Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202224142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224142

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

26 January 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. Handling of various energy efficiency works to the property;
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and his joint tenancy began in 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house with electric heating. The resident occupies the property with his wife and son. He has a number of vulnerabilities including depression, anxiety and a chronic pain condition. His wife also has mental health issues. His mother was seriously ill during the complaint timeline.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. It is also obliged to keep any installations in good repair and proper working order. This includes any installations provided for “space heating”. The resident is obliged to keep the property in a good decorative condition. The agreement does not reference insulation specifically.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. It aims to resolve complaints within 10 working days at both stages. If additional time is needed, the landlord can extend an investigation by, a maximum of, 20 working days providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contact records show the resident made a formal complaint about the property’s heating on 19 January 2022. His email said the family could not afford to run all of the property’s heaters. As a result, the main bedroom heater was “unused all year round”. Since energy costs were forecast to increase significantly, he felt the landlord should provide a more affordable heating system.
Related records suggest the landlord contacted the resident around 24 January 2022. Corresponding notes referenced chimney repairs and “possible Eco works”. The notes said the resident was unhappy and the landlord should investigate if his concerns were a service request or a complaint. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
On 1 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. He said it was his second related complaint. Further, the landlord’s rent was increasing and it had specific funds available to improve the energy efficiency of its housing. The resident said, since it had several efficiency issues, the property should be allocated some of this funding. He also said the landlord recently “regraded” the property’s energy rating, but there had been no further updates.
The executive replied in detail the next day. Their correspondence gave a general overview of the landlord’s energy efficiency activities. It confirmed the resident’s concerns would be handled as a formal complaint by one of the landlord’s senior leaders. It said the landlord’s Money Advice Team had been asked to contact the resident. The resident subsequently confirmed this was unnecessary.
The parties agreed the complaint’s scope during an email exchange on 3 March 2022. The correspondence referenced various issues including: holes near a back door, loft insulation, scaffolding, the property’s heating system, repeated communication failures, a copy of a recent energy survey, and heat loss from a door between the kitchen and utility area. The resident felt the door/unheated utility room needed to be addressed to prevent “heat leakage.”
The landlord’s appointed leader updated the resident by email on 16 March 2022. They said they would soon attend the property to assess its rear door, loft insulation, and bedroom heater. In addition, they had chased a contractor in relation to the delayed chimney repair. An email exchange on 21 March 2022 confirmed the landlord’s specialist energy contractor surveyed the property that day. During the exchange, the resident reported the contractor felt the main bedroom heater was an adequate size for the room.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord’s appointed leader confirmed loft insulation and door works had been agreed. They said the landlord was awaiting corresponding appointment dates. They also told the resident the landlord had not received the specialist contractor’s final report. However, they felt solar panels and electric heating works were likely to be approved in due course. The information seen shows the property received grant funding from an energy efficiency scheme. The grant works needed to be completed by mid-July 2022.
The resident updated the appointed leader in mid-June 2022. His email confirmed the landlord’s general contractor recently upgraded the kitchen door. However, the resident reported the finished works were “rough”. For example, a “large chunk” had been chipped out of the door frame and the paintwork did not match. The resident also queried the condition of brickwork above the door. He asked the landlord to consider arranging a surveyor’s inspection.
Around the same time, the landlord confirmed the deadline for its grant works had been extended until 1 September 2022. Within a week, the resident replied the delay was disappointing. He said, for financial reasons, the family were “depending on the solar panel installation being completed by the end of June (2022)”. He felt the property should have been prioritised because its heating was so inefficient. Further, the landlord’s lack of communication caused unnecessary worry and stress.
The parties exchanged emails in mid-August 2022. The landlord said it was handling the energy efficiency and door works separately. In addition, it was working hard and was confident the energy works would be completed soon. It also said it appreciated the resident’s patience. The resident replied the landlord’s “sarcastic tone” was unnecessary. He said works to the kitchen door should be finished because the door would not always close. The landlord subsequently issued its loft insulation works to an alternative contractor to expedite matters.
During an update in late August 2022, the resident reiterated he was unable to close the kitchen door and he was unhappy with the quality of the related works. He said he had to repeatedly chase the landlord because it kept missing its “response by” deadlines. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the following events then occurred between 1 and 13 September 2022:
1. The resident reported a roofing operative had been sent to fix the door. Further, they were unable to complete the repair because they did not carry the required tools. The landlord subsequently confirmed the resident’s report was correct.
2. The resident reported quality issues with the energy contractor’s electrical and plastering works. His emails referenced a ceiling that needed to be fully replastered, a hole that needed to be filled, a damaged vent, and mess left around the property.
3. In an update to the landlord on 5 September 2022, the resident said operatives working at the property were “doing a brilliant job”. Further, he was “over the moon” with the equipment installed and an old tank had been moved. His email confirmed an operative previously fell through a ceiling from the loft.
