Peabody Trust (202303265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303265

Peabody Trust

28 June 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs in her property including:
  1. damp and mould.
  2. a collapsed ceiling and associated structural issues.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord. She occupies a 2 bedroom maisonette in a converted Georgian 3 storey terraced house. Her accommodation is on the ground floor and the basement of the property. There is a living room and kitchen on the ground floor. A staircase leads to down to the bathroom and basement, which has 2 bedrooms. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord for 20 years. She has several health issues, including depression and anxiety.
The resident said that when she first moved to the property it was very damp, but the landlord did lots of repairs to address this. She noticed that damp began to reappear after 10 years. Over time the problem became worse, and she noticed that the ceiling had begun to bow in some rooms and that cracks were developing.
The resident states that she made complaints in October 2021, but the landlord closed them without further action.
In July 2022 the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed. A contractor inspected the property on 27 July 2022 and concluded that the ceiling collapse was as a result from a leak from the leasehold property above. The leaseholder was not aware of the leak and contacted their managing agent. The resident has said that she does not agree that the ceiling collapsed because of a leak.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint via a councillor in August 2022. She said that:
1. There was severe rising damp in the property.
2. There were cracks in the ceiling and the ceiling had collapsed in the kitchen.
3. There was structural damage.
4. She did not feel safe living in the property and was staying elsewhere.
5. The landlord had not responded to her complaints.
On 23 August 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident about the issue. It followed up its discussion with a letter which said that it would be undertaking a full inspection of the property with a specialist contractor on 8 September 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had chosen not to have her complaint dealt with as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ following its complaints procedure, and that instead it would be progressed to stage 1.
In September 2022, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and told the resident that it would need to undertake a programme of works following the recommendations in a structural engineer’s report, once it had inspected the property. The landlord decided that it would need to decant the resident from the property.
The resident had not yet received a stage 1 response to her complaint by 20 September 2022, so she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She sent another request on 23 September 2022. The landlord responded on 26 September 2022 with a stage 1 complaint response outlining the steps it had taken to date and offering £50 for complaint handling failures. The letter confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord separately acknowledged her stage 2 request on 26 September 2022 and informed the resident that she should expect a response by 20 October 2022.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident as it had not completed the stage 2 response and would need to extend the deadline for response by 10 working days to 3 November 2022. It said because of the volume of documents on the file it needed longer to complete the investigation.
On 4 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received the stage 2 response. The landlord apologised and said that the delay was due to staff illness, and it would send a response to her in the next few days.
On 8 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about complaint handling:
  1. It had looked back to October 2021 when the resident had raised a complaint about her windows and had concluded at the time that it was not a complaint and rather a service request.
  2. It had not appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint about damp, trees, and a downpipe and it had closed this in error.
  3. It concluded that there was service failure and offered an apology. It listed lessons learned and said that it had reviewed its complaints procedure and it had undertaken training with its complaints team.
2. It apologised for the poor handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. It said that its surveying team had found that major works were necessary and that it needed to do a full inspection of the property to decide the next steps. It was looking for temporary decant accommodation and that the works would begin once she had moved.
3. It was reviewing its processes in relation to repairs and complaint handling, and it was undertaking staff training. It offered compensation from October 2021 to the end of December 2022 of £1240 which was made up of:
  1. £840 for the time trouble and inconvenience, calculated at £60 per month x 14.
  2. £400 for its complaint handling failures.
4. It agreed to review the compensation offered once it had completed the repairs.
The resident responded on 15 November 2022 that she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered and that she wanted reassurance that works would be completed to a high standard.
The landlord arranged to decant the resident from her property into hotel accommodation on 14 November 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December to inform her that it could only review the points raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint and they would look at service failures over a six-month period and while there was some discretion with this timescale, it would not extend to 10 years. It also clarified that compensation for future loss would not be awarded but that it could offer an extra £50 for complaint handling failures and £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she had experienced.

Post complaint.

