Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202216823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216823

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

14 February 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp mould;
2. reports of repairs, concerns regarding its forced entry into her property, and associated record keeping;
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy from 26 February 2007 to May 2023. The property was a 1 bedroom, 11th floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. For the purposes of this report the housing directorate of the local authority is referred to as ‘the landlord’. Any other department of the local authority is referred to as ‘the local authority’.
The resident lived in the property with her children, one of whom was autistic with particular care needs. She described her own physical and mental health issues, and the treatment that both her and her child were receiving. The landlord said that it had no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.

Repairs guide for residents

The landlord’s repairs guide stated that there were 3 priorities of repair, which the landlord would deal with within the following timeframes:
1. Emergency repair – 2 hours;
2. Urgent repair – 1 to 5 working days (dependent on type);
3. Non-urgent repair – up to 20 working days.
The guide stated that residents must allow the landlord access to their property for essential work. It said that residents would be given at least 24 hours’ notice, except in an emergency. It explained that in an emergency the landlord may have to enter a resident’s home in their absence if there is a risk of personal injury or serious damage to the property.

Complaints policy

The policy provided by the landlord to this Service was effective from 1 November 2022. It stated that the landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process.
The policy said that the landlord would aim to respond to complaints within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. It said that where it was unable to meet that timescale, it would contact the resident to provide a reason and a revised timescale, which would be no more than a further 10 working days. It stated that any additional deadline extensions would only be made with the consent of the resident.

Summary of events

On 1 April 2021 the landlord’s records noted uncertainty over the status of the resident’s bedroom doorframe repair, which was first reported in June 2020. The landlord’s decorator attended the resident’s property, and reported back that her doorframe was falling off. A carpenter attended on 6 April 2021, and refixed the resident’s doorframe.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom following reports made on 31 March 2021 of a leak going through to the flat below. The inspection identified that the leak when the resident showered, was being caused by broken bath tiles. The landlord raised works to retile around the resident’s bath.
On 26 April 2021 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord that she had been waiting 10 months for it to complete the works to her cracked walls and loose bedroom door frame.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord attended to complete plastering around the resident’s bedroom doorframe. The operative reported back that, prior to any plastering, a bricklayer would need to attend to the resident’s bedroom wall. It noted the impact of the debris created by the broken wall with regards to the resident’s child’s vulnerabilities. The landlord confirmed to the resident that a bricklayer would attend on 12 May 2021.
On 20 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that her bedroom doorframe and brickwork had been completed, and asked that the plastering works be rearranged. She also reported that her bath panel had come off. The landlord completed the plastering at the resident’s property on 25 May 2021, and identified that the bath panel would need to be renewed.
On 15 June 2021 the landlord raised and attended an emergency repair to make safe the resident’s bathroom, which it said was leaking into her living room. The landlord raised various works for the resident’s bathroom including tiling, sealing, and the renewal of her bath panel.
On 24 June 2021 the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property, which it attended on 1 July 2021. The landlord noted minor mould spots on the resident’s bathroom ceiling, and around her bedroom window. It further noted condensation water stains on her external living room wall. It advised the resident how best to ventilate, and raised various works including a mould wash, and grouting of her bathroom tiles. On 5 July 2021 the landlord replaced and sealed the framework of the resident’s bath panel.
On 8 July 2021 the landlord’s record stated that an all-day appointment on 2 August 2021 had been agreed with the resident to complete a mould wash, and mist coat her new wall plaster. The landlord’s further record stated that it had tried to call the resident to book in the regrouting of her bathroom tiles, but had not got an answer, and that there was no voicemail facility. It said that an appointment to do the regrouting on 4 August 2021 had been emailed to the resident.
On 26 July 2021 the resident told the landlord that her wooden bath panel had come away again. On 29 July 2021 the landlord confirmed with the resident that her regrouting works, booked for 4 August 2021, had been brought forward to 3 August 2021.
On 2 August 2021 the landlord received a report that water was leaking from the resident’s property into the privately owned flat below. It noted the tiling work that it was about to undertake, and asked that the leak also be traced and remedied. On 6 August 2021 the landlord renewed the resident’s bath panel.