4. Within days, the resident reported scaffolding used to install the solar panels had been removed. However, a falling pole had cracked a paving slab near the property’s front door. He felt the operatives should have owned up to the damage.
5. The resident subsequently chased the landlord for its energy contractor’s certification. Around the same time, he reiterated a surveyor should inspect cracked brickwork around the rear door. His email referenced subsidence.
On 21 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive again. He said he was deeply concerned by the landlord’s general repairs contractor. Further, ongoing contractor failings caused him avoidable stress and anxiety over an extended period. He also said he had lost confidence because, “Every job…in the last 12 months (had) either resulted in a recall, gone wrong, caused damage or a near miss accident”.
On the same day, the landlord quickly realised the resident’s March 2022 complaint had not completed the first stage of its internal complaints process. This was evident from the landlord’s internal correspondence following the resident’s email to the Chief Executive.
The parties spoke the following day. A subsequent email exchange outlined the agreed scope of the landlord’s investigation. It referenced multiple issues including: outstanding certification, a hole above the resident’s son’s bed where an operative fell through the ceiling, damage caused by asbestos testing and delayed test results, a damaged carpet; marks left throughout the property by contractors and a damaged heater surround. It shows the resident was concerned there may be asbestos in the ceiling above his son’s bed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on the same day. It confirmed its quality team would inspect the property in due course. In related internal correspondence, the landlord said it should teach staff how to “push back appropriately” in relation to repairing responsibilities. This was on the basis its residents usually felt the landlord was responsible for redecorating after repair works (the landlord’s wording their interpretation was not correct).
Between 23 and 24 September 2022, the resident reported a building inspector had reviewed his images of cracked internal and external brickwork. He said it was concerning they did not seem worried by the cracks. Further, the landlord had adopted a similarly relaxed approach in a previous inspection. In contrast, he felt a thorough brickwork inspection was needed. In separate correspondence to the landlord, he said his depression and anxiety were reaching uncomfortable levels and his medication had recently increased.
The parties’ correspondence shows the following events occurred between 25 and 30 September 2022:
1. The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the property’s bathroom heater. He said it was expensive to run so the family did not use it. He felt the landlord should replace the unit with a slimline electric towel rail. He said he had complained because the matter was discussed before and no progress had been made.
2. In separate correspondence he reported finding additional contractor damage in his son’s room. He said it should be added to his stage 2 complaint along with ongoing issues concerning the kitchen door, which needed to be fixed before winter. He also chased the outstanding certification and raised various queries.
3. In internal correspondence the next day, the landlord said the resident’s level of contact appeared to be becoming “borderline excessive”. Around the same time, the resident said he would not allow the landlord’s general contractor any further attempts to repair the kitchen door.
4. The parties subsequently agreed a list of around 11 issues to be addressed. It included: poor workmanship to the kitchen door and electrical trunking; damage to the bedroom and lounge ceilings, a paving slab and a heater component; marks, carpet wear and mess left for the resident to clean up.
5. Around the same time, the landlord asked the resident to limit his contact so its investigation could proceed. In response, the resident asked the landlord to be patient with him due to his medical conditions.
6. The landlord shared its asbestos survey with the resident. It confirmed no asbestos was found in any of the property’s bedrooms.
During internal correspondence in early October 2022 the landlord’s quality team reported some aspects of the landlord’s works were “shoddy”. Further, internal correspondence said the quality and care of work had been poor. In addition, “the whole process (had) turned into somewhat of a disaster”. The landlord subsequently shared its preliminary findings with the resident, who agreed they were broadly fair. He asked for clarification on a number of points, and requested to do his own decorating with compensation from the landlord.
On 5 October 2022 the resident reported loft insulation works completed that day had gone well. However, the old loft tank had been left in place on the basis it was “too thick to cut up”. He asked if the loft hatch should have also been insulated. The resident provided images of the insulation works the following day. Based on these images, the landlord recalled its contractor to tidy up and address gaps in the insulation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 October 2022. It listed 12 complaint issues linked to the landlord’s various works. It said the “substantive elements” of the resident’s complaint were upheld. Further, the landlord was exploring ways to improve its quality control measures and communication during improvement works. The resident was offered £950 in compensation in “full and final settlement” of his complaint. The key points were:
1. The resident’s concerns around asbestos were not upheld. The landlord shared its survey results with the resident immediately on receipt.
2. The following 4 issues remained outstanding: installation of improved loft insulation, removal of galvanised tank from the loft, kitchen door and frame to be replaced with a composite door, and surveyor to inspect brickwork.
3. The landlord had increased its previous (informal) compensation offer. Its new proposal included provisions for a floor covering in the pantry. It also considered the additional inconvenience caused by the delayed insulation works.
