Sanctuary Housing Association (202113467)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113467

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 July 2023

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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, water ingress and outstanding repairs within the property.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
3. The resident had historically reported that his lounge wall was crumbling and that he experienced recurring issues with damp and mould in his bedroom and bathroom in August 2018. Following an inspection at the time, the records show that the landlord asked for a quote to be provided for repairs to the front bay window and bedroom window, pointing to the rear brickwork (due to water ingress into the bedroom) and plastering in the living room. The repair records also show that works to seal around the shower tray in the bathroom and repair a crack in the flat roof above the resident’s bedroom were needed.
4. An appointment for the shower took place in September 2018 and an appointment to renew the felt roofing was booked for 2 October 2018. The evidence shows that the landlord asked for an update on the quote for the other repairs in August 2018. The resident had pursued repairs in December 2018 and January 2019. The records show that the landlord chased its contractors for a quote in January 2019 and February 2019.
5. The repair records further show that the resident had reported that the tiles were coming away in his shower and that his toilet was leaking on 12 July 2019. The records show that the toilet was attended to on 17 July 2019. The landlord requested an inspection of the resident’s property following a visit on 24 July 2019 for a different repair issue. An operative reported that there were damp patches in the bedroom and bathroom and a large hole in the living room wall.
6. An appointment was arranged for 5 August 2019 to inspect these areas. Following this, the records show that the landlord instructed a contractor to attend and provide a quote for replastering in the living room. It also asked a different surveyor to attend to complete a damp report as there were severe damp spots in the resident’s bedroom.
7. The evidence shows that an appointment to retile the shower was arranged for 2 September 2019. A damp survey of the property was completed on the same day. A report was provided on 4 September 2019 and outlined the following:

a.     There had previously been a leak from the flat above, which had now been rectified, that had caused damage to the décor in the property and staining.

b.     In the front lounge, there was an area between the chimney breast alcove and bay windows where plaster had come away from the wall. In the past there had been a defective downpipe that had caused the wall to become damp; this had now been rectified. The area was dry, but the plaster needed to be removed and replaced. There was a water stain and streaks under the bay window. The resident had advised that water came in when it rained. The surveyor advised that some of the streaks were likely from window condensation.

c.      In the bedroom, there was dampness on the rear bay window wall due to leaking windows and condensation. There was also dampness around the chimney breast as a result of minor external issues causing water ingress. There were stains on the window head area due to roofing defects over the bay window. It noted that these defects had been rectified. There was mould growth sporadically around the room and water stains as a result of the leak from the flat above. These areas were dry at the time of the inspection. The report noted that if the mould growth was left unattended, it would increase greatly over winter. The resident had attempted to clean the mould, but this had been unsuccessful.

d.     In the bathroom, tiling repairs were being carried out at the time of the inspection. There were water stains on the ceiling due to the leak from the flat above which were now dry. The extractor fan was not working. Paint was peeling away and showing bare plaster. The seal around the shower cubicle had failed which was allowing leakage and décor damage. The resident had also attempted to clean these areas. The report noted that a full room treatment was required, including sealing and décor repairs.

e.     In the hallway, there were décor stains and minimal mould growth caused form the previous leak above. The surveyor explained that the small area of damage would only need localised treatment and painting which the resident accepted.

f.        At the external rear of the property, there were a number of small holes and patches of soft and loose brickwork pointing that was causing the bedroom to be vulnerable to water ingress. There was also an external cupboard joint to the building structure. The timber floor joists were showing signs of wood rot. It was open to the elements and the resident was required to clear the space before a further investigation could take place.

g.     The report recommended work to:

a.     Carry out a full damp treatment of the rear bedroom.

b.     Treat the hallway.

c.      Replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and complete a full room treatment.

d.     Carry out external repairs and repointing in areas along the chimney breast wall and fill holes caused by loose nails and screws with mortar, apply an external water seal and check the gutter and downpipe around the bay windows.

e.  Alongside the main report, the surveyor also provided a quote for recommended works to the lounge. Works included removing the defective plaster from the front wall and part of another wall between a window and alcove, stripping the remaining woodchip paper, reinstating plaster and including a waterproof render to the brickwork, hanging woodchip paper and applying 2 coats of emulsion, and treating the bay window with a wash.