On 16 and 17 August 2021, the landlord received further reports that the leak from the resident’s property was continuing to cause damage to the flat below. The landlord’s record stated that the works to the resident’s property at the start of the month had been cancelled, but that it had since been confirmed that the tiling had been completed in June 2021. It raised a job to trace the leak and asked that the resident be contacted to agree access.
The landlord continued to receive reports of the damage being caused by the resident’s leak to the flat below. On 23 August 2021 the landlord agreed with the resident that it would attend on 25 August 2021.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord’s repairs team exchanged emails with its tenancy team about its difficulties in gaining access to the resident’s property. It said that it had just spoken to the resident about her missed appointment the previous day. It said that it had tried to explain the damage being caused by her leak, and that the next step would be to force entry, which it wanted to avoid. It stated that it had offered to attend again in line with her availability that day. It said that the resident’s baby had been crying, and that the call had been challenging. It stated that the resident had become frustrated, and eventually terminated the call.
On 26 August 2021 the resident made her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She stated that she had been appalled by the way the landlord had spoken to her in its earlier call, which concerned ‘multiple appointments’ it had accused her of missing.
2. She said that the landlord’s call had provided little information of when or what the repair appointments were for, and referred to letters that she had not received.
3. She said that this was confusing as she had various recent repairs, and did not know what the landlord was talking about. She said that she was only aware of 1 appointment that she had unintentionally missed the previous day.
4. She stated that the landlord went on to threaten that if she continued to refuse access, the landlord would force entry into her property. She emphasised that she had not received any appointment letters, had not knowingly refused access, and that the landlord’s call, “was an extremely upsetting experience”, which had left her shaken.
5. She said that the landlord had taken an unacceptably long time to complete her bedroom doorframe, bath panel, and tiling repairs. She said that this had contributed to the issues her neighbour below had experienced.
6. She expressed her concerns at how ineffective the landlord’s actions to address the damp and mould in her property had been.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord’s letter to the resident advised of outstanding urgent works to resolve the leak at her property. It advised that a plumber would attend on 1 September 2021, and that it was essential that the resident allowed access to avoid further action being taken against her.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord’s record stated that it had attended the resident’s property first thing in the morning but had not gotten access, and so had left a calling card.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord hand delivered an “urgent” letter to the resident’s property, which advised her of an appointment on 17 September 2021 to investigate her leak. The letter stated that the landlord had made repeated attempts to contact the resident about the matter. It advised that if it did not gain access, it may force entry. The landlord raised a job for 16 September 2021 to trace the leak in the resident’s property. The job noted that forced entry may be necessary.
On 15 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that the claims in its 2 letters, that she had failed to allow access, and that it had contacted her several times, were both untrue. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She complained that the landlord had not attended her repairs appointment on 2 September 2021, nor returned her call after she had chased it.
2. She said that she had no missed calls or messages from the landlord, and it was untrue that the landlord had made repeated attempts to contact her.
3. She stated that on 9 September 2021 she had received a text message from the landlord advising of a repairs appointment on 16 September 2021.
4. She said that shortly after, she received a second text message advising of a repairs appointment on 17 September 2021, which she had assumed superseded the previous message. She said that neither message had any information about what the appointments were for.
5. She said that she had just received a third text message advising of a repairs appointment on 16 September 2021. She explained that she had already booked time off work for 17 September 2021, which, with less than 24 hours’ notice, she was unable to change.
6. She emphasised that she would be at work and unavailable the following day, but would be at home for the appointment on 17 September 2021.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord left a no-access calling card at the resident’s property, which advised that entry had been forced to investigate the leak into the flat below. The landlord’s subsequent internal email described the damage being caused by the leak, which it had discovered was being caused by an unauthorised alteration in the resident’s bathroom. The resident told the landlord that she understood that it was still investigating her complaint but that she was really upset that, despite her email sent to it the previous day, it had forced entry into her home. Over the following days the landlord raised further works for the resident’s property.