The resident replied the same day. He said, to resolve matters, he would accept the landlord’s compensation. However, since they were not mentioned in its response, the landlord should confirm whether its specialist energy contractor would: skim his son’s bedroom ceiling, replace the cracked heater surround and tidy up the electrical trunking. He also said there was further damage to the ceiling in his son’s room and the landlord should provide timescales for the outstanding works.
The next day, the landlord agreed to contribute £50 towards the installation of an electric towel rail as a goodwill gesture. This was on the basis the existing heater was adequate for the room. Based on its previous internal correspondence, the landlord felt the resident’s related concerns (about the towel rail) amounted to a service request rather than a complaint.
On 24 October 2022 a specialist contractor completed a structural survey of the property. Its report said no significant structural movement or subsidence had occurred. However, it recommended incorporating steel bars into brickwork above the kitchen to prevent “deflection”. It also said, though it was “more of a cosmetic issue”, the landlord should complete specified repairs to slight cracking within the landing and living room areas.
The parties’ correspondence shows the following events occurred from mid-November 2022:
1. The resident reported recent plastering works were “average/poor”. He also said dried plaster was left stuck to various fixtures including the carpet and curtains. He reiterated previous concerns about the standard of the landlord’s contractors and said he was tired of complaining . He reported his mother had serious health issues.
2. In separate correspondence, the resident reported he had received a text message with confusing information about an appointment. Subsequently, he suggested an appointment had been cancelled “without his knowledge”.
3. The resident later reported he had been “unsettled” by a telephone “confrontation” with the landlord’s contractor over plastering works. He said it was reasonable to expect a “decent job” and there was no apology for the mess that was left.
4. On 16 November 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. It related to the resident’s report of a missed appointment on 12 November 2022. It said the resident would receive a response or an update by 26 November 2022.
5. In an email update 2 days later, the resident stressed the impact of the landlord’s various issues. He said there had been 4 attempts to repair the internal door, and the thought of the landlord’s general contractor repairing the external brickwork made him anxious. He felt the outstanding works should be completed swiftly by competent operatives, and compensation should be offered.
6. In related internal correspondence, the landlord said it was unable to resolve the resident’s complaints until the landlord delivered a “good service”. The information seen suggests it subsequently arranged an internal case meeting.
7. On 19 November 2022 the resident reported mould on the landing ceiling. He felt it was linked to insulation works completed when the contractor was recalled. In separate correspondence, he told the landlord he was now less satisfied with its stage 2 response. He said he had arranged to complete the plastering with a close family member. This was on the basis he had moved his son’s belongings from and to the bedroom several times already.
8. Within days, the landlord suggested it could arrange an independent survey. This was based on “the raft of issues” within the property.
9. On 26 November 2022 the resident reported the landlord’s “very poor” plasterwork had been rectified. He said the whole ceiling needed to be sanded and some of the landlord’s plaster was removed. He stressed additional compensation was necessary and provided supporting images.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 December 2022. This was 11 working days after the resident’s related complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge the short delay. It said the resident’s other concerns were being addressed through his stage 2 complaint and the landlord was arranging a condition survey of the property. The main points were:
1. The missed (plastering) appointment arose from a miscommunication between the parties. The landlord recognised its contractor failed to communicate with the resident effectively (no apology was offered).
2. The matter had been addressed with the contractor, this included the standard of its subcontractor’s works. Ultimately, the resident completed the plastering and shared images of his works with the landlord.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint the same day. The resident and his wife subsequently made further escalation requests around a week later. Though the requests broadly reiterated previous concerns, they also referenced the landlord’s late response and its related failure to keep the resident updated about the progress of its investigation.
The resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive on 11 December 2022. He listed 10 issues he said should be recorded on his tenancy file. It included: the defective kitchen door; uncontrollable cold in the property, cracked external brickwork, loft insulation, damp and mould in the main bedroom, poor workmanship, miscommunication and the landlord’s complaint handling. He subsequently explained the outstanding works had contributed to the cold and damp issues.
Around this time, the landlord allocated the resident a single point of contact (SPOC). The SPOC’s internal correspondence on 13 December 2022 suggests the resident wanted to avoid escalating his recent complaint if possible. Instead, the SPOC said, he wanted the landlord to apologise for its role in the miscommunication and issue a goodwill gesture of £100. This was to acknowledge the time he spent and the materials he used to rectify the landlord’s plastering.
