Peabody Trust (202222583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222583

Peabody Trust

26 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of leaks, damp and mould, and its handling of the required major works, to the resident’s property.
2. Handling of the resident’s decant, including issues with, and condition of, the decant properties.
3. Response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused due to the condition of her property.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about its use of the electricity at her main residence and her being responsible for paying that bill whilst also paying electricity for her decant property.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background.

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced on 2 April 2012. The landlord became a subsidiary of another housing association in April 2022, with the organisations merging to form a single housing association in April 2023.
The property is a 3 bedroom, ground floor flat. The tenancy agreement states that the permitted number of occupiers is 6. The property is in a block owned and managed by a third party landlord.
The resident has advised this Service that she is a disabled mother of three, her eldest son has special needs and is also disabled, her daughter is a full-time university student, and her younger son is an A-level student. The resident also explained that her mother, who also lives with the family, is elderly with chronic diseases including heart failure and severe chronic kidney disease.
The landlord has recorded that the resident is a wheelchair user on occasions and one of her sons has autism/learning difficulties.

Summary of events

In February 2021, the resident submitted a transfer application to the landlord’s Repairs Surveyor, who asked the resident to forward the completed forms to her Neighbourhood Experience Manager.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP regarding the resident’s concerns about mould in her property and the affect this was having on her and her family. The landlord said that:
1. Its Repairs Surveyor had visited the property and stated that thorough investigations were required to address this. It believed the investigation and works required would be major and so the resident and her family would need to be temporarily decanted.
2. Its contractors had advised that they could start the investigation works in around 5 weeks’ time. This being due to the major investigation work required as well as the current lockdown restrictions only allowing it to carry out essential and emergency repairs.
3. It appreciated the time the resident had ‘‘endured’’ this and that it understood the importance of investigation and fixing the issue.
4. It was currently looking for suitable properties to decant the family and had advised her of this.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Experience Manager emailed the resident to confirm that her transfer application had been forwarded for review. The resident emailed that Neighbourhood Experience Manger on 20 March 2021 asking that they attach medical reports, for her and her family, to her transfer application.
On 5 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise of the outcome of their medical assessment of 31 March 2021, which did not recommend any medical priority. The report stated that:
1. Overcrowding was not primarily a medical matter and attracted its own priority.
2. Leaks and mould in the flat were not primarily medical matters and should be reported to the landlord for them to deal with directly.
3. Otherwise the current accommodation appeared to be suitable on specific medical grounds and possibly ideal given the resident’s mobility difficulties.
4. The resident was given a Band C for overcrowding.
It would normally suggest that transfer applicants register with their local council. However, it had read the local council’s allocations policy and in this case, adult children not being taken into account and the shortage of 4 bedroom properties would apply. It was suggested that the resident consider a mutual exchange, for which it provided details of its mutual exchange web site
On 1 June 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord regarding a complaint by the resident about the damp and mould in her property, which she had reported as adversely affecting her heath. The landlord was advised that to resolve the complaint the resident wanted to be rehoused. The landlord was advised to contact the resident for further details of her complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint on 7 June 2021 and asked that she provide a phone number for it to call her.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s daughter confirming that they had spoken to her the previous day. The landlord went on to:
1. Say that it had sent out contractors to the property and that the contractors findings had been sent to the managing agent to action, as it did not own the building. The landlord said that it was yet to hear from the managing agent and that this had been escalated to senior management to chase.
2. Ask whether the family had discussed the suggested temporary decant, noting that the family’s desired outcome was to be permanently rehoused.
The landlord was chased for its response by this Service on 2 and 9 July 2021. The landlord said that its complaints team would be in contact within 2 working days. During this time, on 5 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s daughter to ask if the family had spoken about a temporary decant and if this was something they would like it to explore.
On 13 July 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord again requesting that it issue its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was advised that if it did not provide its response within 5 working days, this Service may issue it with a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’ daughter to say that it had not had a response from them following its contact on 23 June 2021, nor had it been able to contact the household over the phone. The landlord said that the complaint would be closed that day with no further action outstanding. It also said that its Housing and Repairs teams would be arranging a meeting with the managing agent to discuss the repairs needed to the resident’s home, and should the resident wish to discuss the decant to contact its complaints team or its Neighbourhood Manager.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Experience Manager forwarded a letter to the resident requesting access to her property on 5 October 2021 to complete the required repairs.