On 21 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that her bath panel was coming away again. The landlord initially booked a job for 3 November 2021, but had to move it to 17 November 2021 for workload reasons. On 29 October 2021 the landlord completed the works it had raised following its forced entry into the resident’s property.
On 17 November 2021 the landlord left a message for the resident that explained that the materials needed for her bath panel repair were not available, and rebooked the job for 30 November 2021, when it was completed.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. The inspection was completed on 6 December 2021, and works were raised including a mould wash and treatment, which was undertaken on 6 January 2022.
On 29 March 2022 the resident completed the local authority’s form. She stated that she wished to make a homeless application based on her 1 bedroom property being unreasonable for her to occupy with her 3 children, and her disabled son’s carer. She detailed a range of issues, including the health impact of the chemicals used by the landlord’s repeated treatment of the mould in her property.
On 11 April 2022 the office of the local Member of Parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, and referred to the resident’s ‘homeless application’. The MP raised a range of issues including that the resident was overcrowded in her 1 bedroom property, which had damp and mould.
On 28 April and 21 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaint made in August 2021. On both occasions the landlord replied to the resident the same day, apologised for its lack of response, and said that it would chase it up.
On 5 July 2022 the landlord’s internal email stated that the resident had queried why there was a mould wash booked at her property for the following day. The landlord said that it had advised the resident that it was due to her complaint. It said that the resident had cancelled the job as she felt it was a waste of time, and asked that the landlord’s complaint team contact her.
On 25 July 2022 the resident used the landlord’s online webform to report that she had not received a response to her complaint made on 26 August 2021. She described her frustration at the landlord ignoring her complaint, which had had left her feeling depressed, degraded, and disrespected.
On 10 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had still not received a response to her complaint. On 2 November 2022 this Service told the landlord that it must respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 16 November 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that it had spoken with the manager who had called the resident on 26 August 2021. It apologised for any upset caused, which it assured the resident was not its intention.
2. It stated that the leak in the resident’s property had been affecting the flat below. It said that it had arranged 3 appointments for a plumber to attend in August and September 2021, without gaining access.
3. It said that the damage to the flat below was extensive, and that it had written to the resident about this on 27 August and 9 September 2021. It said that the second of those letters had advised that, if the resident did not respond, it would force entry into her property on 16 September 2021.
4. It stated that having forced entry into the resident’s property on 16 September 2021, it found that the leak was caused by unauthorised alterations to the bathroom. It said it also noticed that the damaged tiling around the bath was allowing water to leak to the flat below. It said that as such, it had not upheld that element of the resident’s complaint.
5. It said that it had raised works in April 2021 for the resident’s bathroom tiling, but could not confirm if any work had taken place. It said that it had completed tiling works in June 2021, which it carried out again in August and September 2021. It said that at the last of those visits it had identified that the works needed were more extensive, and that it had completed that work on 29 October 2021.
6. It stated that it had been an error not to ensure that the leak was fixed prior to completing the tiling works, and that it had partially upheld this element of the resident’s complaint.
7. It said that it had attended for the resident’s bath panel shortly after she had reported that it had come away, and renewed it in July 2021. It said that the resident made a further report of this on 21 October 2021, but due to workload and materials issues, it had not completed the job until 30 November 2021. It said that it had partially upheld this element of the resident’s complaint.
8. It stated that plaster damage around the resident’s bedroom doorframe had been made safe in June 2020, with further works identified. It said that there had been confusion over which trade needed to attend, and it took until May 2021 to complete the works. It said that it had partially upheld this element of the resident’s complaint.
9. It said that it had undertaken inspections of the resident’s property in 2020 and 2021, which had attributed the damp and mould to lack of ventilation, and provided the resident with advice. It said it had also completed mould wash and treatments in 2021 and 2022.
10. It advised that in light of the resident’s recent concerns, it had arranged a further damp inspection on 23 November 2022. It said that it had not upheld that element of the resident’s complaint.
11. It apologised that it had taken 15 months to respond to the resident’s complaint, and offered £125 compensation.
On 17 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. Her key points were as follows:
1. She highlighted that the letter she had received from the landlord on 9 September 2021 had stated that it would attend on 17 September 2021, and force entry into her property if necessary, but that it had done so on 16 September 2021.
