Rugby Borough Council (202319694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319694

Rugby Borough Council

23 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

The resident’s report of damp and mould in her home.
Other property repairs, including repairs to the toilet, bathroom floor, and kitchen floor.
The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, where she lives with 2 dogs. She told the Ombudsman that she has experienced damp and mould in her home since approximately 2016.

3. On 22 August 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in her home to the landlord. On 13 September 2022, the landlord logged a repair to install a drainage channel outside the property. It inspected the resident’s property on 12 December 2022. It recorded that it needed to remove wet plaster from the living room and bedroom of the property, install thermally insulating boarding, and replaster.

4. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2023. She said:

The landlord had inspected her home unannounced on 6 December 2022. 3 members of staff had come to her home, which she found daunting.
She had bought a dehumidifier, which she was running all the time. It was extracting 5 litres of water a day from the air. This was impacting her financially.
Her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould.
She did not feel it was reasonable to expect her to live in the property during the damp and mould works. Her belongings would be damaged by building dust, and she needed to walk her dogs every 2 hours. She did not feel she could leave her home unattended with workers in the property.
She attached pictures of repairs she said were needed in her home, including to:
1. The kitchen cupboards.
2. The kitchen walls and doors.
3. The kitchen floor which she said was lifting because of damp.
4. The wet-room floor and ceiling.
She said she was coughing due to the damp and mould in her home.

5. The landlord installed a drainage channel outside the property on 3 February 2023.

6. On 10 July 2023, the resident reported that her toilet cistern was leaking and a kitchen floor tile had broken, injuring her toe.

7. The resident complained to the landlord using its online complaints form on or around 15 August 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 August 2023. It said it would not decant (temporarily move) the resident while it did the repairs, as they would not take a long time to complete.

8. On 8 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said:

The landlord’s proposal to do the work with her in occupation was unsafe and impractical for the following reasons:
1. The living room needed to be repaired and it was her only living space.
2. The health of her dogs had been impacted by the damp and mould, and damp and mould treatments were toxic to dogs.
3. One of the resident’s neighbours had damp and mould treatment in their home, and this had caused a lot of mess.
4. The landlord had not addressed where her furniture could go when the repairs were done.
The landlord should not send operatives to the address unless it agreed to move the resident.
The landlord had not addressed the other repairs she had reported, including damp and mould in other rooms, the wet-room floor, the kitchen floor, or the broken toilet.

9. As the landlord did not respond to her email, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.

10. The landlord told the Ombudsman it repaired the guttering on the resident’s building on 1 December 2023.

11. The landlord sent the resident a further complaint response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 December 2023. It said:

It had completed the external repairs to the resident’s building.
It had tried to repair the resident’s home but she had refused access.
The repairs would take 1 day, and the living room would be “segregated for safety” so she could remain in occupation while it did the repairs. It reiterated that it would not decant the resident.

12. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 December 2023. She said:

She disputed that she had not provided access to her home. She had given access for all appointments.
The landlord did not speak to her to investigate her complaint and did not respond to her request to speak to a specific member of staff.
She wanted to be moved permanently. She did not want to be decanted.
She could not go to a hotel with her 2 dogs.
The external works had not been completed. She named a resident who had recently sent the landlord videos that demonstrated this.

13. In January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord twice asking how to escalate her complaint. It responded to her both times, but the resident told us she did not receive the landlord’s responses. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord responded at stage 2 on or around 22 February 2024. It reiterated what it had said in its stage 1 complaint responses and said:

It risk assessed before completing repairs in residents’ homes.
It had made several attempts to arrange access to do the repairs in the resident’s home, but the resident had said she would only agree to a date for the repairs if the landlord arranged to decant her. As such there was no agreed start date for the repairs.
It would post-inspect the works after they had been done.

14. The landlord inspected the resident’s toilet on 12 June 2024 and replaced it on 19 June 2024. The other repairs in the resident’s home are incomplete.

15. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She:

Disputes that the guttering was repaired when the landlord said it was.
She feels the landlord has ignored her reports of repairs and is unhappy with its communication with her.
She does not feel that the repairs proposed by the landlord are reasonable.
Would like to be rehoused permanently.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

16. Paragraph 42 C. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident told the Ombudsman that she has reported damp and mould in her home since around 2016. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, however, we have not seen any evidence that she complained to the landlord about its handling of these earlier reports. As such, any reports of damp and mould made over 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord have not been considered.

17. During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted her health, and the health of her dogs. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident and her dogs. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her dogs’ health.