On 1 October 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s Neighbourhood Experience Manager to say that they did not reject a previous appointment but had an important appointment to attend. The resident said that she did not go to that appointment as she was ‘‘threatened that someone would break in so I stayed home’’. The resident went on to say that :
1. She ‘‘waited for hours’’ but heard no knock or bell ring.
2. That there were disabled and elderly family members at the property who needed the toilet very often and as the ‘‘other toilet’’ had already been closed because of the leak they would have no access to a toilet even if the works only took 1 hour. The resident asked the landlord to let them know if there was another way to carry out the repair without blocking access to the toilet.
3. They had been calling the landlord for weeks about the leak but nothing was done. The resident also referred to ‘‘all the other leaks’’ that had been ignored and that now ‘‘suddenly it’s an emergency’’.
On 29 November 2021, Environmental Health wrote to the resident following a recent inspection of the property. In its letter Environmental Health:
1. Idenftied that there was Category 1 Hazard relating to Damp and Mould in the property, noting that there was ‘‘substantial mould growth throughout the property’’.
2. Went on to say that it had seen a copy of a contractors report, including photos taken on 6 August 2021, which evidenced that the conditions were the same as during their visit.
3. Said that there appeared to be an issue with damp from a combination of leaks, structural damp and condensation.
4. Said that the property needed to be assessed by a damp specialist company to investigate the cause of the damp.
5. Said that they had written to the landlord with the above findings.
In January 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The evidence provided by the resident states that it was at this time that the landlord offered to move the family to temporary accommodation.
The family were decanted in February 2022. This was initially for 1 month, after which they were moved again, to 2 separate 2-bedroom flats.
On 27 March 2022, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord’s Repairs Surveyor regarding their new decant accommodation. The email referred to:
1. The Repairs Surveyor having attended and making her mother sign a licence for the flat while she was at university.
2. Issues with property they were currently decanted to, including that the owner of that accommodation had attended the property, whilst she and the resident were out, and shouted at her younger brother telling him that they had to pay a charge or leave within the hour.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2022, in which it:
1. Apologised for ‘‘several delays’’ in its response to the complaint.
2. Said that the complaint concerned ‘‘delays in undertaking outstanding repairs to the resident’s ‘‘previous’’ property and compensation for the length of time taken for us to respond’’.
3. Said that it regretted that the resident was no longer living at their main residence and that the negative experience had ‘‘prompted (her) to move’’
4. Offered £450 compensation made up of:
  1. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £100 for the delay in its response.
  3. £50 for the delay to repair.
  4. £50 for right to repair.
5. Said it had looked at its repair and contact records and liaised with its repairs staff/subcontractor and that as a result of her complaint:
  1. ‘‘Better communication will be displayed going forward and further staff training has been carried out on record-keeping’’.
  2. ‘’Staff have been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records’’.
  3. It also said that it had spoken to its contractor about the missed appointments and had reinforced the service levels it expected from them, and the obligation they had to provide a good service to its residents.
On 29 July 2022, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord’s Area Manager, saying that they were contacting them because the Repairs Surveyor was no longer responding to them. The resident’s daughter raised issues with their decant property, including that the resident had had to pay for an electricity bill for that property that she should not have to, and that they were still paying for the electricity at their main residence.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord’s Area Manager emailed the resident’s daughter to say that they had arranged for the contractor to provide a work schedule for all the work at the main residence and then to pick up the issues with both of the decant properties. The landlord also said that it would provide furniture for the flats. They said they would give the resident’s daughter a call the following day to discuss furniture choices.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident, acknowledging that the contractors had not contacted the resident about the repairs required to their decant properties. The landlord said that it would arrange for the furniture that had been discussed.
On 19 December 2022, the resident emailed this Service, her local MP and Environmental Health regarding her complaint. Following this contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord to request that it escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
On 11 January 2023, this Service wrote to the landlord again asking that it provide its stage 2 response, by 19 January 2023. It was confirmed that the resident’s complaint concerned:
1. The outstanding repairs to her main residence, including damp and mould, leaks, flooding, defective boiler and heating system.
2. The landlord’s handling of her and her families decant.
3. The landlord using the electricity at her main residence and her being responsible for payment of that bill and the electricity at her decant property.
4. The resident’s request to be rehoused due to the condition of the property.
5. Its communication, complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.
On 12 January 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s decant property. In later correspondence the resident said that the landlord said that they would be decanted that week. The resident also said that they were given an appointment for the ‘‘dwelling doctors’’ to visit on 7 February 2023 to inspect the property but no one came.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 January 2023.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the investigation into her stage 2 complaint was underway. However, further information was required regarding the decent process and so it would be extending the deadline for its final response to 22 February 2023. In a separate email on the same day the landlord apologised to the resident that the damp and mould inspection did not take place on 7 February 2023, and that this would be chased up. The landlord also said that it would contact the resident the following day with alternative accommodation options.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 February 2023, in which it:
1. Acknowledged that whilst the works to the resident’s permanent home were progressing they were yet to be completed.
2. Said that, the resident was offered the option of a temporary decant in June 2021, in response to the damp and mould in their home. The landlord went on to explain that at that time it was arranging for the building owners to carry out the necessary major works to address the damp, mould and leaks affecting residents in the resident’s block, and that a start for the works could not be confirmed. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to track the progress of the major works, by the building owner, and the decant that had been offered.