8. The quotes were forwarded internally for approval on 6 September 2019. The resident called to chase the works on 11 October 2019 and was informed that the works were on hold while the quotes were reviewed.
9. A further survey was arranged for 4 November 2019. The surveyor’s communication indicates that they did not know why they were asked to reattend as they had visited three times previously and the works remained the same.
10. The Ombudsman has not seen any further records in relation to the damp works following this.
11. The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported that tiles had fallen off of the wall in his bathroom and that the shower tray was leaking on 6 March 2020. Works were arranged for 10 March 2020, but the operatives reported no access to the property. The landlord’s records show that the landlord intended to continue trying to arrange the appointment. The job was re-raised but cancelled on 11 September 2020 as operatives had reported that they were unable to attend.
12. The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence of communication between the resident and the landlord in 2020 that directly related to his reports of repair issues. Communication during this period related to the resident’s rent account and a Subject Access Request he had made.
13. The landlord’s internal records from 16 February 2021 show that it asked for an inspection of the walls in the resident’s bedroom and bathroom as the resident’s housing officer had visited the property; the resident had said he had not been contacted about the previous works and had reported water penetration into the property. A telephone inspection was arranged for 17 February 2021; however, the records indicate that there was no response, and the contractor left a voicemail.
14. The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 February 2021 due to the landlord’s failure to complete repairs between 2018 and 2021. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed repairs in line with its repairs handbook and procedures which had caused a major disruption to his life. He said that he was seeking compensation for the time he had spent pursuing the repairs.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2021 and said that the complaint handler would be in touch within 10 working days to discuss the complaint and the resident would receive a response within a further 10 working days. Its internal records show that it understood the complaint to be related to water penetration in the bedroom and bathroom and a hole in the living room wall.
16. The landlord sent a further acknowledgement on 12 March 2021. It confirmed that following a phone call, it had raised for an inspection to take place and would ensure that an appointment was made. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint went back to 2019 but advised that it would only consider events which had occurred within the previous 6 months. The resident responded on 15 March 2021 and asked for further clarity as to why the landlord’s investigation would only go back 6 months. Despite it raising an inspection, he did not want a fourth surveyor to attend.
17. The landlord responded on 16 March 2021 and confirmed that the 6-month limit was its policy. It acknowledged that the work had not been completed which was why an inspection had been arranged for 17 March 2021. It would then be able to discuss what action was required moving forward. The records show that the resident called to rearrange the inspection, and this was booked for 24 March 2021 at his request. The resident called on the day as no one had attended or called. The evidence shows that a telephone inspection was booked for 26 March 2021 but cancelled as the landlord had requested the original quote from its contractors.
18. The original quote was approved on 13 April 2021 and confirmed with the contractor on the same day.
19. The contractor attended on 22 April 2021 and identified the following:

a.     Water was coming into the bedroom from above.

b.     There were leaking waste pipes externally affecting the bedroom and possibly the bathroom.

c.      The bathroom tiles that had previously been rehung in the shower cubicle, during the first visit, had fallen and exposed boarding that was soaking and would not dry while the shower was in use.

d.     There was possibly water under the shower tray.

e.     The plastering in the lounge was originally going to be completed by a different contractor but that the work had not been done.

f.        They would be able to complete some of the works, but the job specification needed to be updated as the repair issues had become worse in the property over time. They were no longer able to begin the works the following week as expected.

g.     The resident had advised that he was seeking legal advice and may take legal action.

20. The landlord’s internal records show that it had chased works with its contractors approximately 10 times between April and June 2021 but did not receive a response in relation to a new quote for works. On 29 and 30 June 2021, the contractor advised that:

a.     No works had been carried out to the property in relation to the ongoing issues yet.

b.     The lounge works were not on its original order. At the time of the original inspection and pricing, this was being carried out by another contractor. They were asked to re-submit pricing which they did. They had not been able to progress works due to the issues raised in their previous email. They had visited 3 times since 2019. The quote they had originally provided was not converted to an order, so they had assumed that the works were passed to another contractor. On their last visit, it was clear that the plastering in the lounge had not been completed.

c.      The bedroom was in a worse condition than it was at the first inspection as a result of leaking pipes. They noted access to the flat above may be required as the resident had reported a leak through the ceiling which dripped in heavy rainfall. They believed that this was related to an issue with the flat roof at the rear of the property.

d.     The shower room needed a full refurbishment rather than just a treatment and new extractor as previously advised. They had originally been told by a plumber that all leaks and issues had been started or resolved which was why only a damp treatment was needed. They had informed the resident that they would need to speak to the landlord to gain approval for the works, as invasive works would be needed, and the room would likely be out of action while works were progressed. They noted that the resident may need to be temporarily decanted.

e.     The biggest concern was the unseen damage that had been caused in the previous 2 years which could not be visually assessed or priced before works began. There could also be an issue with an outside storage area or “garden store”. This was in a state of decline and was allowing water penetration into the bedroom. They suggested that they attend with the landlord so that the specification of the works and an agreed date could be confirmed.

