve issues. Internal correspondence on 4 May 2023 following up an enquiry from the local authority state that the extractor fan was replaced on 14 February 2023. There are no records which show the mould itself was addressed.
Although there was no specific timescale for the landlord to resolve the mould, it should have done so as quickly and efficiently as possible to keep in line with its damp and mould policy. This Service accepts that it is likely there was a connection between the defective extractor fan in the bathroom and the build-up of mould and replacing the fan would be part of a strategy to tackle this issue, but mould treatment should have been done at the same time. This means that repairs were only partially completed 60 days after the assumed initial report via the MP on 16 December 2022, outside of the timescale set for routine repairs.
It is of concern that the landlord only took further action to assess the damp and mould in the resident’s property after contact from the local authority between 9 May 2023 and 12 May 2023. The landlord’s response to the local authority indicates that it did not feel the situation was serious. By deciding that no further inspections were required or assessing whether replacing the extractor fan had improved the situation, the landlord missed an opportunity to work with the local authority to assess the property and to be pro-active in its approach, including considering whether it had a legal obligation to carry out works.
It is also of concern that the landlord acknowledged in internal correspondence on 7 June 2023 that it had misplaced the initial damp and mould inspection report and that some works identified had not been raised until 23 June 2023. This indicates that the landlord had not raised works promptly with contractors despite inspecting the property on 6 January 2023 and finding issues.
The local authority’s HHSRS assessment on 6 July 2023 did not explicitly identify damp and mould in the property, but it did observe that defects with the extractor fan in the bathroom did not stay on for long enough when switched on. The landlord should have had regards to its legal obligations covering the condition of the resident’s property and either adjusted the settings on the fan to run for longer or replace the unit.
The resident’s report of a strong smell of damp in his kitchen on 9 August 2023 and on several occasions from this was not followed up adequately by the landlord. This Service acknowledges that the strong smell was initially thought to be linked to the infestation of mice and that it would be reasonable to assume the works to clean up and eradicate this infestation would also tackle this problem. As the resident told the landlord on 3 September 2023 that the smell remained after the pest control contractor had deep cleaned the kitchen and told the landlord on 19 September 2023 that the smell was worse after heavy rain, the landlord should have taken steps to investigate the source of the smell and consider if it was linked to another cause, such as water ingress. No evidence has been provided that the source of this smell, which had been observed by the contractor during a damp and mould inspection on 20 November 2023, has been investigated or other measures taken to see if this has been caused by damp and mould. It is particularly concerning that the landlord considered there to be no evidence of a smell despite confirmation of this in the damp and mould inspection report carried out in November 2023.
Although a thorough damp and mould inspection took place on 20 November 2023, this is only after the resident raised a formal complaint and after the local authority twice contacted the landlord about issues with the condition of the resident’s property. This is not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy and would have been frustrating for the resident as he had to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to chase the landlord for a resolution to this issue, resorting to contacting his local MP, local media, and the local authority for help. Delays in arranging a follow up inspection would have also undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
It is positive that a comprehensive mould wash was applied in the bathroom within 4 days of the inspection on 20 November 2023. However, this is a delay of 343 days from when the issue with mould was first reported on 16 December 2022 via the local MP. If the landlord had taken effective action over damp and mould at an earlier stage, it may not have had to carry out a full mould wash to tackle this issue. This is beyond the timescales set out for responsive repairs and is not in line with the landlord’s emphasis on taking a zero tolerance approach to mould.
The landlord’s decision on 20 December 2023 to replace the bathroom extractor fan with an upgraded ventilation system was a step in the right direction. As the landlord/tenant relationship had broken down by this point, the landlord should have recognised that the resident no longer trusted it to carry out effective repairs to his property. The landlord should have reached out to the resident to explain its decision and why it believed that the new system would help resolve the issue. This would have helped the resident understand why this system had been chosen, allowed him to express his concerns about it, and allowed a dialogue between both parties to try and reach a satisfactory resolution to the ongoing issues with damp and mould. Failing to engage with the resident has led to him refusing access as he no longer believes the landlord intends on seeking a satisfactory resolution to damp and mould issues.
This Service acknowledges that it is challenging to carry out repairs or maintenance to a property when a resident is refusing to allow access, but the landlord must consider this in the context of the ongoing dispute and take steps to mend the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord’s threat of legal action to gain access to carry out repairs was not a proportionate response in light of the considerable difficulties experienced by the resident with chasing the landlord for updates on treatment for damp and mould, particularly as the resident had previously granted access to contractors on many occasions.