The landlord’s record keeping

18. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our webpage, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It says that good records “assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information”. It says that landlords’ records should tell the full picture of what happened, when, and why.

19. In this case the landlord’s record-keeping was inadequate. Cumulatively, record keeping failures by the landlord had a significant impact on the landlord’s handling of the case. For example:

The landlord provided the Ombudsman with little evidence of contact with the resident about her concerns. Outside of its complaints responses, it provided the Ombudsman with very few call or contact notes, no appointment letters, and limited correspondence with the resident other than its complaint responses. This was the case even where other records by the landlord indicated it did have contact with the resident, or where the resident said that she contacted the landlord. For example, the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had tried repeatedly to report repairs to it on 10 July 2023. As the landlord did not dispute this, we accept the resident’s account. However, it did not provide this investigation with any record of her contact attempts.
There were several pieces of evidence that the resident gave us, for example emails she had sent the landlord, that the landlord should also have record of. As it did not provide the Ombudsman with these records, we assume that they were not available, which indicates a failing in record keeping.
The landlord said that it would not decant the resident, but there was no record of its decision-making process around this request, outside of its complaint responses. This is discussed later in the report.
Although the landlord inspected the property, it did not provide us with a full damp and mould inspection report, detailing the conditions in the property and its understanding of the cause of the damp and mould.
The resident told the Ombudsman that her GP wrote to the landlord about the impact of damp and mould on her health. The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s account, but the landlord does not appear to have any record of the letter. As such, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine if the landlord gave appropriate consideration to the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her health.

20. The landlord is recommended to review its record keeping practices to ensure that they are robust and include full records of contact with residents. If it has not already done so, it should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

21. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our website, says that landlord’s should consider whether “they require an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould…This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication and aftercare”. A comprehensive damp and mould policy or framework helps landlords to deliver a consistent service. However, the landlord told the Ombudsman that at the time of the resident’s complaint, it did not have a damp and mould policy. If it has not implemented one since the resident complained, it should consider doing so.

22. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that there was damp and mould in the resident’s home in August 2022, but it did not inspect the property until December 2022. The landlord recorded that it had ‘access issues’ which resulted in it being unable to inspect, and later work at, the property. However, the resident denies this, and the landlord’s records of attempts to contact the resident are limited. Many factors can affect access. In this case the resident has explained that she has poor phone signal at home and does not always receive calls. It is reasonable for landlords to give notice of appointments and use different contact methods if it is unsuccessful in arranging appointments by phone. Landlords should have clear, accurate records of all attempts to contact residents including any attempts to access a property. This evidence may be needed if the landlord later considers legal action. With the evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the resident prevented the landlord from accessing her home to inspect it.

23. After the landlord inspected the property, it recorded that internal and external works were needed in the resident’s home. It dug out a drainage channel outside the property on 3 February 2023. The landlord does not state a timescale for planned works in its tenant handbook. Given the nature of the work and likely delays caused by the Christmas period, the timescale of this repair was not excessive.

24. The landlord also said that it replaced the guttering outside the property in December 2023. The resident disputes that the work was completed on this date. She said that the landlord carried out work on 3 occasions before resolving the issue with the gutter in February 2024. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it identified that a guttering repair was needed, as it does not appear to have been identified during the property inspection in December 2022. It is also unclear how the landlord determined further repairs were needed. These were further record keeping failures. As a result, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the landlord’s handling of the guttering repair was appropriate, although the repair was ultimately completed.

25. The resident felt that the landlord’s assessment of the damp and mould in her home was not thorough. She told the Ombudsman that as a result she did not believe that the repairs suggested by the landlord would be effective. For example, she said that the inspection did not include any measurements of the level of moisture in the walls, and that no assessment was done of the property’s ventilation. The records seen by this investigation support the resident’s account. It is best practice to use either a moisture meter or thermal imaging to investigate damp and mould. These assessments can show the level of moisture penetration in property walls and identify cold spots. The landlord should consider using non-invasive damp and mould assessment tools in future in line with best practice.

26. After the inspection the landlord logged a repair to remove the plaster from the walls in the living room and bedroom, apply thermal boarding, and replaster. However, the resident told the Ombudsman she was not given a full list of the works the landlord intends to do in her home. She is concerned that the landlord did not arrange to resolve all the damp and mould she reported, for example she said it did not tell her about any planned repairs to the kitchen. This is supported by the landlord’s records. The Ombudsman did not see any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works, or evidence that the landlord arranged to repair the damp and mould reported by the resident in the kitchen. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have been transparent about the repairs it was going to do and addressed all of the repairs reported by the resident. If it felt any of the repairs reported by the resident were not required, it should have explained its reasoning.