2. She said that this had left her feeling devastated, destroyed her dignity, and made her feel unsafe.
3. She said that the landlord had attended multiple times for the tiles, and each time had said that they were the cause of the leak. She said that if at any point the landlord had suggested it was her shower, she would have removed it. She highlighted the number of times the landlord had needed to attend to complete her bath panel repair correctly.
4. She expressed her confusion that the landlord had only partially upheld her complaint regarding her bedroom doorframe, when it accepted it had taken almost a year to repair it.
5. She said that she had followed the landlord’s ventilation advice, but that there were 5 or 6 of them living in a 1 bedroom flat. She said that the most recent inspector had said that the issue would keep reoccurring due to being overcrowded, and asked for a property transfer.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that it apologised and regretted that it had sent the resident a letter with an incorrect date regarding the forced entry to her property. It stated that it did however have the right to enter the resident’s home where there was a risk of serious damage to the property, which was the case for the flat below.
2. It stated that the resident’s damaged tiling had contributed to the leak, but that the shower that she had installed without its permission had been identified as the main cause.
3. It said that its records did not indicate that the repeated works to the resident’s bath panel had been done incorrectly, but rather was as a result of the leak.
4. It stated that it had upheld the resident’s complaint regarding her door frame, and that it was an error for its stage 1 response to describe this as ‘partially upheld’.
5. It said that its damp and mould inspection on 23 November 2022 had noted that the resident’s property was overcrowded, and had raised works for the walls to be treated.
6. It said that rehousing was outside of its repairs team’s remit, but noted that the resident would be making a complaint to its tenancy services team.
7. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

It is acknowledged that the resident had been reporting damp and mould for some time prior to the events described above, for which the landlord had completed ceiling and other related works. The landlord concluded that the primary cause of the issue was condensation, which was exasperated by the number of people living in the resident’s 1 bedroom property.
The resident’s complaint did not concern the overcrowding of her property, but she did refer to it, and asked for a property transfer, when her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The Ombudsman has therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing situation, but has separately assessed both its complaint handling, and its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman sympathises that the resident’s housing situation, and acknowledges that the reoccurrence of the mould each winter would have been challenging and distressing for her. Nevertheless, the landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with the timeframes of its policy. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff in diagnosing the cause of the issues, and deciding what works were appropriate. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property on 24 June 2021, which it attended 5 working days later in line with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to record the detailed findings of its inspection, and provide advice to the resident. The landlord raised various mould treatment and decorative works for the resident’s property in a timely manner, and on 8 July 2021 arranged to complete the works at the start of August 2021. The landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 26 August 2021, which referred to her dissatisfaction with the actions the landlord had taken in response to her reports of damp and mould. The events of the weeks that followed the resident’s complaint have been considered in the ‘repairs’ assessment below, but during that time the landlord attended the resident’s property several times.
Towards the end of those events, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property, which it again attended in line with the timeframes of its policy, on 6 December 2021.
The landlord raised further works for the resident’s property that it completed 20 working days later, again in line with its policy. It is understandable that the resident would be frustrated that the works that the landlord was undertaking were aimed at removing and treating mould, rather than any structural issues that she considered may be the root cause. Nevertheless, the landlord did appropriately record its rationale and, as above, it was reasonable for it to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff.
The landlord arranged further mould treatment works in mid-2022, which the resident declined as unnecessary. Following the landlord’s much delayed complaint response, it arranged a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property, which it completed on 23 November 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident advised that it had arranged to carry out further mould treatment works, and referred to its inspection report that had noted that the resident’s property was overcrowded. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint has been further considered in the ‘complaint handling’ assessment below. However, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration with its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Repairs, and forced entry into the resident’s property

The landlord acknowledged some of the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, her concerns regarding its forced entry into her property, and with its record keeping. While there were mitigating factors, the landlord eventually upheld the resident’s complaint concerning the time it took to repair her bedroom doorframe and cracked walls. The landlord also accepted its error in repeatedly undertaking tiling works in the resident’s bathroom, without identifying the actual cause of her leak.