In this case, the landlord has failed to do the following:
1. act promptly when informed of damp and mould
2. keep good records of inspections
3. carry out effective repairs to the bathroom extractor fan
4. carry out treatment to mould in the resident’s bathroom in a timely manner
5. take a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to damp and mould
6. work together with the local authority when the opportunity arose
7. adequately investigate associated reports of a foul smell which may be linked to damp and mould
Due to the failings identified above, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property. We have made orders for compensation linked to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould as the landlord’s stage 2 offer does not cover these points.

The landlord’s handing of repairs to a toilet

The landlord has an obligation to repair the resident’s toilet under the terms of the tenancy agreement. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, repairs to this item would normally be within 28 days unless it was an emergency.
A leaking toilet cistern was first reported on 22 November 2022 and repaired on the same day. The inspections and the initial repair on 22 November 2022 were arranged quickly when reported and within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord attended on the same day when another report was made on 5 December 2023 – repairs records connected to this visit state that the pipe leading to the cistern plus the cistern itself may need to be replaced if the leak reoccurred. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the repairs identified on 5 December 2023 were carried out and the landlord has admitted failing to carry out this repair in its stage 2 response.
The £87 compensation offered at stage 2 for delays in handling repairs to the toilet is adequate to reflect the landlord’s failings on this point. This is although there was a significant delay between the report on 5 December 2023 and the landlord’s commitment to carry out whatever repairs were necessary given on 16 February 2024, the leak was a relatively minor inconvenience and the compensation offered is commensurate with the failings identified over this period. For this reason, this Service has found that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in connection to failings linked with its handling of repairs to a toilet.
The resident reported another leak on 14 February 2024. It is positive that the landlord committed to replacing pipework and the cistern if the leak persisted when it gave the stage 2 complaint response on 16 February 2024, but this Service has not seen evidence of what steps have been taken to resolve the latest leak report. As the resident has not raised further concerns about the leak with the landlord or with this Service beyond 14 February 2024, this Service has assumed that repairs have been successfully completed but has made a recommendation at the end of this report for the landlord to check that there are no further issues.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations at the resident’s property

The landlord’s pest and vermin control procedure states that it will take responsibility for removing pests if the tenancy agreement states it is responsible, the infestation has been caused by a failure to make necessary repairs, if the infestation makes the property unsafe to live in, or the infestation has been spread from a neighbouring area. If the landlord has responsibility, it will arrange for a pest control contractor to survey the property and make recommendations within 7 working days (4 hours if emergency work is required). If an infestation has been caused by disrepair, the landlord will accept responsibility for the infestation as well as the repair with works to start within 7 working days (4 hours if it is an emergency).
The landlord also has a legal obligation to tackle a pest infestation if it has been caused by disrepair which is covered by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A pest infestation may also make a property unfit for human habitation under section 9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and can be a hazard under the HHSRS.
Records state that a pest control contractor inspected the resident’s block on 27 January 2023 and found an infestation of mice in a number of properties, including the resident’s flat. It is not clear from the records what steps the landlord took to address this, other than some preparatory work to the resident’s flat on 2 February 2023. This Service has not been provided with records of any follow on visits to the resident’s property directly after the block inspection. Some visits were attempted without access being granted but it is not clear if the resident was given advance warning of these in writing as per his request for reasonable adjustments. It is concerning that the resident was not provided with any updates until the landlord made further enquiries with the contractor on 18 May 2023 about visits to the property.
The local authority’s HHSRS assessment identified mouse droppings at the resident’s property on 6 July 2023, with this issue reported to the landlord on 10 July 2023. The landlord should have arranged a further inspection and deep clean of affected areas as soon as possible after the HHSRS assessment, particularly as the resident chased the landlord for a response about this aspect of the condition of his property several times. It is positive that a pest control contractor attended on 4 August 2023 and found no mice activity, but this is a delay of 25 days from the date that the local authority made the landlord aware of this issue.
It is unclear why the landlord refused to remove the kitchen base units before deep cleaning the affected areas or repairing holes in the walls identified on 7 August 2023 as potential entry points for mice. No reasons have been given to the resident for this decision or have been retained in copies of records provided to this Service. Removal of the units would have allowed easy access to clean affected areas and for repairs and, if repairs and cleaning had been coordinated, allowed this issue to be resolved quickly.