Further internal correspondence shows the SPOC felt the resident’s stage 2 complaint should not have been closed. Further, it should have included the issues in the resident’s recent stage 1 complaint. The SPOC said the resident would be satisfied with an amended stage 1 response. Around the same time, another member of the landlord’s staff said they had received over 300 emails from the resident.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord took a sample of the property’s cavity wall insulation. Later that day, a specialist damp and mould contractor surveyed the property. The contractor’s report said there was mould on the ceiling in the property’s second bedroom. Further, there was moisture coming from the loft space and the room was very cold. It said this may be because the room below (the utility room) was classed as an out building. The following works were recommended:
1. Mould washing works were needed in the bedroom. The landlord should also investigate the loft space and the moisture on the ceiling. If problems persisted, the landlord should install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system in the loft. An inspection of the utility room was also recommended.
2. The landlord should upgrade the existing bathroom fan to address high moisture levels on the ceiling. A specific fan should be installed. Similarly, the existing kitchen fan did not work. The landlord should replace it with the contractor’s recommended unit.
The landlord issued a revised stage 1 response in an informal email on 16 December 2022. It was largely in line with the SPOC’s previous comments. The landlord apologised for its part in the miscommunication and for confrontations between the resident and the contractor. It awarded the resident a £150 goodwill gesture in relation to the plastering. It said feedback was provided to the contractor and the resident’s case would be used internally for learning and improvement purposes.
The resident accepted the revised outcome on the same day. He said he hoped the landlord would agree the damp contractor’s recommendations. He reiterated repairs to cracked brickwork and the kitchen door had been agreed. In subsequent internal correspondence, the landlord said it needed to speak to the damp contractor because it failed to understand the extent of its report and comments made to the resident. The landlord noted there were no condensation marks prior to the loft insulation works. Further, its repair costs were “entering the major repair level”.
The resident updated the landlord by email on 3 January 2023. He said he wanted the following works to be completed on 9 January 2023 as scheduled: exterior brick cracks; kitchen door frame and brickwork to be removed (prior to new door installation); light socket to be relocated; understairs void section to be squared off, and lintel work. He requested: the structural engineer’s report, the results of the cavity wall inspection, the damp contractor’s report, a full survey, and the £150 agreed in the landlord’s revised stage 1 response.
In further updates a week later, the resident told the landlord he had approached the Ombudsman. He said his Ombudsman complaint concerned the following works, which were outstanding at stage 2: cracks, kitchen door and loft insulation. His email referenced a “failed repair” on 9 January 2023. He subsequently said the landlord should raise a new complaint to address “new” bedroom and outhouse issues. His new complaint comprised the following issues:
1. A lack of insulation in the utility room/outhouse. The resident felt this was causing “extreme coldness” and damp to the property. He also felt the bedroom above was especially impacted.
2. Defective cavity wall insulation. The resident felt cracked external brickwork had compromised the property’s insulation resulting in dampness and condensation.
3. Condensation and mould developing on the upstairs “wall curvatures”.
During an email exchange on 16 January 2023, the landlord told the resident it suspended “communications around complaints” when tenants were taking legal advice. This information was prompted by the resident’s notification he was considering legal action against the landlord. The resident confirmed he had not instructed a solicitor. He also said there was “no active complaint to suspend” because the landlord “denied (his) recent complaint escalation”.
Over the next few days, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the level of heating in the main bedroom. He said its storage heater was unable to maintain a temperature above 16 degrees. Further, though the heater had been tested in the past and worked as intended, the landlord should confirm it was the correct size for the room. He stressed that bedrooms required adequate heating.
On 3 February 2023 the resident reported he had received information from the landlord through a subject access request (SAR). He said some of some of the landlord’s internal correspondence appeared to suggest he was “a nuisance looking to open complaints, make a financial claim and waste time”. Further, he was pleased to review the structural engineer’s report but it would have been better if the landlord had willingly shared the information. He also said his stage 2 complaint should have been left open so the landlord could monitor the outstanding repairs.
Two weeks later, the resident reported the energy contractor had checked the cavity wall insulation and the loft space. The contractor’s report, dated 20 February 2023, said “large voids found in the fibre insulation on all elevations of the property”. It also said rubble had been found at the base of the cavity on the gable end. It recommended replacing the property’s old fibre insulation with a modern equivalent. A related quote shows the works were expected to cost around £3,200.
On 22 February 2023 the resident reported a stock condition survey was completed that day. He said it was different to the full condition survey that the landlord previously promised. In addition, the surveyor was rude and argumentative during the parties’ interaction. On 1 March 2023, the consultancy firm which completed the survey shared some key findings with the landlord. It said there was “very minor mould growth and barely visible external cracking”. Further, these issues had been recorded as category 2 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
In an email update to the landlord on 6 March 2023, the resident said he was happy with recent works to the external brickwork and kitchen door. His email confirmed that, between 27 and 28 February 2023, steel bars were installed and the kitchen door frame was removed. He asked the landlord to pass his compliments to its operative. He subsequently reported the operative only completed half of the required works, and various issues needed to be “made good”.