27. As a significant period of time has passed since the landlord assessed the works needed in the property in December 2022 and no repairs have been carried out, it is likely that the condition of the property has changed. The resident told the Ombudsman that damp and mould is affecting every room of her flat other than the hallway. As such the landlord is ordered to arrange an independent survey of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This is discussed later in the report.

28. After the landlord told the resident it intended to do the repairs while she was in occupation of the property, the resident refused access for the repairs. While this was not wholly within the landlord’s control, it could have done more to respond to the resident’s concerns. For example, it did not address all of the concerns raised in her stage 2 complaint escalation request, including the toxicity of mould treatment for her dogs. She raised other concerns in emails to the landlord, including the practicality of doing works in the only living space in her home while she was occupying it, how the work could be done around her furnishings, concerns about leaving her belongings unattended with workers, and concern that her personal belongings would be damaged during the repairs.

29. With limited information about the practical aspects of the repairs, the resident’s concerns were understandable. The landlord did not do enough to respond to her concerns:

In its complaint responses, it told the resident that it risk assessed before beginning repairs, and that there would be ‘segregation’ in place during the works. This language was not customer friendly. It could have told her what practical steps it would take to ensure her belongings were not damaged.
There is no evidence it responded to her concerns about where she would be during the works in her living space, or her concerns about her belongings being left unattended.
There is no evidence the landlord told her how it would work around her belongings. It could have offered to meet her at home to review whether there was enough space to work around her belongings, or discussed storage with her.
The resident also told the Ombudsman that when she asked about her dogs, she was told her dogs “did not count”. The resident said she found this very upsetting as her dogs are like family. While we did not find any evidence of this conversation, landlords should be mindful of the importance that pets play in people’s lives and consider any reasonable accommodations they can make for this.

30. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her. The landlord’s records indicate that it was aware that the resident wanted to be rehoused in January 2023 but did not make internal enquiries about whether rehousing would be possible for 7 months, until August 2023, when it had received the resident’s complaint. The landlord should have looked at the request sooner. Its failure to do so caused an avoidable delay in the process. From the landlord’s records, it appears that not all staff were clear about internal roles and responsibilities in the decant process, as there were emails sent between teams about which team would decide if a decant was appropriate. The landlord should consider offering refresher training to relevant staff so they are clear on the decant process.

31. The landlord refused the resident’s request for rehousing, as it said the repairs would only take a short time. The exact time scale of the works is unclear as the landlord told the resident by email that they would take 1 day, but in an internal email the landlord said the works would take 4 days. The landlord’s decant policy does not specify a minimum period of time for a decant. Where works will take a short period of time and can be carried out without risk or significant disruption to residents, it is reasonable for landlords to do repairs with residents in occupation. This helps landlords to provide a value for money service and may reduce disruption to residents overall.

32. oweHoHowever, it is important that landlords consider the full circumstances of each case when deciding if they will decant a resident. In this case the resident had raised questions about the practical aspects of the decant. She also told the landlord the damp and mould in her home was affecting her health. Damp and mould are widely accepted to have a detrimental impact on health, so landlords should take concerns about residents’ health seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s practical concerns, or her concerns about her health, in its handling of the decant request. This was not appropriate as it may have led the resident to feel that the landlord did not care about her wellbeing. If the landlord had fully considered her concerns, it may have made a different decision about offering her a decant while it did the repairs.

33. When the resident asked the landlord to move her, it believed she was asking for temporary rehousing. The resident explained by email on 27 December 2023 that she wanted to be rehoused permanently. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request. This was inappropriate as it may have led to the resident feeling that the landlord was not listening to her and will have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord is ordered to respond to the resident’s request for permanent rehousing in writing. If it does not feel a management transfer or permanent decant is appropriate, it should explain its reasoning, and tell the resident about any other rehousing options she can consider.

34. To improve its service around decants in future, the landlord could consider reviewing its decant policy. It should ensure:

That roles and responsibilities around decants are clearly defined.
That it considers residents’ health concerns as part of its assessment.
That all decisions to decant or not decant are clearly recorded in line with good practice for record keeping.
That where a resident has requested a temporary or permanent decant, it tells the resident the outcome of its decision in writing, explaining its reasoning.

35. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident told the landlord that she experienced financial detriment due to the cost of running a dehumidifier to address the damp and mould. It is reasonable for landlords to consider reimbursing residents for additional costs they can show they have incurred as a result of outstanding repairs. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s concern and told her if it would reimburse her for the additional cost she had incurred, but there is no evidence it did so. This may have led to her feeling that the landlord had not listened to her concerns.

36. The resident also told the landlord that her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had been unable to assess any damage to her property as she had not provided access to her home. Regardless of if the resident had provided access to her home for the repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident to how to make a claim with its liability insurer, if it has one, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.

37. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period considered by this investigation was inadequate. For example:

The resident said that the landlord did not respond to several of the emails she sent it about her home. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did respond to her emails, so the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident was inappropriate and will have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
The resident said that the landlord did not tell her about appointments, for example when it came to her home on 6 December 2023, and on another occasion where she said it left a calling card on 22 November 2023, although it had not arranged an appointment. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did prearrange these appointments, so the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account. It is good practice for landlords to mutually arrange appointments with residents. This enables them to deliver a more efficient service and reduces instances of no access.
The resident told the landlord that she does not have good phone signal at home. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate with her by email if it did not get through by phone. There is no evidence it did so. This may have impacted its ability to arrange appointments with the resident and progress her repairs. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to agree how it will communicate with her in future if she is not available by phone, and make sure this is detailed in its records.

38. Overall, the failures discussed above amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This has caused avoidable delays to the repairs in the resident’s home and caused her frustration, inconvenience and worry about her health. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
Pay the resident £450 in compensation for the avoidable inconvenience and worry that may have been caused by its handling of the damp and mould in her home. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident.
Instruct a damp and mould survey of the property using an independent specialist contractor. This should assess all rooms of the resident’s home and should look to identify any unresolved causes of damp and mould. It should consider:
1. Whether ventilation in the property is adequate.
2. Using a moisture meter or thermal imaging to determine the level of moisture in the walls of the property.
3. The humidity of the property.
4. Whether there are any signs of wet or dry rot in the property, or other structural issues.
Provide the resident with a schedule of works that includes all of the repairs recommended by the independent survey. If the landlord does not intend to do any of these repairs, it should explain its reasoning to the resident in writing.
It should arrange to meet with the resident in person at a convenient mutually arranged time, so that it can:
1. Address each of her concerns about the repairs.
2. Explain to the resident how its proposed repairs will resolve the damp and mould in her home.
3. Tell the resident how it will be able to do the repairs in her home in practical terms, considering the individual circumstances of the case.
4. Explain any steps it will take to mitigate the impact of the repairs on her, for example whether it will store her belongings, or cover them. If it cannot adequately mitigate the impact of the works on the resident, the landlord should offer the resident a temporary decant while it does the repairs.

Other repairs in the resident’s home

39. The landlord has a tenant’s handbook that sets out its obligations around repairs. The tenant handbook states that the landlord is responsible for most plumbing repairs, kitchen cupboard repairs and repair to wall and floor tiles.

40. The resident reported that her toilet cistern was leaking on 10 July 2023. She sent 2 more emails to the landlord referencing the leak to her toilet in October and November 2023. The landlord does not appear to have logged a repair for the toilet until 6 December 2023, 5 months after the resident made it aware of the leak. The landlord has not explained why it did not log the repair when the resident first made it aware of the issue, so the Ombudsman concludes that the delay was unreasonable.

41. Having logged the repair, the resident said the landlord did not contact her about the repair for 5 months, until 15 May 2024, when it left her a voicemail. None of the evidence provided to this investigation contradicted the resident’s assertion, so we conclude there was a further avoidable delay. The landlord inspected the property at a mutually arranged appointment on 12 June 2024. However, the resident told the Ombudsman the operative did not have time to do the repair as an earlier appointment had overrun. The landlord repaired the toilet a week later. Overall, the repair to the resident’s toilet took 11 months. This was an unacceptable timescale, far in excess of the landlord’s stated timescale of 14 working days for routine repairs. In the period the leak was ongoing, the resident told the Ombudsman she needed to empty a container she was using to collect water daily. This delay was avoidable and likely caused the resident inconvenience.