The landlord commissioned a specialist structural surveyor’s report. An inspection took place on 11 November 2022 and the report dated 5 January 2023 found that:
1. Where the ceiling had collapsed, it could see that some exposed joists appeared burnt or rotten.
2. Sagging and cracks were visible in the ceilings to the ground and basement floors. It said that “it is very likely that the plaster has detached from the laths and has the potential to collapse”.
3. The basement presented many areas with moisture issues. Water ingress and condensation were visible on the back and front walls, as was damp and mould.
4. The bottom corner of the windowsill presented some cracks and swelling in the plaster, due to water ingress.
5. The ground floor rear-facing window of the house was in a very poor condition, presenting mould on the frame.
The structural survey report recommended that:
1. The landlord investigates the ceilings in the property:
  1. It noted that where the ceiling reveals cracks, signs of deterioration and sagging, it is highly likely that the plaster had already detached from the laths and may collapse in the short to medium term.
  2. It recommended that the landlord remove the existing ceiling and replace it with modern plaster.
  3. It recommended that the landlord investigate the ceiling in the most critical area, to confirm the ceiling arrangement and assess its condition.
  4. It recommended that the property be unoccupied until the landlord had assessed the ceiling condition at ground floor and basement levels and repaired or replaced them in their entirety. If the ceiling had collapsed in a location, it could assume that it may also collapse in other locations.
2. The landlord should check the joist ends on the ground floor “to add to the information required for a decision on the ground floors long term adequacy.”
3. The ground floor and basement areas revealed moisture damage throughout. It recommended that the landlord should consider a specialist waterproofing system to provide a suitable solution and the contractor should establish if there are any leaks and repair as necessary.
4. It noted that the window in the basement was in a poor condition and the landlord should replace it. The rear-facing ground floor windows were in a very poor condition with mould visible on the frame, condensation on the panes and shrubbery passing through the window frame. It said that it would need to be replaced in its entirety.
5. It recommended that a specialist bricklayer should work alongside the waterproofing system company to repair and repoint the external wall bricks and mortar that are in a critical condition.
6. It concluded that damp and mould can affect the health of residents living in the flat and the landlord should address this without delay.
It is unclear from the records provided when the landlord started the works in the property, but it appears to have been around March 2023.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that, following a joint inspection, the surveyor was satisfied that the works had been completed to an acceptable standard and that she could move back to the property. Therefore, her temporary accommodation would end on 13 April 2023, and it had arranged for her belongings to be returned from the storage facility. The resident disagreed with this as she said that the works were not complete as the property was still damp.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 24 April 2023 and raised some further works it would need to complete. The landlord extended the decant accommodation for a week, but it ended it on 2 May 2023. The resident moved in with her daughter at this time. She raised several repairs with the landlord that were outstanding, including a bowed ceiling in her bedroom with cracks, ongoing damp, electrical sockets hanging from the walls, a broken and leaking drainpipe, damaged garden wall, damaged flooring not replaced, and it had not replaced the windows.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident that:
1. It had tested the ceiling, and it did not require replacing and the survey had not found any structural issues.
2. It had refurbished the windows, but they did not need to be replaced. Its contractors could look at the handles and locks if necessary.
3. It had renewed the drainpipe.
4. It had repaired the garden wall.
5. It had replaced the part of the floor that had been damaged, but it had not replaced the living room flooring as it believed that the damage pre-dated the leak.
6. It had arranged to clean and clear the property.
7. It had addressed the damp problem and it had installed thermal boards. It stated there may be a residual damp smell while the property dried and as the property had been unoccupied for some time. The landlord was satisfied that the property was now habitable.
Between May 2023 and 30 June 2023, the landlord undertook more works to replace the carpet in the resident’s bedroom, to refix smoke alarms and sockets, to paint the garden wall and to repaint the hallway. The landlord later offered the resident further compensation to contribute towards her getting her living room flooring replaced.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to offer further compensation of £480 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience and £50 for complaint handling.
The resident has reported that the issue in the property has been continuing. A surveyor attended again on 3 January 2024 and found that there was still damp and mould in the basement of the property. In January 2024, the landlord agreed that a surveyor would visit again with the contractor for a further inspection. By April 2024 this had not happened.
The landlord arranged a new surveyor’s inspection for 25 May 2024, but this could not go ahead as the resident was in hospital. The landlord informed this Service on 24 June 2024 that it was rescheduling the joint visit with its surveyor and specialist contractor.
The resident has told this Service that she has not been staying at the property because of its poor condition and as she is afraid that the ceiling will collapse on her. She said that she has been staying with friends and family.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 43 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Paragraph 44 of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme, taking account of the evidence of failure presented.
The resident has complained that the poor condition in her property dated back 10 years. The records show that it raised works in February 2021 to address problems with penetrating damp caused by a dilapidated rainwater drainpipe and to replaster the affected areas. The landlord did not complete these works and it later closed the job. The Ombudsman considers that, given that the current complaint, in part, relates to this one continuing event, it would be fair to consider matters from February 2021 as part of this investigation.
That said, there are matters raised by the resident that the Ombudsman cannot investigate as part of this complaint. This is because the resident did not raise the matters during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. These issues are:
1. That the resident has reported that she was unhappy with how the landlord handled her decant.
2. The resident complained of vermin in the property.
3. The resident queried why the landlord had repaired her windows rather than replace them as recommended.
4. That she was unhappy with the conduct of staff during her complaint.