On 17 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he was concerned about the overall duration of the repair works. He emphasised its stage 2 response was issued in early October 2022. Broadly, he said various surveys had not resulted in action and the landlord had not shared the survey results. He asked what was happening with the insulation (cavity wall and loft), why debris/mess had been left in the property’s garden, and why the damaged heater surround had not been replaced.
Within days, the resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the works in late February 2023. He refenced multiple quality issues to be addressed. For example, he said holes were punched into plasterboard ceilings in the kitchen and utility room and no attempt was made to repair them. He also said the rubbish left in the garden was dangerous and unacceptable.
The parties’ correspondence shows there were a number of appointment issues in late March 2023. For example, the resident referenced an unscheduled post inspection, a plastering appointment arranged at short notice and a failed visit. He also raised a related complaint about an operative’s conduct. This was on the basis they left site without completing their allocated works. Around the same time, the landlord shared some of its energy contractor’s findings.
The findings showed there were gaps in the loft insulation and “some areas had been laid short”. In response, the resident questioned why the landlord had omitted information about the cavity wall insulation. This was on the basis the walls and loft were assessed at the same time. In separate correspondence, he reported further mould growth around the property. He attributed it to the cavity wall insulation and asked the landlord to raise a related complaint. His main points were:
1. Even with solar panels, it had cost the family £1,100 to heat the property over winter. This was excessive and the landlord was aware of the related efficiency problems.
2. Mould had damaged wooden furniture along with paintwork/decoration in the bedrooms. The landlord was responsible for this damage.
3. The landlord should confirm the steps it would take to address the resident’s concerns. It should not ignore his request to raise a complaint, as he had “asked a few times now.”
In early April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. In addition to reiterating previous concerns, he referenced “extreme black mould on the upstairs ceiling. He said his wife’s wedding dress had been damaged by mould and the landlord had prevented him from raising a separate complaint. He subsequently asked the landlord to consider replacing the property’s windows. This was on the basis they had exceeded their expected lifespan and no longer worked as intended. Within days, he asked the landlord to install bird mesh under the solar panels and clean the gutters.
On 11 April 2023, the landlord told the resident it would not raise a formal complaint in relation to the cavity wall insulation. It said the property had been inspected on numerous occasions and only minor mould growth was identified. Further, the resident should note there was currently “a lengthy delay on all repairs” due to the volume of requests. In addition, the matter would be closed when the loft insulation was complete. The resident should refer to the Ombudsman if he wanted to continue his complaint.
Later that day, the landlord replied to 5 queries from the resident. The email wording suggests the resident felt his complaint would be resolved if the queries were addressed. It also indicates aspects of the landlord’s tone were problematic. For example, the landlord said it “(looked) forward very much to (loft insulation works) being completed satisfactorily”. It also referenced “legitimate repair requests”. The main points from the landlord’s email were:
1. The landlord was sorry its loft insulation works were incomplete and it acknowledged the impact on the family. Remedial works were now scheduled.
2. The landlord’s energy contractor had declined to attend the property because it felt “unreasonably exposed” to complaints. The works had been allocated to a different contractor.
3. Though there was evidence the cavity wall insulation had failed in places, there was no evidence this was impacting the property. Any related issues, such as cold bridging, would have presented “years ago”. The landlord would not take any further action.
4. The landlord would clean the areas affected by mould. No decorating works had been agreed.
5. There was no evidence of rising damp in the property and its damp proof membrane was in a reasonable condition for its age. The landlord agreed holes left by the cavity wall inspection should have been filled on completion of the survey. Remedial works had been arranged.
Subsequently, the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion there was no evidence of previous issues with the cavity wall. This was on the basis he had approached the landlord about temperatures in the property several times over the years. His email emphasised the landlord’s repairing obligations.
In a detailed update on 15 April 2023, the landlord stressed the resident should comply with its SPOC arrangement. It said it had handled hundreds of emails from the resident, which confirmed it was listening to him. However, it would not revisit issues from settled complaint cases, and the resident had previously accepted its compensation. In addition, he had refused mould washing works (the resident denied this on the same day). The landlord said it declined 2 complaint requests from the resident because:
1. The first request related to delays in completing follow on works that were agreed as part of a complaint settlement. This request did not meet the landlord’s criteria.
2. The second request related to an issue identified during a specially commissioned survey. This was part of a previous complaint resolution and the landlord’s criteria was not met.
The parties’ correspondence shows the following events occurred between 18 April 28 and June 2023:
1. The resident requested a deadlock letter. His email said he was liaising with the local authority’s housing team (assumed about mould and temperature issues).
2. The landlord had taken legal advice.
3. An appointment for remedial loft insulation works was cancelled without notice.
4. In internal correspondence, the landlord said it had considered the resident’s temperature concerns in the context of HHSRS. Further, the property met the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) and no HHSRS issues were identified during the stock condition survey.