It is not disputed that the landlord had the right to force entry into the resident’s property to address the leak, which was causing damage to the flat below. Nonetheless, there were failings in the landlord’s communications with the resident leading up to its forced entry, and with its associated record keeping. While the landlord did eventually apologise for this, it did not do so until 15 months after the event.
The landlord’s complaint handling, and offer of redress, have been considered in the assessment below. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, her concerns regarding its forced entry, and its associated record keeping were unreasonable, and a finding of maladministration has therefore been made.
The Ombudsman has seen the resident’s photographs of her loose bedroom doorframe, and cracked walls, which were first reported in mid-2020, and the subject of a previous complaint. The walls were crumbling in places, and the debris and disrepair this created would have been distressing and inconvenient to the resident. While the landlord did not highlight it, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the COVID-19 restrictions in 2020 and early 2021, did significantly impact the delivery of services. Nevertheless, the landlord accepted that it had acted unreasonably in taking until 25 May 2021 to complete the resident’s wall and doorframe works.
It is of concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded, despite the clear evidence that it was aware of the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities. This was the first element of the landlord’s record keeping that was unreasonable.
It is however noted that on 6 May 2021, the resident explained to the landlord’s plasterer the difficulties her crumbling walls were causing with regards to 1 of her children’s vulnerabilities. The plasterer reported this back to the landlord, and it did then appear to appropriately prioritise the matter when it completed works to the resident’s walls 4 working days later.
Following reports that the resident’s leak was impacting the flat below, the landlord attended the resident’s property on 7 April 2021. This was the first of several attendances by the landlord where it failed to identify the primary cause of the resident’s leak, which it later accepted was an error.
The landlord raised tiling works on 9 April 2021, which its records showed as being completed the same month. However, the resident disputed that any tiling works had been done, and the landlord later accepted it was uncertain whether any work had been undertaken. The landlord’s records were therefore neither reliable nor reasonable.
The landlord again identified the resident’s tiles as being the cause of the leak and in need of works, in June 2021. While further tiling works were subsequently needed, the landlord completed its initial tiling works in the resident’s property on 24 June 2021. This was 52 working days after the landlord had raised the original tiling works in April 2021, and was therefore neither reasonable nor in line with its own policy.
The resident reported the issues with her bath panel on 20 May 2021. The resident’s frustration at the number of times the landlord had to attend for the same issue was understandable. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that its repeat attendances were due to the effects of the leak on the resident’s wooden bath panel and frame, rather than issues of workmanship.
Up until its final appointment, the landlord did attend the resident’s bath panel repairs in line with the timeframes of its policy. The final appointment was twice delayed due to workload and materials, which meant that it was not completed until 30 November 2021, 28 working days after the resident had reported it, and outside of the timeframe of the landlord’s policy.
The landlord received a further report of the resident’s leak causing damage to the flat below on 2 August 2021. The resident strongly disputed the landlord’s subsequent claims that she had repeatedly failed to allow it access to resolve the leak.
The landlord provided this Service with a record, which it said detailed its no-access visits to the resident. The record stated that works to trace the resident’s leak were raised on 2 and 17 August 2021. However, the record only stated the ‘target date’ for each job to be completed, with no information regarding if or when the landlord had attended. As such, the landlord’s records were inconclusive.
The landlord later stated that the resident had missed its agreed appointment to attend to her leak on 4 August 2021. However, the summary of repairs that the landlord provided to this Service stated that it had completed the regrouting of the resident’s tiles on 4 August 2021. The landlord’s own repairs records stated that it attended the resident’s property again on 6 August 2021, and completed bath panel works. As such the landlord’s records were again inconclusive, contradictory, and therefore unreasonable.