3. Said that its stage 1 response was poor and lacked detail, was not adequate, was severely delayed and did not clearly explain the reasons behind its compensation offer of £450.
4. Noted that the resident’s household was decanted in early 2022 and that this was between 2 properties as there were no 3 or 4 bed properties available.
5. Said that, with regards to the issues with the decant property:
  1. Its contractors and building surveyor had attempted to contact the resident to carry out the required works, but received no response and that attempted unannounced visits were refused access.
  2. Its Neighbourhood Customer Specialist had visited the decant property on 12 January 2023, however, the resident had said that they did not want the landlord to complete any works, nor would they agree to be decanted elsewhere.
  3. The only avenue the resident wanted to pursue at that time was to be rehoused to a 3 or 4 bedroom property. The landlord said that the resident was told that it did not have properties of that size available, and had not done so for 18 months.
  4. It was not aware that the resident needed further items in their temporary accommodation, having purchased 3x bed frames, mattresses, duvets and pillows. It had also covered all costs for the two decant properties and placed ‘‘a lot’’ of the resident’s belongings into storage to provide them with further space.
6. With regards to the electricity bills the landlord said that the resident’s request for reimbursement to cover the decant period could be considered once the works to their main residence had been completed. The resident was advised to contact their energy supplier once they had moved back in and to ask for a breakdown of costs for the duration of the decant. The landlord said that the difference in the bill could be considered under its decant policy.
7. Said it was sorry for the resident’s experience and increased the compensation offered from the £450 offered in its stage 1 response to £3,045. This was made up of:
  1. £250.00 for its handling of her complaint at stage 1. The landlord reiterating that the repairs and decant should have been monitored despite the complaint being closed, and also for the poor stage 1 response provided.
  2. £400.00 for time and trouble the resident experienced in arranging for the repairs to be carried out in her home.
  3. A 15% rent rebate for the period the resident experienced loss of enjoyment of her home. The period covered being from 1 June 2021 to January 2023. The landlord said that this covered the period from when the resident raised her first complaint via the Ombudsman to when she was decanted.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s stage 2 response.

On 22 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s Neighbourhood Customer Specialist noting that she was told to remind them to extend the temporary accommodation as it finished that Sunday. The resident emailed again the following day saying they had not heard anything about the extension and asking that it be arranged for their belongings and fridge to be moved out of the decant property.
The resident’s daughter emailed again on 27 March 2023 saying that the accommodation had only been extended for 4 days, not by the 2 weeks they had been told, and so asked where would they go. The resident’s daughter said that this was causing distress to her mother and causing her to have hypertension for days.
On 28 March 2023, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Customer Specialist advised the resident that their current temporary accommodation was not available past 30 March 2023 but they had identified another 3 bedroom apartment nearby.
On 29 March 2023:
1. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Customer Specialist emailed the resident to say that they had tried to call her that morning and that there could be no extension beyond 30 March 2023. They went on to say that the property owner would ask the resident to leave the following day, as they had the right to evict them as they were not permanently residing in that property, and that there was only one suitable apartment available and that there were no other options.
2. The resident’s daughter responded to say that the Neighbourhood Customer Specialist had only tried to call her mother, who was not well at all, and that it was ‘‘absolutely disgusting’’ that the extension was not booked earlier.
3. The resident and her family were then decanted to a single apartment. In its internal correspondence the landlord said that the family would remain there until 3 May 2023. It also noted that the main residence would be ready for the household to move back into ‘’early next week’’.
On 25 April 2023:
1. The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord to say that she and her mother visited their main residence the previous day and had found leaks, mould starting to appear and that the windows were still not fixed. The resident’s daughter said that these findings were proof that their concerns, regarding the landlord’s claim that the ‘‘extensive works’’ were completed were invalid and would remain so because works that had lasted 14 months still could not fix the problem. They also said that this proved the problems were due to the design and structure of the building, which could not be fixed.
2. An internal landlord email referred to a surveyor’s inspection on 20 April 2023, which confirmed that the works had been completed, its Neighbourhood Experience Manager was leading on the ‘‘housing side of things’’ and that a meeting was needed about the case.