5. The landlord told the resident the property was legally compliant and none of the household were vulnerable (in relation to the HHSRS hazard ‘excess cold’). On that basis, it would not comply with the resident’s request for a bigger bedroom heater (the resident wanted to replace a heater that was specified and installed through the recent energy efficiency works).
6. On 16 June 2023 the resident told the landlord he felt “some serious negative assumptions” had been made about his family in relation to vulnerabilities. He said he had been labelled a nuisance and legitimate complaints had been rejected. Further, the landlord should do the right thing without bias. He said his official complaint should be allocated to one of the landlord’s executives.
7. The landlord replied that a stage 1 complaint had been raised but the resident’s request for a high-level investigation was outside of its process.
8. The resident told the Ombudsman the heating issue was now his foremost concern. He said, due to his health, he spent most of his time in the main bedroom and temperatures of 15 degrees or lower were unacceptable.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in a detailed email on 22 July 2023. He said the landlord’s complaint handling prolonged his concerns unnecessarily. This was on the basis its approach lacked structure, timescales were not provided, and there was “no clear pathway to a resolution”. He stressed the landlord’s failure to comply with its complaints procedure impacted his mental health. He also said mould spores caused in damage and “heavy chesty coughs” amongst family members. Other key points were:
1. The loft insulation was still defective despite 3 previous attempts to correct it. Another appointment was due to take place within days.
2. The cracked heater surround was still outstanding. The landlord had ignored several requests to rectify the issue.
3. A composite kitchen door was eventually installed after “multiple aborted appointments”. Similarly, the old loft tank was removed and external crack works were completed. However, the cracks were not repaired before winter as requested.
4. A contractor recently treated the mould with stain block. The works “ruined” the resident’s paintwork and the room had to be redecorated. The landlord declined to accept a related complaint.
5. The cavity wall and loft insulation should be rectified and the landlord should reconsider its decision around the bedroom heater. The resident had reported heating issues since 2013.
6. In total, the resident took 3 days off work to facilitate appointments. He wanted an official apology and compensation because he wasted valuable leave. He also wanted the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint in respect of his bedroom heating, and compensation for the repainted bedroom. He stressed the landlord was “negligent” and its behaviour was biased.
The Ombudsman received the landlord’s case evidence in late 2023. In a cover letter, the landlord said it had done its best to investigate and resolve matters in line with its responsibilities. Further, it had received over 1,000 emails from the resident in a period of around 15 months. The evidence included a repair history that ran from 2013 to late May 2023. Mould was first referenced in December 2022. From the history, the Ombudsman was unable to establish when the kitchen door, mould treatment or loft works were completed.
The Ombudsman was unable to contact the resident by phone or email between 5 and 11 January 2024. As a result, the below assessment relied on the repair information provided in his July 2023 update email.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for health impacts or lost earnings. If he wants to pursue these issues, the resident can seek legal advice.
It is accepted the resident presented a number of challenges for the landlord during the timeline. For example, there was a significant volume of correspondence directed to multiple members of the landlord’s staff. It is reasonable to conclude this made it more difficult for the landlord to keep track of events. Further, some of his requests arguably amounted to improvements, and some issues (such as the size of the bedroom heater) were raised repeatedly. Still, the evidence shows some of his key concerns were justified.

The landlord’s handling of various energy efficiency works to the property

In its stage 2 response, on 10 October 2022, the landlord accepted various failures in respect of the works. For example, it acknowledged delayed insulation works caused the resident additional inconvenience. Ultimately, it awarded him £1,150 in total compensation. Broadly, this settlement addressed various failures that occurred between early March and mid-December 2022. At this point, the resident accepted that the landlord’s compensation award and its agreed follow up works were a fair means to resolve his complaint.
It is acknowledged £1,150 was a significant amount of compensation. From the information seen, the Ombudsman found no reason to amend the parties’ agreed settlement for the above identified period. Nevertheless, the timeline shows there were further delays and failures afterwards. In addition, the landlord made little attempt to put things right for the resident. Its lack of engagement with subsequent failures, between mid-December 2022 and late July 2023, was inappropriate. The landlord’s rationale will be considered in the below assessment of its complaint handling.
The timeline suggests it took around 7 months to complete the remedial loft insulation works agreed as part of the stage 2 resolution. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repair works. Since we were unable to contact the resident, our assessment assumed the works scheduled for late July 2023 were sufficient to address the installation issues highlighted by the energy contractor in February 2023. This was because the reported defects appeared reasonably simple to resolve. Given the above, the timeline points to an unreasonable delay of around 6 months.