It is not disputed that the resident missed the appointment that she had agreed with the landlord for 25 August 2021. The landlord’s call to the resident to discuss this the following day, was followed shortly afterwards by the resident’s complaint, considered in the assessment below. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident in writing of when it would next attend. The landlord’s letter to the resident on 27 August 2021 was the first appointment letter seen by the Ombudsman, and advised that it would attend 1 September 2021.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of why or when this appointment was pushed back 24 hours to 2 September 2021. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was agreed by both parties, as the landlord’s record stated that it had attended and left a card when it did not get access, and the resident later complained that the landlord had not attended, nor called her back as promised when she chased it.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2021, and advised it would attend on 17 September 2021, and force entry if it did not get access. The same day the landlord also sent a text message to the resident that stated it would attend 16 September 2021, immediately followed by another text message that stated it would attend 17 September 2021. As such it was understandable that the resident concluded that the landlord’s appointment was for 17 September 2021, and booked time off work accordingly.
The landlord sent a further text message to the resident on 15 September 2021, which advised that it was due to attend the next day. The resident responded the same day, and explained why she had believed the appointment was for 17 September 2021, which she had already booked off work, and that it was too late for her to rearrange that.
As above, it is acknowledged that the landlord’s policy allowed it to force entry where there is a risk of serious damage, in this instance to the flat below the resident’s property. This policy and practice are commonplace in the social housing sector. It would also have been unreasonable for the landlord to allow the private owner’s flat to keep sustaining damage, without it taking action to resolve the resident’s leak.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s unreliable record keeping, and confusing communications to the resident were, at the very least, a significant contributory factor in why it found it necessary to force entry into the resident’s property on 16 September 2021. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable, and a finding of maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

As above, the landlord called the resident on 26 August 2021 to discuss her missed appointment from the previous day, and the need for it to address the leak in her property. The landlord’s internal email sent the same day said that it had explained to the resident the damage that was being sustained to the flat below, and that it would have to force entry to her property if she did not allow access. The landlord’s email further stated that the call had not gone well, and that the resident had become upset and hung up. The resident made her complaint to the landlord the same day which, along with her damp, mould, and repair concerns, stated how shaken and upset she had been by the landlord’s call.
It is not the role of, nor possible for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of its call to the resident. However, the resident made it clear to the landlord how upset she had been by it, and, despite its lack of records, the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s further distress after it forced entry into her property 15 working days after she had made her complaint. As such, it was wholly unreasonable that the landlord took 15 months to issue the resident its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint responses did recognise and apologise for the unacceptable delay in it responding, and made an offer of compensation accordingly. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord apologised for the severe delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It also accepted some of the delays in its repairs handling, and failings in its communications ahead of it forcing entry to the resident’s property. The landlord stated that it had upheld, or partially upheld, various elements of the resident’s complaint.
However, the landlord failed to explain the reasons for its delays, nor demonstrate any learning that it had taken from the resident’s complaint. In addition, and despite its accepted repairs and communication failings, the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident only considered the delay in its complaint handling.
As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It is the further view of the Ombudsman that the compensation the landlord offered to the resident was not proportionate to the severity of its delays and failings. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and made an order of compensation.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day that she made it, on 26 August 2021. The events related to the landlord’s forced entry into the resident’s property, which are described above, occurred during the period that should have coincided with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation.
Had the landlord followed its own policy, it would have completed its investigation, and issued the resident its stage 1 response, the week prior to its forcing entry into the resident’s property. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to follow its own policy, and to undertake an appropriate investigation, meant that it missed the opportunity to achieve a timely resolution prior to its forced entry.
Communications between the resident and landlord were regular and ongoing over the following months, in the main related to the resident’s housing situation, and other matters that were not a part of her complaint. However, it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord gave any further consideration to the resident’s August 2021 complaint, until she chased it for a response on 28 April, and 21 June 2022.
On both occasions the landlord promptly apologised to the resident for its lack of response, and assured her that it would follow the matter up, but then appeared to take no further related action. It is clear that the landlord was aware of the resident’s complaint as, on 5 July 2022, when she queried why there was an unnecessary mould wash booked for her property, the landlord replied that it was due to her complaint.