On 26 April 2023, the resident’s daughter sent follow up emails stating that the landlord was forcing the resident and her family to move back to their main residence despite there being a new leak, holes and other problems that had not been fixed.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord’s received an email from its contractor referring to the completion of works at the resident’s main residence.
On 21 June 2023, the landlord issued a Stage 2 (Revised) response in which it acknowledged that it had failed to adequately address the concerns raised throughout the entire timeline of events. It also:
1. Acknowledged that the complaint handling procedure was not applied fairly or effectively when the resident first raised her complaint about the damp and mould in June 2021.
2. Said that although it acknowledged the failures to meet its repairs obligations during the stage 2 complaint process, particularly with regard to the amount of time it has taken to complete the repairs needed to the main residence, it had been slow to respond to the current workmanship concerns raised by the resident despite the assurances given in its stage 2 complaint response.
3. Said that complaint correspondence from the resident’s daughter, also shed light on the fact that the resident and her family were unable to sustain their wellbeing under the conditions of their home. Following the closure of the initial complaint, it was evident the resident was in contact, outside of the complaints process, and the slow response to their rehousing needs in turn led to the resident and her family vacating their main residence, before it arranged a formal decant for them.
4. Said that it did not adequately follow through on its promise to monitor the outstanding repairs and ensure that the repairs were completed in a timely manner, nor ensure the family were kept up to date.
5. Said it should have taken steps to ensure the major repairs were completed in a timely manner, so as to avoid causing further unnecessary anxiety and distress for the family.
6. Acknowledged that the overall length of time taken to carry out the works and arrange the family’s return was far too long. Although its current Alternative Accommodations policy did not have a definitive timeline in terms of completions, it was reasonable for the scale of works planned, to be completed within 4 months.
7. Said that there was clearly a need for the resident and her family to be moved into alternative accommodation during the initial investigations, however it failed to demonstrate urgency and drive with regards to the move as part of its complaints process.
8. Said that it had not carried out a risk assessment at that time, which was a failure, especially as it was clear that there were vulnerable adults in the property who would have been negatively affected by the damp and mould.
9. Acknowledged that it failed to oversee the family’s circumstances and did not monitor the major works needed at the resident’s main residence, nor the accommodation they were decanted to.
10. Recognised that there were records of considerable disruption experienced by the family as the decant accommodation was not suitable to their needs and licence agreements were left to run out on multiple occasions contributing to the detrimental impact on the family’s wellbeing.
The landlord went on to explain what learning it had taken from the complaint, including that:
1. It had considerably revised its complaint handling process which it said now emphasised the need for all outstanding actions to be monitored closely, within its complaints process.
2. As a result of the recent merger, it had taken the opportunity to review and strengthen its procedures, including its repairs and alternative accommodation procedure. The landlord said it had increased the emphasis on getting the basics right and ensuring that the wellbeing of resident’s is considered.
3. It had created a ‘‘robust’’ policy in regards to its management of reports of damp and mould, in response to the findings of this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report published in October 2021.
4. Signficant changes were underway with regards to its contractors, including that all repairs calls would be taken inhouse from July 2023. The landlord said that this would improve record keeping from the outset and give more transparency and oversight.
5. It had recommended a review of its current repair and alternative accommodation services to ensure that customer concerns were being heard and acted upon meaningfully. It had also asked for the relevant teams to review their current records of temporarily rehoused residents, on a weekly basis, to ensure time spent on carrying out works, and the inconvenience to the residents, was kept to a minimum.
To resolve the complaint the landlord offered:
1. For its CEO to write to the resident and her family to offer their apologies for what had gone wrong.
2. A total of £6,641.46 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for complaint handling.
  2. £1,000 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  3. £3,641.46 50% rent rebate between June 2021 and February 2022.
  4. £1,400 for time, trouble and inconvenience of delays for 14 months.
The landlord also:
1. Said that it was currently waiting for a new leak to be fixed at the resident’s main residence and it would continue to monitor the works until the resident and her family had returned home.
2. Provided details of its insurance team for the resident to make a claim for the impact the delayed repairs had had on their physical and mental wellbeing should she wish to.
In emails between the landlord’s Repairs Surveyor and its contractor, on 16 August 2023, it was noted that all the works had been completed following the new leak at the resident’s main residence. A new boost clock for the water heater had had to be ordered, as timer had failed, which was currently on order and should arrive on 21 August 2023. Two other repairs, relating to holes behind the toilet and the kitchen tap not working, were also referred to.
An internal landlord email of 12 October 2023, confirmed that the family returned to their main residence on 23 August 2023 and that all works had been completed.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Whilst this Service empathises with both the resident and her household regarding their concerns about the impact this situation has had on their health, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. This is because this Service does not have the expertise to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, which are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.