The timeline shows there were multiple appointment issues during the above identified period. For example, there was evidence of a failed repair in early January 2023, along with a number of appointment issues 2 months later. It is reasonable to conclude that: multiple visits, failed repairs, chasing the landlord, and mess left around the property caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. It was also noted the timeline suggests the landlord’s loft works may have prompted the subsequent mould issue. It is likely this was also distressing for the resident.
Given the above, the landlord should have addressed the separate impacts which arose due to delays and failures that occurred while the landlord was implementing the repairs agreed as part of its stage 2 resolution. Its failure to do this was inappropriate. As a result, the Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to address the additional failures identified above. It was noted the resident’s July 2023 update said the damaged heater surround remained outstanding. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

It is recognised this issue has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Nevertheless, the timeline shows the landlord had, at least, 2 clear opportunities to raise a formal complaint in line with the resident’s requests. Further, the Ombudsman has seen sufficient evidence to make a fair assessment. For example, there are several survey reports and recommendations from specialist contractors. With a view to resolving matters for both parties, we used our inquisitorial remit to investigate this issue.
The resident’s April 2023 comments about extreme black mould were noted. However, no information was seen to show a serious health risk was confirmed by a suitably qualified professional. In contrast, the stock condition surveyor reported “very minor” mould growth around March 2023. The Ombudsman has seen numerous images of the property taken throughout the timeline. Though mould growth was evident, it was not considered “extreme”. Nevertheless, the timeline shows there were issues with the landlord’s damp and mould handling.
For example, the timeline shows the resident first reported mould in November 2022. Though the an inspection was arranged within 1 month, the timeline shows recommended mould washing works were not completed until around July 2023. Though the parties related dispute in April 2023 was noted, no information was seen to show the resident declined mould washing works. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord could have proactively resolved the matters when the resident denied refusing the works.
In other words, it should have recognised a misunderstanding had occurred and scheduled a new appointment. Given the above, the timeline points to an inappropriate delay of around 6 months based on the period between 15 December 2022 and 22 July 2023. Given the circumstances, this amounts to maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s response to the resident’s related reports of damage will be addressed in the complaint handling section below.
It was noted the resident’s damp and mould concerns included the landlord’s response to recommendations from the damp and energy contractors. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, having read both reports, the damp contractor’s December 2022 survey was written as a roadmap. For example, it recommended a PIV unit in the event problems persisted after the landlord had investigated (and presumably rectified) any loft issues. In contrast, the energy contractor’s February 2023 report identified clear defects with the property’s cavity wall insulation.
The landlord has said there is no evidence these defects are impacting the property. Its position appears to be based on the results of its stock condition survey. The evidence suggests this was a general survey whereas the cavity wall assessment was both intrusive and specific. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude the energy contractor’s report carries more weight in relation to the cavity walls. Further, the tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the property’s structure and installations in “good” (not reasonable) repair.
It is likely that cavity wall insulation falls under one of the above categories (structure or installations). Given the above, the evidence suggests the landlord’s related decision-making around the cavity wall was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to revisit its decision. The landlord should consider the estimated cost of the works in relation to the cost of any successful legal action on disrepair grounds. The landlord should seek legal advice if it disagrees with our above assessment of its decision-making.
In summary, the timeline shows there were inappropriate delays completing the damp contractor’s recommendations. It also suggests the landlord’s decision-making around defective cavity wall insulation was unreasonable. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s initial complaint on 19 January 2022. Given the complex nature of his concerns, it should have been reasonably clear that a formal complaint was necessary. Still, the resident had to repeat his request on 1 March 2022. It is also reasonable to conclude this was both unnecessary and inconvenient. At this point, the landlord’s Chief Executive assured the resident a formal complaint would be raised accordingly.
Nevertheless, the landlord again failed to engage its complaints process. Overall, the timeline shows it displayed an inappropriate tendency towards informal complaint handling between January and December 2022. Given it subsequently skipped stage 1, this approach arguably hampered the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint. The resident correctly perceived the landlord failed to comply with its complaints procedure. He also told us that the landlord’s complaint handling lacked structure.
In addition, the landlord appeared to give undue weight to the “full and final settlement” wording in its stage 2 response. As a result, when further issues occurred, it failed to address the resident’s subsequent, but related, concerns through its complaints procedure. This was both unfair and inappropriate. No information was seen to suggest the parties’ settlement was binding. The landlord should have either kept its previous complaint open, or raised a new complaint accordingly. Instead, it said the resident’s new concerns did not meet its complaint criteria.
Whilst these were core failures, the timeline points to other concerning issues (it is accepted the resident was not always impacted). For example, in late September 2022 the landlord said it should teach its staff how to “push back” against requests for redecoration following repair works. For clarity, where a landlord has an obligation to repair, it is also obliged to “make good” any damage to decorations resulting from the repair work. From the information seen, it was unclear whether the landlord, and its agents, were aware of this obligation.