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.   

The resident has also alleged that the landlord had discriminated against her. This Service cannot assess discrimination issues in the way that a court can as the Ombudsman does not have the relevant expertise or authority to make such findings. Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should obtain independent legal advice.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This helps the landlord to fulfil its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be checked and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
This investigation has been hampered by the quality of the records provided by the landlord. Some of the records, notably the repair records, have been difficult to interpret and were incomplete. No schedule of works has been provided to allow the Ombudsman to consider whether the steps taken by the landlord to address the repairs were reasonable and timely.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, says that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. The gaps in the information have been highlighted throughout this report. The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all.
The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues. For this reason, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record-keeping practices are adequate, and that it takes care to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
The Ombudsman has used its powers under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme to issue a wider order in case reference 202122259 addressing the landlord’s approach to repairs, particularly damp and mould, which includes specific requirements relating to record-keeping. The Ombudsman has not included any orders or recommendations in this report that would duplicate those included in the wider order.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs in her property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires that the landlord keep in repair the structure and exterior of a property. It must also keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. These obligations are included in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The resident is required, as part of her tenancy agreement and in law, to allow access to inspect the condition of the property to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that where resident’s report emergency repairs, it will attend within 2-4 hours to make them safe. Where further works are necessary, it will complete repairs within its routine repair timeframe of 28 calendar days. Programmed or specialist works, are those repairs that require a specialist contractor, or are planned works such as window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding and damp works. The landlord should complete these works within 60 calendar days.
In investigating this complaint, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to carry out a technical assessment of disputed repair issues and decide what works the landlord should carry out. Rather, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.

Damp and mould.

Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or alleviating potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential “Category 1” hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Where potential hazards are found, repair works are typically a landlord’s starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
There are legislative requirements setting out what is a decent home. The Government updated its Decent Homes Standard in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which replaced the Housing Fitness Standard . According to the Standard, for a home to be ‘decent’ it must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services, and
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
As highlighted above, while there are significant gaps in the repair records provided to this Service, the records do show that the resident has reported damp and mould in her property since 2020. There were some historical difficulties with accessing the property around this time which led to the landlord closing repair jobs before it had completed them. While this Service does not question the reasons why the resident did not allow access to the property, any delays which occurred because the resident declined appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
The landlord raised works in 2021 to address penetrating damp, however it did not complete them, and then it closed the job in error. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that it should complete these repairs in 60 days. The landlord’s failure to complete these works was unreasonable.
Following the surveyor’s inspection of September 2022, the landlord decanted the resident and raised works which it completed around March/April 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to decant the resident as the works were likely to be disruptive. Where an extensive schedule of works is necessary, planned works can extend beyond the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the landlord’s records do not show what these works were and when the landlord started the works.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was very poor. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it kept her updated at regular intervals and other than through its formal complaints process. She repeatedly asked for a schedule of works and for copies of reports, but they were either not provided to her, or there was a significant delay in the landlord doing so.
When she said that she was unhappy with the works completed, the landlord was not proactive in engaging with her to explore this further. It did not tell her what works it had undertaken. The resident believes that prior to April 2023, the landlord only repaired the kitchen ceiling, completed a mould wash to affected walls in the property and painted the walls. While this may not be correct, its failure to keep her updated led the resident to draw her own conclusions. This further damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
When she expressed that she was dissatisfied with the works in May 2023, the landlord installed thermal plasterboard in the basement area and undertook some further minor works. When she complained that the property still felt damp and there was an unpleasant smell, she felt dismissed when the landlord told her that this was normal, and the property was inhabitable. Overall, the landlord’s approach was lacking customer focus.
The landlord could have improved its service delivery by providing the resident with weekly updates about how the works were progressing. It could have given her a single point of contact in the repairs team. Having regular discussions with the resident would have shown openness and transparency. More importantly, this would have reassured her that matters were in hand.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord raising works to address the damp and mould in her property. The works raised in 2021 were not progressed. The landlord has provided no evidence that it conducted a risk assessment or that it considered the resident’s particular circumstances.
The damp is an ongoing problem in the property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. Finding the source of the damp is not always straightforward and therefore repeat visits and monitoring of the repairs are necessary to establish whether works have been effective.
The resident reported to the landlord towards the end of 2023 that the damp and mould had returned. Despite a surveyor inspecting the property in January 2024, the landlord has not raised further works, which is unsatisfactory. The landlord has a damp and mould policy, effective as of February 2023. It says that it “proactively reviews and monitors buildings at a higher risk of damp, mould and compensation” and that “we monitor all the works we carry out to tackle this issue for a year afterwards.” The Ombudsman finds that the landlord has failed to follow its policy. The associated impact on the resident has worsened over an extended period and amounts to a severe failing by the landlord.