It is noted that in its stage 2 (Review) response the landlord provided details of its insurance team for the resident to make a claim for the impact the delayed repairs had had on her and her family’s physical and mental wellbeing should she wish to.

Response to reports of leaks, damp and mould, and its handling of the required major works, to the resident’s property.

Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs or works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985). The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is as this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
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 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.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 says that landlords should have zero-tolerance to damp issues; communicate effectively internally and with residents; consider the vulnerabilities of households; and overall deal with such issues in a timely manner.
Where properties are owned and managed by third parties, landlords are reliant on those parties to discharge their statutory and contractual obligations. It is acknowledged that the responsiveness of managing agents can be variable, and in some cases the ability of the landlord to influence this is limited. In such circumstances the landlord would be expected to own the relationship and be proactive in pursuing resolution on the resident’s behalf, it would also again be expected to ensure that there was clear and timely communication with the resident.
It is evident that the landlord was aware of issues relating to damp, leaks and mould at the resident’s main residence at least as early as 18 February 2021. Further, given that in its response to the resident’s MP of that date the landlord said that ‘‘it appreciated the time the resident had ‘endured’ this’’, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord had been aware of these matters at a much earlier date.
Despite this and the assurances given the MP at that time, and in the knowledge that there were vulnerable individuals living in the property, the landlord failed to evidence that it took reasonable and timely action to investigate the matter, determine who was responsible for any works needed, or take any practical action to resolve the leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s home. There were also excessive delays in the repairs being completed, this not happening until August 2023 some 18 months later.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these significant failures in its response to the residents reports of leaks, damp and mould, and its handling of the required major works, to her property.
To put things right the landlord offered the resident and apology from its CEO and £5,041.46 compensation made up of:
1. £3,641,46, based on a 50% rent rebate for their main residence, between June 2021 and when the resident and her family were decanted on February 2022.
2. £1,400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience for the 14 months of delay in the repairs being completed.
Given the significant failures by the landlord it was appropriate that the level of compensation offered was substantial and in line with that this Service would order in circumstances of severe maladministration.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord during its consideration of the complaint within its internal complaints procedure (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. This we do by considering the available evidence.
However, whilst asked to by this Service, the landlord failed to provide the evidence requested with regards to when it was first made aware of leaks, damp and mould in the residents property, its engagement with the third party managing agent regarding the required repairs and its oversight of the repairs to completion.
Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken, or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently.
Further the landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to robustly assess its handling of the repairs, its overall communication and its interaction with the managing agent. In order to provide the resident with redress for this failure an order has been made for the landlord to pay her £250 for the impact this failure has had on the fair and thorough investigation of her concerns. A review of its record keeping process has not been made, this Service having noted that in its Stage 2 (Review) response the recognised issues with its record keeping and stating that taking all repairs calls inhouse from July 2023 ‘‘would improve record keeping from the outset and give more transparency and oversight’’.
With regards to the compensation offered by the landlord, and based on available evidence:
1. It is this Service’s view that the 50% rent rebate offered by the landlord should have been considered back to February 2021 and not just to June 2021. This is because the landlord was aware of the issues of damp and mould in the resident’s property at least as early as February 2021, and had accepted responsibility for the repairs at that time, as evidenced by its correspondence with the resident’s MP.
2. Further to this, the repairs were not actually completed until August 2023, some 2 months after the landlord’s Stage 2 (Review) response of 21 June 2023 and therefore it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 based on £100 for each of the 2 months delay.
Given the above, whilst the landlord did seek to offer redress to the resident for its acknowledged failures, in this case the compensation offered failed to reflect the full extent of those failures. This has therefore resulted in a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to pay the resident and additional £2,020.73, bringing the total payable for this element of the resident’s complaint to £7,062.19.
The additional £2,020.73 is based on:
1. An additional £1,820.73 in relation to a 50% rent rebate for their main residence for the 4 months between February 2021, when the landlord was evidently aware of the concerns raised about the damp and mould in the resident’s home, and June 2021. This is calculated on the basis of the £3,641,46 previously offered by the landlord for the 8 months between June 2021 and February 2022, when the resident was decanted.
2. An additional £200, based on £100 for each of the 2 months it took the landlord to complete the repairs following its Stage 2 (Review) response.
When failures are identified by the landlord, in addition to acknowledging those failures and making things right for the resident, the Ombudsman also expects it to evidence that it has learnt from those failures and taken steps to ensure that they do not occur again in the future.
In this case the landlord did so providing an extensive and detailed explanation to the resident of all the steps it had taken or would be taking to address the failures it identified. In addition to the steps the landlord said it had taken with regards to its record keeping, it also said that it had recommended a review of its current repair service to ensure that customer concerns were being heard and acted upon meaningfully and created a robust policy in regards to its management of reports of damp and mould in response to the findings of this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report published in October 2021.