42. On 3 January 2023, the resident reported several repairs to the landlord by email, including that her kitchen tiles were lifting due to the damp and mould, her kitchen cupboards had been damaged, the wet room flooring was lifting, and the ceiling had been damaged by a leak from the property above. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these reports, which was inappropriate. In her email on 7 July 2023, the resident reported that the kitchen floor tile, which she had previously reported as lifting, had broken. She had injured her toe. As above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on personal injury claims, however we have considered the distress the resident may have experienced due to the landlord’s lack of response to her concerns about the flooring. The resident sent a further email in which she referenced the broken tile in November 2023. However, despite the resident’s reports, the landlord’s records indicate it did not log a repair to fix the kitchen and bathroom floors until 6 December 2023, 11 months after the resident first made the landlord aware of the issue. The landlord’s records show that it first arranged the repair for 6 March 2024. Overall, the landlord failed to meet its service standard of completing routine repairs within 14 working days. The delay was inappropriate and may have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.

43. The repairs to the kitchen and bathroom floor, the bathroom ceiling, and the kitchen cupboard, have not been completed. The landlord’s records indicate that when it spoke to the resident about the repairs in around February 2024, she said that she did not want it to do them before it had resolved the damp and mould in the property. This was understandable, as she had reported that the repairs were linked to the damp and mould throughout her home. The resident may have felt that the repairs would not resolve the issues until the damp and mould has been resolved. However, as the resident declined the work, the delay in completing the kitchen and bathroom repairs after this date was outside of the landlord’s control.

44. The resident told the Ombudsman that since she reported the repairs, plaster has fallen off the bathroom wall as it is saturated with moisture. As she has not reported this to the landlord, it cannot be expected to have repaired it, but it should arrange to do so now it is aware of the repair.

45. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, and this will have caused her to lose trust in the landlord. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:

Pay the resident £350 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by avoidable delays in it acknowledging and arranging the repairs she reported to the kitchen and bathroom. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have had a detrimental impact on the resident.
Provide the resident with a schedule of works that includes all of the outstanding repairs, including the repair to the kitchen cupboard, bathroom floor, bathroom ceiling, bathroom wall, and kitchen floor. If the landlord does not intend to do any of these repairs, it should explain its reasoning to the resident in writing.

The associated complaints

46. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process and says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond in 15 working days at both stages of its complaints process. This does not align with the timescales set out in the Code, which says that landlords must respond at stage one of their complaints process in 10 working days, and at stage 2 of their complaints process in 20 working days.

47. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy says that if residents are unhappy with the outcome of their complaint after exhausting the landlord’s complaint process, they can contact a designated person, or wait 8 weeks before referring their complaint to our service. This is not correct as following a change in the law on 1 October 2022, residents no longer have to contact a designated person, or wait 8 weeks before referring their complaint to our service. While the wording of the landlord’s complaints policy was inappropriate, it did not disadvantage the resident in this instance, as she had already referred her concerns to the Ombudsman for investigation. However, given the discrepancies discussed above, the landlord must review its complaints policy to ensure it complies with the Code, unless it has already done so.

48. The Code says that adding additional stages into the complaints process is not acceptable as it confuses and delays the complaints process. However, in this case, after the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident, the landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response. Our letter did not specify if the landlord should respond at stage 1 or stage 2 of its complaints process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process at this point, as it had already sent a stage 1 complaint response. Its failure to do so caused an avoidable delay in the complaints process.

49. The landlord’s complaints policy uses the Code’s definition of a complaint, stating that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It goes on to say appropriately that residents do not have to identify their complaints as complaints; if contact from a resident meets the definition of a complaint it should be treated as one.

50. However, the landlord failed to recognise emails the resident sent as complaints. For example, the resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2023. In her email she explained that she was unhappy that 3 members of staff had come to her property without prior notice. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould. This email met the definition of a complaint under the Code, but there is no evidence the landlord recognised this. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident forwarded the email to 2 other members of staff during January 2024, but on neither occasion was the email treated as a complaint.

51. This was not a one-off occurrence. Other emails sent to the landlord by the resident met the definition of a complaint under the Code or should have been treated as a request for a complaint escalation by the landlord, but it did not treat them as such. These included:

An email sent on 10 July 2023, in which the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repairs contact centre.
On 11 November 2023 the resident, having received a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord, asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, detailing the reasons for her dissatisfaction. The landlord did not escalate the complaint in response to this email.
On 27 December 2023, the resident sent the landlord a further email expressing dissatisfaction with its second stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord did not treat her email as an escalation request.

52. The landlord’s repeated failure to recognise complaints made by the resident and escalate her concerns through the complaints process appropriately will have delayed her access to redress, likely caused her frustration, and further undermined the landlord tenant relationship. To improve its service in future, the landlord is ordered to arrange refresher training for relevant staff, so they are able to identify residents’ complaints and complaint escalation requests and respond to these appropriately.