21. A joint inspection was arranged for 9 July 2021 and the resident was informed. The resident responded at the time and queried why a second inspection was needed. He maintained that the works were outstanding from 2018 and had been approved on 14 April 2021. He said he was unhappy with the situation as he believed the landlord was deliberately stalling. The appointment went ahead on 9 July 2021.
22. On 19 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it was awaiting a quote from its contractor following the visit for the works that did not form part of the original quote. The landlord sought an update from its contractor who provided a quote for the plastering works that were not included previously. They advised that the main order may need to be reviewed but that the plastering works could be progressed. The landlord responded on the same day to advise that it would wait to receive the final cost before proceeding with the works.
23. The landlord’s internal records show that it had chased the contractors for the quote for the new works on 22 July 2021.
24. The resident asked for an update from the landlord on 28 July 2021 and was informed that it had not yet received an update but had been chasing works. The landlord’s records show that it asked the contractors to provide an update regarding the quote on 29 July 2021. It pursued this again on 6 August 2021 and 12 August 2021.
25. On 17 August 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had been waiting for the contractor to return from annual leave. It apologised for the delay and confirmed that it would continue to pursue this until the issues were resolved. The evidence shows that it sent a further chaser to the contractors on 18 August 2021.
26. On 31 August 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord following contact from the resident regarding the complaint. The resident had explained the following:

a.     He set out the initial complaint and added that he had called countless times in relation to the repairs. He was dissatisfied that surveyors had attended a number of times but the work had not progressed since his initial complaint in February 2021, adding that the delay had caused the issues within his property to worsen. He added that this had affected his quality of life physically, mentally and socially as it was difficult to have visitors.

b.     There were major damp and mould issues affecting the plaster in the living room, the bathroom and the bedroom, and water penetration into his bedroom ceiling and bedroom and bathroom windows. He added that there were issues with the roof and external parts of the property as well as his bathroom tiling and shower.

c.      He believed that the landlord was delaying works by sending multiple surveyors to the property for inspections. He noted that the surveyor was confused as to why they kept being asked to attend.

27. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 2 September 2021 and confirmed that the issues would be investigated. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to advise that it had been chasing the surveyor to see if the quote had been received. It apologised for the delay.
28. The landlord’s records show that it had pursued the quote from is contractors on 2 September 2021.
29. On 6 September 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated as the repair works initially raised in 2018 had not begun or been resolved. He believed that the landlord had no concern for the wellbeing, living standards or mental health of its tenants. He said that the landlord had caused him stress, anxiety and depression by intentionally and deliberately delaying works with no valid reason. He expressed concern that it was now waiting quotes for previously approved works and had failed to honour its agreement to resolve the issues, which affected him daily. He did not believe that the landlord had acted in line with policy or procedures and questioned its integrity. He asked why the landlord had failed to meet standards he was entitled to.
30. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 September 2021 and explained the following:

a.     It apologised for the issues with damp and mould the resident had experienced at his property. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to the head of service; they had confirmed that the order for the works was with the contractor and were waiting for a start date.

b.     In view of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused, it offered the resident £450 as a gesture of goodwill. This was comprised of £150 for the length of time the complaint had been open, £250 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £50 for the chasers he needed to make.