Handling of the resident’s decant, including issues with, and condition of, the decant properties.

In addition to completing the repairs themselves, the Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to have considered the individual circumstances of the household and whether or not it would have been appropriate to move resident and her family out of their home at a much earlier stage.
In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident and her family a temporary decant. This is because it was not appropriate for the family to stay at their main residence whilst the works were carried out and it was also the landlord’s intention for the family to return when the works were completed.
However, the landlord failed to ensure that the resident and her family were decanted in a timely manner, only taking any meaningful action with regards to decanting the resident when notified by Environmental Health of the Cat 1 hazard within her home in November 2021. It is also noted that despite being advised as such there was then a further 2 month delay in the landlord decanting the resident and her family.
The family were initially decanted together, for 1 month, were then were moved to 2 separate properties, and then to other properties although the details of these are unclear.
In her correspondence with the landlord following its final response to her complaint, the resident said that 2 of the decant properties they were decanted to were not suitable for disabled and elderly residents. The resident also said that:
1. The flats were ‘‘completely empty’’, despite the decant licence stating that they would be fully furnished. The resident said that they wrote to the landlord to raised their concerns but it ‘‘still bought no furniture’’.
2. The flooring had not been laid in one of the flats, and the flooring was ‘‘mouldy and disgusting’’ and that they had to clean it with bleach because the landlord said it would not do it.
3. Most of their belongings were damaged and after being moved from the initial decant, where they had stayed for a month, they had nothing but a few pieces of clothes and a few essentials so we were living out of suitcases. The resident also said that they ‘‘did not have any dishes, cutlery, pots, clothes, cleaning items, tables, chairs etc’’.
4. They had to purchase a fridge, clothes and cleaning essentials, as well as duvets, pillows, bed sheets etc. Furthermore, the resident said that the landlord providing a bed and a mattress was the absolute bare minimum after their mental and physical health being permanently damaged and all their furniture being damaged and not suitable or safe for human use.
5. That it was ‘‘absolutely disgusting’’ that the landlord failed to book extensions to their stays in one of the properties, referring to not knowing where they would go and the distress and upset this caused.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that it failed to demonstrate urgency and drive with regards to decanting the resident and her family and that it did not oversee or monitor the repairs at the decant accommodation. It also recognised the ‘‘considerable disruption’’ experienced by the family, referring specifically to the decant accommodation not being suitable to their needs and that licence agreements were left to ran out on multiple occasions contributing to the detrimental impact on the family’s wellbeing.
In recognition of the significant failures in this case it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation within the range that this Service would consider in cases of severe maladministration. This is did by offering the resident £1,000 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience, a figure which falls at the lower end of the range of compensation suggested by this Service for such cases.
In order for this Service to fully investigate whether the £1,000 offered was fair and proportionate to the actual failures in the case, the landlord was again asked to provide further evidence. However, it again did not do. The evidence requested by this Service was:
1. A chronological list of all the properties the resident and her family were decanted to between February 2022, when it is this Service’s understanding that the first decant occurred, and 23 August 2023, which this Service understands to be the date the resident and her family moved back into their main residence.
2. Confirmation as to what support the landlord provided the resident and her family with in regards to each of these moves.
3. Details of what repairs/other issues, if any, were reported to the landlord about each of the decant properties:
  1. When these were reported.
  2. What action the landlord took as a result of those reports.
  3. When were the issues reported resolved
In light of the landlord’s failure to provide the requested evidence, and the impact this has had on the fair and thorough assessment of the level of compensation offered, a finding of maladministration has been made for which additional redress is warranted. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 bringing the total payable for this element of the complaint to £1,500.
As with the repairs element of the resident’s complaint, it is acknowledged that the landlord has evidence that it has learnt from its failures with regards to the resident’s decant and taken steps to ensure that they do not occur again in the future. This included it recommending a review of its alternative accommodation services to ensure that customer concerns were being heard and acted upon meaningfully. It had also asked for the relevant teams to review their current records of temporarily rehoused residents, on a weekly basis, to ensure time spent on carrying out works, and the inconvenience to the residents, was kept to a minimum.

Response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.

It is noted that as an outcome to the complaint, the resident wanted to be permanently rehoused. This is not something the Ombudsman can order the landlord to do as it can only offer properties based on the availability of suitable properties and taking into account other applicants who may have an even more urgent need to be moved. However, we can look at how the landlord the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused and consider whether it followed its proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable manner.