Ceiling and structural repairs

The resident says that one of the landlord’s officers attended the property after she had reported that there were cracks in the ceiling in her kitchen. She said that the officer prodded the ceiling with a mop handle and concluded that it was safe. Shortly thereafter she reported that the ceiling had collapsed in the kitchen. There are no other records to corroborate the resident’s account of this appointment with the landlord’s officer, and while this Service does not dispute this, we cannot make a finding in the absence of evidence.
The landlord attended again after the ceiling collapsed in July 2022. However, it did not raise works to repair the ceiling or to make the property safe. The resident also said that rubble and debris from the ceiling was left on the floor in the property, until the works were finished in 2023. A follow-on inspection did not take place until 60 days later, and it took a further 2 months for it to arrange decant accommodation.
The landlord’s response was inadequate. Its repairs policy says that emergency works to make a property safe will take place within 2-4 hours and it will complete follow-on works within 28 to 60 days. The landlord has said that it delayed in arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property as it was necessary to test the ceiling for asbestos before it could take any further action. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend in September 2022. This was 60 days after the resident had reported the ceiling collapse and it took a further 2 months to arrange decant accommodation. The resident made her complaint in August 2022. It is unclear from the records provided whether the resident’s complaint prompted the surveyor’s inspection.
When the surveyor inspected the property in September 2022 it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by arranging for a specialist to complete a structural inspection of the property and prepare a report. The inspection went ahead on 11 November 2022, but the surveyor did not send out its report until January 2023. This delay was not the fault of the landlord, and this Service accepts that the landlord needed to wait for the report before it could raise works. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to follow this up with the contractor in the intervening months. There appeared to be no urgency on the landlord’s part to progress the works.
As noted above, it is unclear from the landlord’s records when the landlord started the works. The resident has, however, highlighted the works that the landlord did not complete. They included:
1. Taking down and renewing the bulging ceiling in the basement bedroom.
2. Confirming with the resident that the other ceilings have been assessed as safe and the condition of the joists on the ground floor had been checked.
3. Replacing the windows.
The above issues were all highlighted in the recommendations of the structural survey report as being works that the landlord should complete. From the information provided, the landlord did not follow these recommendations and concluded that the basement ceiling was safe and that the windows did not need replacement.
It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord instructed a specialist structural engineer so that it could identify necessary works to resolve the structural issues raised. To not follow the recommendations of the report it commissioned was unreasonable. If the landlord has concluded that these works were now unnecessary, it has failed to provide the resident or this Service with either an explanation of why it was departing from the recommendations in the report it had commissioned or assurances that the property was now safe.
It is also noted that the resident had reported that there was a tree growing out of a wall, and she was concerned that this was affecting the structure of the property. The surveyor did not cover this in their structural report as they were unable to gain access to the rear of the property on the day of the inspection. While the landlord has informed the resident that it has inspected the exterior of the property and the works are completed, the resident was still dissatisfied.
The detriment caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs was significant. She has said that she has not felt able to use the property as a home for some time, preferring to stay with family and friends. She has said that on occasion she has slept rough rather than stay in her home. This is because she is worried that the bedroom ceiling will collapse on her. She has not been reassured by her landlord’s position that the ceiling is safe, as she had been told this shortly before her kitchen ceiling collapsed. She has said that the damp conditions in the property have affected her breathing and there is an unpleasant damp smell. She has described how the stress of her housing situation has affected her.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property. There were significant delays in it raising works. It did not effectively monitor the situation in accordance with its HHSRS obligations and its damp and mould policy. The damp conditions in the property persist and the landlord has failed to raise any further works to address them. It did not implement all the recommendations of specialist report dated January 2023 and further investigations remain outstanding. It did not offer reassurance to the resident that the property was now safe to occupy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure and offered £840 which was then increased to £1040 and in August 2023 a further £440 was offered. The landlord also said it would arrange to contribute towards the costs of replacing the resident’s living room flooring if she would inform them of the estimated costs. The Ombudsman considers that the redress offered by the landlord is inadequate and orders further compensation as outlined below. An uplift has been included, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as there are aggravating factors that would increase the impact on the resident, in this case the resident’s health needs.