31. The landlord’s records show that its contractors provided a quote and specification for works to the landlord on 18 September 2021. The report noted the following:

a.     In the rear bedroom, the dampness and water ingress continued in areas described previously and had worsened since September 2019. It recommended works to carry out external repairs and a full treatment. It was previously not necessary to remove the woodchip paper, but this was now required along with minor decoration repairs and a damp seal.

b.     The report noted that the bathroom was “devastated”. The tiling repairs being carried out at the time of its inspection in 2019 had been unsuccessful. There was a suspected leaking pipe behind the boarded wall. The room needed a full refurbishment and replacement. The resident had asked that the shower was replaced with a bath as he had experienced some mobility issues following an ankle injury. The report noted that these works would be completed by the landlord separately.

c.      In the hallway, the repairs remained the same and the walls and ceiling needed treating.

d.     In the lounge, the plastering works previously recommended in 2019 would need to be completed.

e.     At the rear of the property, external brickwork repairs were needed as previously advised in 2019, and the damage along the bedroom wall had worsened slightly. No allowance had been made for the external cupboard previously mentioned in 2019. The report noted that dampness was entering the property at this point. The floor of the storage area showed wood rot and was currently open to the elements. The tenant was to clear the area so a clearer inspection could be completed. It asked that a provisional sum was set aside for necessary repairs or renewal works if needed. The report also noted a metal staircase to the upstairs property was rusting which could be causing ingress into the bedroom as well as other defects.

f.        It recommended works to repoint brickwork and apply a waterproof sealant, check the gutter and downpipes and fill holes. It also recommended that the landlord attended to the leaking window roof in the bedroom and metal works.

g.     The report noted that while the bathroom works were being carried out, the resident would not have access to personal washing or normal bathing facilities. A temporary decant was discussed with the resident. It was clear that the external wall of the bathroom would be wet and if the works in this area were completed whilst walls were wet, there would be negative repercussions. It recommended that the bathroom was stripped, and a dehumidifier was used before items were installed.

32. On 20 September 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process and explained the following:

a.     He was dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to take his initial repair request seriously, which had led to his property being damaged. He believed the landlord had broken the terms of his tenancy agreement and had not complied with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

b.     He was dissatisfied that the landlord had unreasonably delayed a resolution to the reported issues and believed that it had failed to comply with the Housing Environmental Act 1990, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Home Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018. He added that his complaint also included other repairs works which was why the landlord had sent out a surveyor 5 times to his property.

c.      In relation to the compensation offered, he said he wanted the landlord to include payment for general damages, including the stress and loss of enjoyment of the property, as well as other damages, including for his carpet, mattress, wardrobe, walls and ceilings and garments.

33. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 20 September 2021 and advised that it would issue its response by 18 October 2021. It explained that it would require the resident to provide information related to his damaged items such as when the damage occurred, photographic evidence of this and, where possible, receipts for the items for its consideration.
34. The resident called to report a leak through his bay windows on 5 October 2021. This was containable and not affecting the electrics. The landlord’s records show that it asked the contractors to call the resident to provide an update and timeline for when repairs were expected to take place. The landlord’s internal records show that it emailed the contractors on 14 October 2021 and asked whether the works had progressed and been booked in, or whether they had been completed.
35. The records show that the landlord had asked the contractor to provide a quote for bathroom insulation. The contractors provided a further quote and report in relation to the works on 15 October 2021 which detailed works to:

a.     Remove the shower cubicle and associated electrics, damaged backing and wall tiles, basin and pedestal, non load bearing partition, existing vinyl floor and floorboards.

b.     Disconnect and remove the toilet and cistern for a minimal amount of time to ensure the resident had use of it, to avoid the need for a decant.

c.      Replace the floorboards.

d.     Treat the room with a wash and bonding solution.

e.     Install a bath with mixer taps and panel, a shower curtain to the bath area, a new handbasin and a new toilet, cistern and seat, a new extractor fan and new floor vinyl. 

f.        Supply and fit new white ceramic tiles with waterproofed adhesive and grout, including an anti-mould sealant.

g.     Use a bio-paint on the previously treated ceiling and wall surfaces.

36. The landlord’s records show that works were approved and began on 18 October 2021.
37. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2021 and explained the following:

a.     It noted that while it was unable to consider matters that had occurred over 6 months prior, the resident had reported issues prior to this.

b.     It apologised that the matter had taken longer than expected to remedy. It had attended to the resident’s reports within published timescales, but staff absence and poor communication both internally and externally had resulted in severe delays, inconvenience and repeated inspections. It confirmed that it had shared its findings with relevant senior managers to improve its future performance. It noted that works to the property had commenced as of that day.

c.      It increased its offer of compensation to £950, comprised of £150 in recognition of the length of time the complaint had been open, £400 for time and trouble, including delays and inconvenience, £50 in recognition of the time the resident spent pursuing the repairs, £300 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property and £50 for the inconvenience caused by the repeated inspections.

d.     It advised that if the resident wanted it to consider compensation for items damaged as a result of the damp, he would need to provide proof of the damage, including photos or videos, copies of receipts where possible and cost of replacement items. It asked that this information was sent within 20 working days.