The landlord’s rehousing policy outlines its approach to housing let through internal transfers, downsizing and management transfers. The policy goes on to state that it will:
1. Assess all applicants to determine whether they fall into one of its priority bands for an internal transfer.
2. Arrange for medical applications to be independently assessed where it believes that the applicant may fall within its health and disability or medical priority bands.
3. Only consider overcrowding by two bedrooms or more where the property has not been intentionally overcrowded. This includes all household members joining the household after the tenancy start date, with the exception of children born to the tenant, or to those originally housed.
4. Consider a management transfer where the safety and wellbeing of a tenant or a member of their household are at serious risk.
In respect of this element of the resident’s complaint, there was no maladministration by the landlord as it acted appropriately and in accordance with its rehousing policy. It arranged a medical assessment of the resident and her family, which identified that there were no health and disability or medical grounds that would require an internal transfer.
This service has also seen no evidence of any serious risk to the resident or her family that would oblige the landlord to consider a management transfer, given that the repairs to be carried out to their main residence were expected to resolve any potential risk that may have previously existed.
Nevertheless, the landlord did award the resident a banding for overcrowding and provided links to its mutual exchange website should the family wish to find a new home via that process.
Given that the resident’s tenancy agreement, which only list the resident and her 3 children, states that the permitted number of occupiers is 6, and that its rehousing policy states that its assessment will not consider members joining the household after the tenancy start date, this Service considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused to be fair and reasonable.

Response to the resident’s concerns about its use of the electricity at her main residence and her being responsible for paying that bill whilst also paying electricity for her decant property.

The landlord’s Decant Policy states that the resident will continue to pay rent for their permanent home, with the temporary property being rent and service charge free. The policy also states that, in exceptional circumstances, the landlord may also cover additional costs on a discretional basis.
Given that was the case, the landlord’s approach in relation to the resident having to pay the rent on main residence during the decant period was appropriate.
The landlord’s Decant Policy makes no reference to who would be responsible for utility payments at either the main residence or the decant property, however it does state that, in exceptional circumstances, it may cover additional costs on a discretional basis.
In its complaint responses the landlord advised the resident to contact their energy supplier once they had moved back in to their main residence and to ask for a breakdown of costs for the duration of the decant. The landlord said that the difference in the bill could be considered under its decant policy.
Whilst this was reasonable advice for the landlord to offer the resident, given that she had expressed her concerns about the affordability of the costs being incurred at both the decant and her main residence, it was a service failure by the landlord in that it did not conduct any further investigation into the resident’s concerns. In also has not evidenced that it considered what other support it might be able to offer the resident in the short term, such as cover additional costs on a discretionary basis, or to have referred her to its financial inclusion team (or equivalent).
Given these failures a finding of service failure has been made with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint for which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50. As it is unclear whether the resident has been reimbursed any electricity costs by the landlord, under its decant policy, the landlord has also been ordered to confirm to this Service whether this has been addressed and, if not, to contact the resident in order to ensure that this is now progressed.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process which states that:
1. At Stage 1 (Complaint Review), it has 10 working days, from the date the complaint was logged, to investigate and respond.
2. At Stage 2 (Appeal), it will inform the resident of is decision within 10 working days from the date of the appeal. The procedure also states “For more complex cases the manager or above may require longer than 10 working days to conduct their investigation and provide a response. Should this situation arise, the manager or senior manager will notify the customer of the reason(s) for the extension, progress to date and when the customer can expect a full response. This notification can be in writing or by phone”.
This Service logged a stage 1 complaint with the landlord, on behalf of the resident, on 1 June 2021. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 7 June 2021. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days, by 21 June 2021. It did speak to the resident’s daughter on 22 June 2021, which it followed up with an email on 23 June 2021 but took no further steps to progress the complaint at that time.
Further, having been chased by this Service for its response on 2, 9 and 13 July 2021 the landlord contacted the resident’s daughter to say that as it had not had response to its email of 23 June 2021, which asked whether the resident wanted a decant, it had closed the complaint.
It was then not until almost a year later, on 22 June 2022, that the landlord issued its stage 1 response in which it apologised for the delays in its response and for which offered the resident £100 compensation.
On 19 December 2023, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking that it provide its stage two response to the resident’s complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord again on 11 January 2023 chasing its stage 2 response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 19 January 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response within 10 working days. It did not do so, however, the landlord did contact the resident on 15 February 2023 to explain that it would need more time and would issue its stage 2 response by 22 February 2023. Whilst the landlord’s complaints policy allows for an extension in the deadline for its response, it is noted that the landlord did not contact the resident to advise her of this until some 19 working days after it had acknowledged her complaint.
There was then a further short delay in landlord issuing its stage 2 response, it not doing so until 24 February 2023, 2 working days after the deadline it had given the resident when it contacted her on 15 February 2023.