Similarly, in January 2023, the landlord said it suspended its complaints process when the resident was seeking legal advice. In line with the Ombudsman’s “New guidance for landlords on disrepair claims”, issued around October 2021, we consider correspondence from the courts to represent legal proceedings. Our approach is that landlords should not disengage their internal complaints procedure before legal proceedings are issued. This approach has several benefits including reduced costs for both parties in a dispute.
Around March 2023, the resident reported mould damage to some of the family’s personal belongings. His correspondence shows he felt the landlord was responsible. However, no information was seen to show the landlord responded accordingly to this assertion. For clarity, if the landlord agreed it was responsible, it should have helped him to raise a claim with its own insurer (by signposting him to its insurance team for example). Alternatively, it could have inspected the alleged damage and handled matters through its internal complaints procedure.
If the landlord felt it was not responsible, it should have referred the resident to his own contents insurance. Where a landlord is unsure, the signposting or inspection approaches are usually preferable. In this case, there was no indication the landlord adopted any of the above approaches. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s related concerns remain unresolved. It is also reasonable to conclude that insurance claims can be time sensitive. On that basis, the landlord’s failure to respond was unfair and inappropriate.
There was also an inappropriate tone in a small number of the landlord’s communications to the resident. This was noted by the resident in August 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s related communication. However, an apparently similar tone was observed during correspondence in April 2023. The resident’s February 2023 comments about the landlord’s internal communications, which he received through a SAR request, were similarly noted. The landlord should take care to ensure its internal and external communications are professional.
Similarly, the landlord appears to have adopted an adversarial approach to information sharing during the timeline. For example, a structural survey was completed in October 2022 but the timeline suggests it was several months before the resident was able to access the results through a SAR request. Likewise, around March 2023 the resident questioned why the landlord had only partially shared its energy contractor’s insultation findings. Since the landlord’s approach appeared selective, the resident’s questions were understandable.
Moreover, in November 2022, the landlord suggested an independent survey to address the “raft of issues” in the property. Arguably, it subsequent stock condition survey did not fulfil this commitment. In any event, the landlord at least failed to manage the resident’s related expectations accordingly. Ultimately, the timeline suggests the landlord’s overall approach, including its tone and level of transparency, has damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
It was noted the resident’s unfair treatment concerns, involving the family’s protected characteristics, were raised late in the timeline. Further, the landlord opened a related formal complaint, which was an appropriate step given the nature of the resident’s concerns. Whilst they were beyond the scope of this assessment, aside from the tone issues mentioned above, no supporting information was noted in the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman. For example, there was no information in the landlord’s internal correspondence to show it adopted an unfair approach to the resident, or his family, based on their personal characteristics.
In summary, there were several serious complaint handling issues which directly impacted the resident. The evidence suggests they also hampered the landlord’s response to his complaint. Significantly, the landlord tended towards informal complaint handling, unfairly declined to accept follow up complaints, and failed to respond to the resident’s reports of negligent damage to personal belongings. There was also an inappropriate tone and approach to evidence sharing. The timeline shows the situation was distressing for the resident.
Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Handling of various energy efficiency works to the property.
  2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord should have addressed the separate impacts which arose due to delays and failures occurred while the landlord was implementing the repairs agreed as part of its stage 2 resolution. Its failure to do this was inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that: multiple visits, failed repairs, chasing the landlord, and mess left around the property caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The timeline shows there were inappropriate delays completing the damp contractor’s recommendations. It also suggests the landlord’s decision-making around defective cavity wall insulation was unreasonable. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.
There were several serious complaint handling issues which directly impacted the resident. The evidence suggests they also hampered the landlord’s response to his complaint. Significantly, the landlord tended towards informal complaint handling, unfairly declined to accept follow up complaints, and failed to respond to the resident’s reports of negligent damage to personal belongings. There was also an inappropriate tone and approach to evidence sharing. The timeline shows the situation was distressing for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should focus on the key issues from the complaint handling section. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant letter or call summary within 4 weeks.
The landlord to revisit its decision around the cavity wall insulation. It should consider the estimated costs of the recommended works in relation to the costs associated with any successful legal disrepair action. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should confirm the cavity wall repairs have been arranged, or share its relevant legal advice (if it decides not to proceed with the recommended works).
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s energy efficiency works.
2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to either raise an insurance claim in relation to the resident’s damaged personal belongings, or inspect them with a view to resolving matters through its own internal complaints process. The landlord should confirm its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord’s executive team to conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted during this report. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: approach to making good, approach to legal proceedings in disrepair claims, approach to service requests, tendency towards informal complaint handling, approach to reports of negligent damage, and refusal to accept complaints involving follow up works agreed at stage 2.
Improvements identified during the above review should be cascaded to the landlord’s relevant staff for learning/development purposes. The landlord should evidence its related action to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.