38. The landlord also responded to the resident’s MP on 27 October 2021 to confirm that works began on 18 October 2021. It also advised that the resident’s complaint would be responded to under its complaints process.
39. The resident confirmed that he would accept the landlord’s offer of compensation on 28 October 2021. He asked that the complaint remain open until the agreed works had been signed off as completed. The landlord confirmed on 29 October 2021 that it would keep the complaint open until works had been confirmed as completed.

Summary of events after landlord’s final complaint response

40. The landlord’s records show that the contractors explained on 1 November 2021 that they had not started on the bathroom as the external issues had made the walls wet. They had been on site every day except for 28 October 2021 as the resident was unavailable.
41. On 2 November 2021, the contractors confirmed that the roofing works had been successful, evidenced by a heavy storm that week. They would need to let the bedroom ceiling dry out. They had also treated the bathroom ceiling. They noted that leaks were coming from the flat above the resident’s, the bathroom window was rotten and needed to be replaced, and a door was required for the garden store to protect the bedroom from damp.
42. The resident requested an update from the landlord on 18 November 2921 and provided evidence of receipts and pictures of his damaged goods and clothing caused by the damp and mould.
43. The landlord’s records show that the original scope of works to the property, including repairs to the bay window roof were reported as completed on 18 November 2021.
44. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 November 2021 and confirmed that it was awaiting an update. It advised that it would be discussing the resident’s request for reimbursement for damaged items. It asked him to provide photos of the carpet as it could not consider compensation if it did not have proof of damage. It also advised that it believed items of clothing could be washed or professionally cleaned.
45. The landlord continued to pursue an update from its contractors on 26 November and 1 December 2021. On 3 December 2021, it contacted the resident to confirm that the only outstanding work was the shower. It did not yet have a date for completion but would notify him.
46. On 8 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord in relation to the damage to his belongings; he said he had experienced leaks in his bedroom from the ceiling and the window which had caused damp and mould. The majority of his carpet had been removed to avoid any detriment to his health. He had not yet managed to lay carpet in the bedroom as the complaint had not been resolved since 2018. He was concerned that the landlord was avoiding paying compensation despite evidence of its liability and failure to follow policy and procedure.
47. The landlord responded on 9 December 2021 and explained that while the resident had provided photos of the damp patches and floorboards, these did not evidence the damage to his carpet by damp and mould and it was not able to consider reimbursement for a replacement. The landlord’s internal records show that the compensation was processed, and the complaint was closed on 10 December 2021 following a phone call with the resident.
48. The contractors confirmed on 13 December 2021 that the bathroom refurbishment remained outstanding. They had explained to the resident that they were awaiting the materials before starting works. The resident was aware that the window needed replacing but this had not been quoted. They had temporarily sealed the window to stop water coming in. The current shower cubicle was defective and did not work. They had advised the resident that there may be an issue ordering the window due to delays in manufacturing as a result of Covid-19 but that once this was replaced, they would be ready to start works. They had informed the resident that they would provide an update in January 2022.
49. The resident referred his complaint to this Service in January 2022 as he remained dissatisfied that the works to his bathroom remained outstanding. He maintained that the landlord had failed to comply with its obligations to him. He noted that the issues had affected his mental health and wellbeing and damage had been caused to his carpet and personal belongings as a result of the damp and mould.
50. On 19 January 2022, the contractors informed the landlord that the works were partially completed but that they were experiencing a supply issue and the work was temporarily on hold, which the resident was aware of. The landlord’s records show that the contractors advised on 6 May 2022 that they intended to return within 2 weeks to complete the work.
51. The resident raised an additional complaint on 29 July 2022 as a tile in his shower had fallen on his foot and caused injury which resulted in him seeking medical attention. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of the property as the works had not progressed. The complaint was handled through both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints process and the landlord issued a final response on 31 October 2022. As part of its response, the landlord offered an additional £200 compensation for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays in completing works. It confirmed that the surveyor would monitor the works through to completion and arrange a post inspection.
52. The landlord has advised that the bathroom refurbishment works were completed on 19 December 2022.
53. In July 2023, the resident advised this Service that works to his bathroom were incomplete; the extractor fan had not been replaced, there was no vinyl floor covering in place in the bathroom, and the window had not been repaired or replaced and was still in a poor condition. He added that he was told his bathroom door would be replaced but this had not been completed. He also reported continuing issues involving a leak into his bedroom and pests within the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

54. In his communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has advised that the ongoing issues within his property had impacted his health and wellbeing and caused injury to his foot. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. These matters are best suited to be dealt with as part of a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
55. The resident has also raised concerns about ongoing pest issues in his property. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied. A recommendation has been made below in this regard.