This Service cannot draw a direct causal link between the new mice infestation reported on 17 December 2023 and the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs to holes in the kitchen identified by the pest control contractor as potential entry points before this date. However, these repairs should have been carried out within 28 days as per the landlord’s repairs policy and the pest and vermin control procedure. The hole in the kitchen was first identified by the landlord on 7 August 2023, with repairs still outstanding by 20 March 2024 when it is mentioned in correspondence between the resident and the landlord. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if this repair has now been carried out. This is a failure of the landlord to carry out effective repairs linked to the mice infestation and to eliminate entry points for the mice. This was very frustrating for the resident as he made many enquiries about the progress of these works, what actions the landlord would take (including whether the kitchen units would be removed before the works were done), and told the landlord that this was having a detrimental impact on his living conditions.
It is of concern that although pest control contractors identified on 22 December 2023 and 22 January 2024 that hatches needed to be built into the bathroom and kitchen ceiling to allow access to treat the infestation, this work has still not been done. This Service accepts that the landlord has attempted to do this work, but there was a delay of 105 days between when these works were identified as needed and when contractors first attended to attempt to install the hatches on 5 April 2024. A lack of planning and coordination between contractors installing the new ventilation system frustrated this attempt to install the hatches. The landlord has also failed to appoint a technical lead despite recording on 5 March 2024 that the repairs required were complex and would benefit from a technical lead coordinating works, which has led to issues with the way in which these works have been approached as there is no evidence of coordination of works to make sure that they are done in a logical order. This has led to significant delays in treating the mice infestation, which remains unresolved to date.
Due to the landlord’s failure to take a pro-active approach to treating the mice infestation in the resident’s property despite identifying a block-wide issue, delays in arranging inspections and treatments, delays in carrying out associated repairs, and delays in carrying out effective treatments and improvement works in connection to the more recent infestation, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations at the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments

Under the Equality Act 2010, a duty for a landlord to provide reasonable adjustments arises when a provision, criterion or practice of the landlord’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. The landlord has told this Service that it has accepted that the resident must be informed of appointments in writing in advance of the appointment date as a reasonable adjustment for his poor mental health.
Examination of repairs records and correspondence between the landlord and contractors show that although the resident’s contact phone number was passed on to arrange appointments, the resident’s email address was often not passed on and the landlord did not explain about the need for confirmation of appointments in writing. The ‘special instructions’ section of the repairs log would either contain the resident’s phone number against repairs or remain blank, with no explanation of the reasonable adjustment. This is a failure of the landlord to pass on relevant information to contractors and to provide the reasonable adjustment promised to the resident.
The landlord has indicated that some of the delays in carrying out works to the resident’s property are due to the resident not allowing access or refusing works. The refusal of works is specifically related to the installation of the new ventilation system, which has been covered in the relevant section of this report. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that failure to give written confirmation of appointments often led to appointments being missed, with the resident sometimes reluctant to answer the door if a contractor attended at the property without written confirmation in advance.
It is positive that the landlord has acknowledged its failings when providing written confirmation of appointments to the resident, that it told staff on 11 January 2024 that the resident should be informed of appointment times in writing in future, and that it has offered £70 compensation for this issue. However, this is not enough to put things right for the resident as this failure has caused considerable upset to him, not respected the resident’s requests, and as it does not reflect the damage caused to the landlord/tenant relationship by the landlord’s failure to ensure that staff were aware of the resident’s reasonable adjustments. Due to this failure, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process. Stage 1 complaints are logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt, with a response provided within 10 working days. If an extension to this deadline is needed, an explanation will be given to the complainant with a timeframe for when a stage 1 response will be given. Extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days without agreement. Stage 2 requests will be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days of receipt, with responses given within 20 working days. Extensions to this deadline will not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. The complainant will be given the contact details for this Service if any extension is required at stage 2.
The resident made his complaint on 26 September 2023. Acknowledgement of the complaint was given on 12 October 2023, 12 working days later. This is a not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and would not have helped the resident feel that his concerns were being heard.
The stage 1 response was given on 17 January 2024, 78 working days after the initial complaint. The resident was informed about delays to the complaint response on 27 October 2023 and on 28 December 2023, but this contact did not seek to agree an extension with the resident. This is a breach of the landlord’s complaints policy and it would have raised doubts with the resident that his complaint was being taken seriously.