Complaint handling

The resident has said that she has made several complaints to the landlord since 2021 about the condition of her home, including damp and mould and possible structural movement. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident had complained in October 2021. It said that it had closed the resident’s complaint about the condition of her windows, and it had treated it as a service request. This Service has not seen evidence of this complaint or how the landlord investigated it. In the absence of evidence, this Service cannot make a finding.
The landlord’s complaints procedure excludes complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint happened, or was first found, more than six months previously. In exceptional circumstances, it would use its discretion when considering whether to accept a complaint outside of the six month timescale. In this instance it did exercise its discretion in this case to extend the timescale of the complaint back to October 2021, which was reasonable.
The landlord did not open a complaint investigation until a local councillor raised this on the resident’s behalf. Its policy allowed for an ‘informal’ complaints resolution process whereby a complaint could be treated as an “expression of dissatisfaction” before a formal stage 1 complaint was raised. The landlord followed its policy by enquiring whether the resident wished to use the informal process, which she declined. The Ombudsman has found that informal handling of complaints can lead to confusion over the status of residents’ complaints and sometimes undermines natural justice. Handling complaints informally misses the opportunity to achieve earlier resolution and to analyse complaint themes, trends and to drive service improvement. It also risks issues being driven underground, without proper oversight. It is therefore positive that the landlord has since removed the informal stage from its complaints policy and procedure.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or respond at stage 1 within its published timescales. This was unsatisfactory and the resident says that the landlord discouraged her from asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It is not clear from the landlord’s records that this was the case, rather the landlord believed it had to issue a stage 1 complaint response before escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. Nevertheless, these delays caused detriment to the resident, and she was put to time and trouble in chasing her complaint. She also received conflicting information about the complaints process and timescales for response, which was unhelpful.
The landlord also delayed in responding at stage 2; however, the landlord did contact the resident to explain why this was and to agree an extension, which was reasonable. It monitored the agreed works to completion and also reviewed the compensation offered to the resident once it had completed the agreed works, which was fair.
The resident told the landlord, during the internal complaints’ procedure, that her belongings were damaged because of the damp and mould. If the landlord is satisfied that its investigation was thorough and does not consider that an offer of goodwill is required, it should provide its liability insurance details to the resident for her to purse a claim. From the evidence provided, there is no evidence that the landlord took these steps.
In recognition of its complaint handling failures, the landlord outlined the steps it was taking to improve its complaints procedure. This included:
1. removing the informal “expression of dissatisfaction” stage from October 1, 2022.
2. Carrying out training with its customer hub team on complaints handling.
3. employing extra staff across the complaints team to improve response times and communication.
In investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. An important aspect of complaint resolution is to look at what the landlord can do to improve its service delivery, to ensure that these failings are not repeated.
The landlord has shown that it has taken steps to “learn from outcomes” in driving improvements in its service delivery. It has also offered £400 in compensation to the resident which it increased to £450 in August 2023. This award is within the range of financial redress the Ombudsman would award where there have been complaint handling failings as outlined above and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record-keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handlings of the repairs to the resident’s property including (i) damp and mould and (ii) repairs to the ceiling and associated structural repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology is to be from the chief executive officer and the resident is to be given the choice as to whether the apology is given verbally or in writing.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £2000 in compensation. This comprises of:
  1. £300 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s inadequate record-keeping.
  2. £1700 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s service failures in relation to its repairs.
  3. Provide confirmation with this Service once payment has been made.

This amount is to be paid in addition to the compensation of £1520 offered by the landlord following its Internal Complaints Procedure. If the landlord has previously paid this amount to the resident, it should provide confirmation of payment to this Service.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient time for a surveyor to attend the property to undertake a full damp and mould inspection of the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to arrange for a new structural survey to take place, at a convenient time for the resident. The survey should include an assessment of the condition of the ceilings throughout the property and recommendations about any remedial works that should be completed. Access to the rear of the property should also be arranged, so that the inspection includes the exterior of the property.
Within 7 days of receiving the report, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of it.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to assist her to pursue a claim with its insurers for damage to her personal belongings.
Where there are recommendations for works in the report, the landlord should provide this Service and the resident with a time-specific schedule of works.
The landlord should decide, once all the surveys are completed, if it needs to arrange a further decant for the resident. It should inform this Service of its decision within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must also:
1. Arrange for the property to be redecorated where there has been damage to the walls. Alternatively, it should provide the resident with decorating vouchers.
2. Liaise with the resident about the payment towards her replacement living room flooring that it had offered her as redress during its internal complaints’ procedure.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord assist the resident to explore options for rehousing.
If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the amount of £450 it had offered to her in compensation for its complaint handling failures.