Policies and procedures

56. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including external pipes, the roof, external and internal walls, windows, floors and ceilings, plasterwork and chimney stacks. It is also responsible for repairing any installations for sanitation and supply of water, including bathrooms. The resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property, reporting repair issues and allowing access to the property for repairs to be carried out.
57. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs should be attended and made safe within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should generally be completed within 28 days. Some repairs, including where major works are required to a property, may need additional time due to specialist parts or contractors being necessary. Where there are delays, the landlord would be expected to keep residents informed of the progress of the repair and provide an update as to when works are to be completed. The policy further states that where damage has been caused to items belonging to a resident, the resident should claim on their home insurance. If damage is a result of the landlord’s action or inaction, this would be investigated as a complaint.
58. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord would consider compensating residents for damage caused to belongings as a result of its action or inaction. The policy states that it takes an evidence led approach to offering compensation and would not make offers based solely on belief or probability.
59. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If there is a delay at any stage, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected response date. The policy states that the landlord may not consider issues that had occurred more than 6 months prior to the complaint being raised, unless there is evidence that this had been raised to staff and no action had been taken.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, water ingress and outstanding repairs within the property.

60. It should be noted that, in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In this case, however, it is evident that there have been significant delays in completing repairs in the resident’s property, and that the landlord was first made aware of the issues in 2018 but failed to provide a resolution. The Ombudsman has considered events dating back to 2018 given the landlord’s contractor has made reference to the scope of repairs widening due to the failure to complete works diagnosed a few years previously.
61. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to proactively address repair issues reported from the outset, which led to the condition of the property worsening and additional extensive repairs being required. The landlord has acknowledged delays in completing works and attributed this to staff absence and poor internal and external communication. It offered the resident a total of £800 compensation for this aspect of the complaint and acknowledged the inconvenience, time and trouble and loss of enjoyment of the property.
62. The resident began to report issues with plastering, recurring damp and mould in his bedroom and bathroom, and his shower in August 2018. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection and completed some works to the resident’s shower and roof (which was causing water ingress) at the time. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord had sought to progress repairs following its correspondence to its contractors to chase a quote in February 2019. The failure to progress works at the time meant that works to repair the windows and pointing (which were reportedly causing water ingress) and plastering, remained unresolved.
63. The resident then reported issues with tiles coming away in his shower on 12 July 2019, and continuing issues with damp patches in the bedroom and bathroom and plastering on 24 July 2019. While the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the tiles to be rehung and a full damp survey to be completed on 2 September 2019, it failed to adequately progress works once the quote for works had been forwarded internally on 6 September 2019. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the repairs at this stage which was likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty as to how the landlord intended to address what the September 2019 indicated were significant defects.
64. The contractor revisited the property on 4 November 2019 but was unclear as to why this had been arranged as the recommended repairs remained the same as previously diagnosed. The Ombudsman has not seen further evidence to show why this was requested. Following this, there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had attempted to progress the repairs. In its communication to this Service, it has advised that there was no record as to why the works were not completed.
65. While it is noted that the resident did not consistently pursue the repairs following this, the landlord has an obligation, in line with the Decent Homes Standard and Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), to ensure that properties are free from Category 1 hazards, which could cause harm to residents. These include damp and mould growth. It is of significant concernthatdespite being aware that treatments were needed for damp and mould across multiple rooms of the property, and that there were external repair issues that were causing water ingress into the property, the landlord failed to act at this stage. The report provided by the contractor also indicated that if left untreated, the mould growth, especially in the bedroom, would increase greatly over the winter months. This should have been a priority for the landlord given the potential hazard to the resident.
66. The resident reported that his shower tiles had begun to fall away and that his shower tray was leaking on 6 March 2020. It is noted that there was no access to the property on 10 March 2020 which was outside of the landlord’s control as it would be the resident’s responsibility to allow access to the property in line with the tenancy agreement. However, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence to confirm that the landlord had attempted to rearrange the appointment with the resident or clearly communicated with him during this time regarding the repairs.
67. It is noted that there may have been some limitations on the landlord’s service in 2020 due to the impact of Covid-19, and it was likely only completing emergency repairs. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was explained as the cause of any delay in completing repairs at the time nor whether the landlord made any assessment of whether the required works to the resident’s property met the definition of emergency repairs. It is noted that an appointment was arranged but cancelled on 11 September 2020 as operatives had been unable to attend. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of this nor that the landlord or its contractor were proactive in following this up – this was unreasonable and again likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident.