In this response, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response was poor and lacked detail, was not adequate, was severely delayed and did not clearly explain the reasons behind its compensation offer of £450. The landlord offered the resident an additional £250 for these failures.
It is the position of this Service that 2 stage landlord complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long. The landlord’s complaints policy also only has 2 stages and has no provision for a further stage.
In this case the landlord issued a further complaint response, in June 2023, which it referred to as its ‘Revised’ stage 2 response and in which it reviewed its response, and significantly increased the level of compensation for its acknowledged failures.
Whilst, as this investigation has evidenced, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that it had not gone far enough in the redress offered in its stage 2 response, and to increase the level of compensation offered, that it did not do so until significantly after the conclusion of the complaint process represents a service failure on its part.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of leaks, damp and mould, and its handling of the required major works, to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s decant, including issues with, and condition of, the decant properties.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in response of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about its use of the electricity at her main residence and her being responsible for paying that bill whilst also paying electricity for her decant property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its significant failures with regards to its response to the residents reports of leaks, damp and mould, and its handling of the required major works, to her property. To put things right the landlord offered the resident compensation in line with that this Service would order in circumstances of severe maladministration. However, whilst the landlord evidently sought to offer redress to the resident for its acknowledged failures, in this case the compensation offered failed to reflect the full extent of those failures in respect of the length of time considered for the 50% rent rebate and the time taken to complete the repairs. Further, though requested to do by this Service the landlord failed to provide evidence relevant to the case which impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to robustly assess its handling of the repairs, its overall communication and its interaction with the managing agent.
In recognition of the significant failures with regards to its handling of the resident’s decant, including issues with, and the condition of, the decant properties, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation within the range that this Service would consider in cases of severe maladministration. However, whilst it is again evident that the landlord sought to make things right for the resident, it failed to provide evidence relevant to the case which impacted this Service’s ability to conduct a fair and thorough assessment of the level of compensation offered.
The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its rehousing policy in respect of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused. It arranged a medical assessment of the resident and her family, which identified that there were no health and disability or medical grounds that would require an internal transfer. This service has also seen no evidence of any serious risk to the resident or her family that would oblige the landlord to consider a management transfer, given that the landlord expected the repairs to her main resident to resolve the issues there. Nevertheless, the landlord did award the resident a banding for overcrowding and provided links to its mutual exchange website should the family wish to find a new home via that process.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact her energy supplier, once they had moved back in to their main residence, to ask for a breakdown of costs for the duration of the decant and that it would then consider the difference in the bill under its decant policy. However, given that she had expressed her concerns about the affordability of the costs being incurred at both the decant and her main residence, it was a service failure by the landlord in that it did not conduct any further investigation into the resident’s concerns or offer her any further support in the short term.
The landlord’s complaints policy has only 2 stages and has no provision for a further stage, in accordance with this Service’s Complaint handling code. During its 2 stage complaints process the landlord acknowledged its failures with regards to the substantive issues in this case, the significant delays in its complaint responses and the poor quality of its stage 1 response. However, that it did not go far enough in the redress offered in its stage 2 response, and did then not increase the level of compensation offered until significantly after its stage 2 response represents a service failure on its part.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Arrange for its CEO to apologise for the additional failures identified in this report. If the CEO has not already made their apology to the resident for the failures identified by the landlord during the complaint process it is to do so now and include the additional failures identified in this report in that apology.
2. Pay the resident the £6,641.46 compensation offered in its Stage 2 (Revised) response of 21 June 2023, if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident an additional £2,820.73 is based on:
  1. An additional £1,820.73 in relation to a 50% rent rebate for their main residence for the 4 months between February 2021, when the landlord was evidently aware of the concerns raised about the damp and mould in the resident’s home, and June 2021. This is calculated on the basis of the £3,641,46 previously offered by the landlord for the 8 months between June 2021 and February 2022, when the resident was decanted.
  2. An additional £200, based on £100 for each of the 2 months it took the landlord to complete the repairs following its Stage 2 (Review) response.
  3. A total of £750 for the impact its failure to provide the evidence requested by this service has had on the fair and thorough investigation of her concerns in relation to the repair to her main residence and its handling of her decant. This is made up of £250 in relation to the repairs and £500 in relation to the decant.
  4. £50 for its failures in respect of the resident’s concerns regarding the electricity bills at both the decant and her main residence.
4. As it is unclear whether the resident has been reimbursed any electricity costs by the landlord, under its decant policy, the landlord has also been ordered to confirm to this Service whether this has been addressed and, if not, to contact the resident in order to ensure that this is now progressed.
5. Confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within the timescales given.