53. The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s emails as complaints appears to have had a detrimental impact on its overall handling of her concerns, as the landlord did not respond to all of the issues she raised. This led to her feeling that her concerns had been ignored. For example, the resident asked how the landlord had investigated the complaint, as it had not spoken to her about it. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this in its complaint response, and to arrange to speak to her about her complaint, but there is no evidence it did so.

54. The resident told the Ombudsman that when she complained to the landlord in September 2023, she used the landlord’s online complaint form. As such, she did not have a copy of her complaint. If it has not already done so, the landlord should look into whether it is possible to send residents a copy of complaints submitted through its complaints form. This will help residents keep accurate records of their complaints and may help to reduce disputes about the content of complaints during the complaints process.

55. During January 2024, the resident asked the landlord how to escalate her complaint on 2 occasions. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence of its response to her request on both occasions. The resident told us that she did not receive the landlord’s emails. With the information available we are not able to determine why the resident did not receive the emails. They were sent to her correct email address. As such we have not identified failings in the landlord’s responses to the resident on these occasions.

56. The failures in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay her £200 in compensation for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience likely caused to her by its complaints handling. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where the failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact. In this case there was no permanent impact from the complaint handling errors as the resident was ultimately able to progress the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination

57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

Reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home.
Other repairs in the residents home, including repairs to her toilet, bathroom floor, and kitchen floor.
The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

58. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. It should identify the learning it has taken from her case and tell her any steps it will take to improve its service in future.
Directly pay the resident £1000 in compensation, made up of:
1. £450 in compensation for the avoidable inconvenience and worry that may have been caused by its handling of the damp and mould in her home.
2. £350 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by avoidable delays in it acknowledging and arranging the repairs she reported for her toilet, kitchen cupboard, kitchen floor and bathroom floor and ceiling.
3. £200 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by failures in the landlord’s complaints handling.
Respond in writing to the resident’s request for permanent rehousing. If the landlord will not consider a management transfer, it should explain its reasoning to the resident and make her aware of any other rehousing options available to her.
Contact the resident to agree how it will communicate with her in future if she is not available by phone, and make sure this is detailed in its records.

59. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Instruct a damp and mould survey of the property using an independent specialist contractor. This should assess all rooms of the property and should look to identify any unresolved causes of damp and mould in the property. It should consider:
1. Whether ventilation in the property is adequate.
2. The level of moisture in the walls of the property.
3. The humidity of the property.
4. Whether there are any signs of wet or dry rot in the property, or other structural issues.
Provide the resident with a schedule of works that includes all of the outstanding repairs, including repairs to:
1. The damp and mould reported by the resident in her living room, bedroom, and kitchen.
2. The kitchen cupboard.
3. The bathroom floor and ceiling.
4. The kitchen floor.
5. If the landlord does not intend to do any of these repairs, it should explain its reasoning to the resident in writing.
It should arrange to meet with the resident in person at a convenient mutually arranged time, so that it can:
1. Address each of her concerns about the repairs.
2. Explain to the resident how its proposed repairs will resolve the damp and mould in her home.
3. Tell the resident how it will be able to do the repairs in her home in practical terms considering the individual circumstances of the case.
4. Explain any steps it will take to mitigate the impact of the repairs on her, for example whether it will store her belongings, or cover them. If it cannot adequately mitigate the impact of the works on the resident, the landlord should offer the resident a temporary decant while it does the repairs.

60. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange refresher training for relevant staff, so they are able to identify residents’ complaints and complaint escalation requests and respond to these appropriately.

61. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the orders made in this report within the timescales given.

62. The landlord should review its complaints policy to ensure it complies with the Code unless it has already done so.

Recommendations

63. The landlord is recommended to review its record keeping practices to ensure that they are robust. If it has not already done so, it should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

64. The landlord should look into whether it is possible to send residents a copy of complaints submitted through its complaints form.

65. If the landlord has not implemented a damp and mould policy / framework since the resident complained, it is recommended to consider doing so.

66. The landlord could consider reviewing its decant policy to make sure it is specific about the circumstances where it will consider a decant. It should ensure:

That roles and responsibilities around decants are clearly defined.
That it considers residents’ health concerns as part of its assessment.
That all decisions to decant or not decant are clearly recorded, in line with good practice for record keeping.
That where a resident has requested a temporary or permanent decant, it tells the resident the outcome of its decision in writing, explaining its reasoning.
It should also consider refresher training for staff to ensure that the policy is embedded in everyday practice.