Therefore it is again wholly unreasonable that the resident found it necessary to chase the landlord 2 further times, in July and September 2022. On the first of those contacts, the resident described the impact on her mental wellbeing of the landlord’s forced entry into her property, and its failure to progress her associated complaint. It was only following the intervention of this Service that the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 16 November 2022, 64 weeks after she had made her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did appropriately explain its position on each of the issues that the resident had raised, but contained some factual errors that it corrected at stage 2. It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 1 response to accept some of the failings in its repairs handling, and to respond empathically to the distress the resident had described following its call to her on 26 August 2021. The landlord’s arrangement of a further damp and mould inspection did also demonstrate its somewhat resolution focused approach.
However, having accepted its repairs failings, it would be expected that the landlord would look to be fair, and put things right. While the landlord did offer compensation for its complaint delay, it failed to offer any redress for any other element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 17 November 2022, and highlighted the factual errors in its stage 1 response. The resident emphasised the impact the landlord’s forced entry and repairs failings had had on her. She highlighted the difficulty of managing condensation when her home was so overcrowded, and asked for a property transfer.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 12 December 2022, which was in line with the timeframe of its policy, albeit over 67 weeks since the resident had made her original complaint.
The landlord’s response accepted the resident’s factual corrections regarding its communication failings prior to its forced entry, and again apologised and expressed appropriate empathy. It relayed the findings of its damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property on 23 November 2022, and its acceptance that her property was overcrowded.
It is acknowledged that the resident’s stage 2 complaint was responded to by a senior manager from the landlord’s repairs team, who would not have been best placed to handle the resident’s housing situation. However, the issues with reoccurring mould were a significant element of the resident’s complaint, which it had been accepted were largely caused by overcrowding.
As such, the Ombudsman would expect that the landlord would have looked to put things right, by either involving its housing team in its stage 2 investigation, or arranging an appointment with an officer qualified to assist. Instead, the landlord simply acknowledged that the resident would be making a further formal complaint about the matter, and therefore again did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
As above, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of £125 compensation was not proportionate to the 15 month delay in its complaint handling. The landlord largely handled the resident’s bath panel repairs in a timely manner, but accepted that its final repair was completed around a week outside the timeframe of its policy. There were some mitigating reasons for the time it took the landlord to complete the resident’s bedroom doorframe and wall repairs, but it again accepted that the length of delay was unreasonable. It is reasonable to conclude that without the landlord’s record keeping and communication failings, it may have avoided the need to force entry into the resident’s property, and the distress that this caused her.
The Ombudsman has considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance. Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. In this instance the disrepair of the resident’s doorframe and walls caused particular distress and inconvenience, with regards to one of her children’s vulnerabilities. The resident’s own vulnerabilities were impacted by the landlord’s poor communications leading up to its forced entry into her property, and the severe delay in it responding to her associated concerns. This is considered in the Ombudsman compensation award below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs, concerns regarding its forced entry into her property, and associated record keeping;
2. associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident’s distress and frustration with the reoccurring mould in her property. Nonetheless, the landlord carried out works and inspections in line with the timeframes of its policy, and appropriately recorded and relied upon the findings of its qualified staff.
While there were some mitigating factors, the landlord appropriately accepted the delays in its handling of some the resident’s repairs, which caused additional distress due to the household’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord failed to record the household’s vulnerabilities, despite its awareness of them. The unreliability of its repairs records meant that it was at times unaware of the status of its own works and attendances.
The landlord’s communications to the resident were at times contradictory and confusing. This combined with its failure to complete a stage 1 complaint investigation in a timely manner, significantly contributed to what may otherwise have been its avoidable decision to force entry into the resident’s property.
The 15 months taken by the landlord to issue the resident a complaint response was wholly unreasonable. The resident had made clear how the landlord’s telephone call and subsequent forced entry into her property had impacted her emotionally. While the landlord was in regular contact with the resident through this period about other matters, the severe delay in its complaint handling failed to demonstrate any consideration of the resident’s wellbeing or vulnerability.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident a total of £950 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
  2. £300 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its repairs handling;
  3. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its record keeping and communications.
3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation award of £125 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £950).
4. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
5. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord reviews, and writes to this Service with a copy of its findings of the following:
1. Its record keeping processes associated with repairs and resident vulnerabilities against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report.
2. Its staff training needs with regards to the handling of complaints.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.