The stage 2 response was given on 16 February 2024, 22 working days after the escalation request. This is a minor breach of the landlord’s complaints policy which would not have had an impact on the resident.
The stage 1 response was apologetic and sought to comprehensively address the points raised by the resident. Detailed information was given about the progress of works to the resident’s property, although it was not correct about the status of the toilet repair. However, it did not make it clear if the landlord was upholding or rejecting elements of the resident’s complaint, there was no acknowledgement of the considerable delay in providing a stage 1 response, and no compensation was offered to the resident for any of the failings identified at stage 1. This is a failure of the landlord to provide a response which makes it clear if it agreed with the resident’s complaint or to apply the landlord’s compensation policy.
The stage 2 response was also apologetic and sought to seek a satisfactory resolution to the dispute. It is positive that it addressed all failings identified by the landlord, made it clear whether elements of the complaint were upheld or rejected, and offered compensation. However, it did not address complaint handling failings at stage 1.
It is unclear whether the complaints team monitored if its recommendations were implemented by the landlord’s repairs team after both sets of complaints responses. As there are still outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, this indicates that the complaints team did not make effective liaison with the repairs team. This is a failure to take full ownership of the issues identified in the complaint responses and to guide a complaint to resolution after identifying failings.
Due to delays in acknowledging the initial complaint, significant delays in providing a stage 1 response, and failing to monitor the progress of repairs after the stage 2 response was given, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The £100 offered for complaint handling failures does go some way to address complaint handling issues, but it does not fully address delays in the complaint handling process. For these reasons, and as the landlord has failed to adequately monitor the progress of repairs after the stage 2 response was given, this Service has ordered further compensation to be paid to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs related to damp and mould in his property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations at his property.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handing of repairs to a toilet.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s senior management team to apologise for the failings identified in this report to the resident in person or, if the resident so chooses, in writing. Confirmation of this apology, including any learning identified as a result of contact with the resident, must be provided to this Service.
2. Record the resident’s need for written confirmation of appointments on his tenancy file in a manner which is accessible for all repairs handling staff. Confirmation that this action has been taken must be provided to this Service.
3. Carry out a survey of the resident’s propertyby a qualified surveyor who has not had any previous involvement with this case. This survey should focus on damp and mould, ventilation, and the mice infestation. If the surveyor identifies defects with the property which require specialist advice or further investigation, follow up surveys must be arranged within a reasonable period of time by a suitably qualified specialist. The landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to contact neighbouring properties or other properties in the resident’s block as part of its investigation. A copy of the survey report must be provided to the resident and to this Service.
4. Appoint a technical lead to prepare a schedule of works based on the survey report and the pest control contractor’s report, with works set out in a logical order of completion. The technical lead must act as a point of contact for contractors to queries about any issues which arise during the completion of works. Confirmation of the technical lead and a copy of the schedule of works must be provided to the resident and to this Service.
5. Arrange an appointment with the resident for the technical lead and/or surveyor to discuss concerns over the proposed new ventilation system. Confirmation of this appointment and the outcomes from discussion with the resident must be shared with this Service.
6. Pay the resident £1,860 directly in compensation, less any compensation already paid to the resident, comprising of:
  1. £810 for delays and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to effectively resolve issues with damp and mould in the resident’s property. This is based on approximately 10% of the contractual rent over a period of 79 weeks while repairs remained outstanding. This has been set with consideration to the rooms affected by damp and mould, primarily the resident’s bathroom, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the ongoing issues, and the number of repeat visits.
  2. £650 for delays, inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to effectively tackle the mice infestation. This is based on approximately 10% of the contractual rent for the period when repairs to potential entry points for mice were outstanding (32 weeks), and 10% of the contractual rent for the period while the more recent mice infestation has remained untreated (31 weeks). This has been set with consideration to the rooms affected by the infestation, the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of his property, and the amount of effort that the resident put into chasing the landlord for a resolution to this issue.
  3. £200 for distress, upset, inconvenience, and the associated impact on carrying out effective repairs for the landlord’s failure to consistently provide confirmation of appointments in writing as per the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
  4. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to check if there are any further toilet leaks.
The landlord should review how it records requests for reasonable adjustments on tenancy files and how this information is passed onto relevant parties when appropriate.