68. The landlord has advised that it received no further contact from the resident regarding the repair issues until his complaint in February 2021. It attempted to arrange a further inspection at this stage which was reasonable due to the time that had passed since the initial inspection. However, the records show that on 13 April 2021, it approved the previous quote it had received in September 2019 in order to progress works. Ultimately, the contractor found on 22 April 2021 that the works could not progress as the condition of the property had worsened and the original quote needed to be reviewed.
69. The landlord has provided evidence that it made efforts to chase the contractors for the quote on a number of occasions between April and October 2021, but often did not receive a response. While the delay at this stage may not have been fully within the landlord’s control, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered alternative options such as completing some of the repairs itself, approaching a different contractor or considering its contract management options in regard to the contractors. Given that it had been informed of ongoing water ingress and damp and mould that would likely cause the conditions of the property to worsen, it is unreasonable that its actions were so limited during this period. The resident also spent significant time and trouble pursuing the landlord for an update both himself and through his MP which caused unnecessary time and trouble to him.
70. Following receipt of the updated quote on 18 September 2021 and a further quote for the bathroom works on 18 October 2021, the property repairs began on 18 October 2021. The main scope of works was reported as completed on 18 November 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe of the quote being obtained, given the extent of the works required. However, the refurbishment works to the bathroom remained outstanding.
71. The evidence shows that delays continued following the landlord’s October 2021 final complaint response, to the extent that the resident needed to pursue an additional complaint in July 2022 as the refurbishment works had not yet been completed and a tile had fallen from his shower. The lack of communication regarding the ongoing works, and apparent confusion evidenced within the landlord’s internal records as to whether the bathroom refurbishment had been completed, demonstrates that it had failed to adequately monitor works, put things right or learn lessons from the outcome of the initial complaint. The evidence suggests that the majority of the bathroom works were not completed until December 2022, which was over a year following the initial quote. This was well outside of the obligations set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and was therefore inappropriate.
72. In addition, the resident has advised that several aspects of the work agreed under the quote for his bathroom refurbishment have not been completed, including installing a new extractor fan, laying vinyl flooring and repairing or replacing the bathroom window. While the landlord advised this Service that it had attempted to contact the resident to see whether works had been completed, the Ombudsman has not seen records to indicate its attempts. This was a further example of the landlord’s failure to ensure works were completed satisfactorily and is of considerable concern given that the extractor fan was identified as needing replacement in 2019 and both the window and extractor fan were identified as a cause of damp and mould and water ingress in the bathroom.
73. In summary, the landlord’s failure to proactively address the repair issues for a period of four years, and to effectively see them through to completion, caused the resident significant distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. The impact on the resident’s living conditions will inevitably have been significant given the number of rooms affected and inspection outcomes clearly demonstrate that these conditions worsened throughout this period.
74. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the conditions for severe maladministration apply and that the repeated failures to put things right over an unreasonable time period warrants a significant level of compensation. While the landlord’s total offer of £800 (for the repairs issues) goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident, it is not considered proportionate in view of the overall impact on him, and his enjoyment of his property, and the efforts he had to go to in order to obtain a resolution.
75. The resident also asked the landlord to compensate him for damage to his carpet, mattress, wardrobe and clothing as part of his stage 2 escalation request on 20 September 2021. The landlord acted reasonably by asking the resident to provide photos of the damaged items, and receipts where possible, so that it could consider his request. It is noted that the resident since provided photos of his damaged clothing and a receipt from 2016 for his carpet.
76. The landlord confirmed that it would not offer compensation for the resident’s clothing as it believed that the items could be washed or professionally cleaned. While the resident had provided photos of the water staining and damp on the floorboards in his bedroom, he was unable to provide photographic evidence of the damage to his bedroom carpet as he stated that he had disposed of this in 2018 as a result of the damp and mould.
77. Given the lack of evidence of the damage to the carpet, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request for reimbursement as this had not been evidenced in line with its policy. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was unlikely to be able to place a new carpet in the bedroom due to the evident damp, mould and water ingress issues from 2018 onwards. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the inconvenience this may have caused and offered additional compensation on this basis. The Ombudsman has taken the inconvenience of not being able to lay new carpet in the property into consideration within the overall compensation figure ordered below.
78. In view of the failings set out above, the landlord is to pay the resident additional compensation as detailed in the orders below. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord offered and paid the resident further compensation of £200 in October 2022, in recognition of the inconvenience caused by further delays – this amount has been taken into consideration in the orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

79. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 February 2021. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2021 and confirmed that it would respond within 10 working days, it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 9 September 2021. This was approximately 7 months later and significantly outside of the landlord’s response timeframes. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord had effectively communicated with the resident in relation to any delay in its response or explained when he would receive its response, which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
80. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated in early September 2021, prior to the stage 1 response being issued by the landlord. It is the Ombudsman’s view that complaints should not be escalated to stage 2 until a stage 1 response is issued. This is to allow the resident to respond to the landlord’s position and challenge any points raised. The resident then asked for this complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 20 September 2021. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2021 which was within its complaints policy timescales.
81. While the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised the repair issues some time earlier, it advised him that it would not investigate matters that had occurred more than 6 months prior to the complaint being raised. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have used its discretion in relation to the timescales investigated within the complaint, as the evidence shows that the issues were raised to staff in 2018 but limited action had been taken to complete repairs. The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had investigated why the repairs had not progressed from 2018 and confirmed its position to the resident. Its failure to do so meant that its complaint investigation was flawed and this was likely to have caused uncertainty to the resident as to how seriously the landlord treated his complaint.
82. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of internal landlord communication which noted that it had acknowledged the deterioration of the resident’s living conditions due to its inaction in 2019 and a “catalogue” of failures on its part after reviewing the case. Despite being aware of its failings, it failed to fully address these or explain what the specific failings were within its response to the resident.
83. It also failed to take points of learning from the resident’s complaint or establish what it could do to prevent similar failures in future. The landlord’s lack of learning from the complaint was a missed opportunity and can be evidenced by the lack of ownership or monitoring over the ongoing bathroom refurbishment and its failure to proactively update the resident regarding the remaining works.
84. While the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the length of time the complaint was open and offered the resident £150 compensation, this amount is not considered proportionate given the landlord’s failure to fully identify and acknowledge its failings or demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the resident’s complaint. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to learn from the outcome and put steps in place to prevent similar failures occurring in the future. The landlord is to offer the resident additional compensation as detailed in the orders made below. It is also ordered to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning.

Determination (decision)

85. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, water ingress and outstanding repairs within the property.
86. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons 

87. There were significant missed opportunities by the landlord to monitor and progress repairs to the resident’s property between 2018 and 2021 which meant that more extensive repair works were required as a result of ongoing damp, mould and water ingress. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated or take ownership of the works after several failures. While the landlord has somewhat acknowledged the impact on the resident, its offer of compensation does not satisfactorily recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its failure to monitor the repairs, delays and poor communication. It also delayed by a further year in completing works to the bathroom despite inspections making clear the significant impact on the resident’s living conditions.
88. While the landlord acknowledged the length of time the complaint had been open and offered £150 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the delayed complaint response, demonstrate that it had fully considered the timeframes or failures involved in the case, or taken points of learning to prevent similar failures in the future.

Orders

89. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified; this apology should be sent to him by the landlord’s chief executive.
90. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £2250, made up of:

a.     £2000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience caused by its repeated failures to effectively monitor and resolve the repairs needed at the resident’s property;             

b.     £250 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

91. This should be paid to the resident directly rather than being offset against his rent account. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £950, and the additional offer of £200 made in October 2022, which were paid to the resident.
92. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a post inspection of the resident’s property to identify any outstanding repairs and check the quality of works completed in 2021-22. This should include:

a.     Investigating the resident’s report that there is an ongoing leak into his bedroom.

b.     Considering the resident’s report that the bathroom works are incomplete.

93. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to confirm its conclusions and outline the scope of any works required and an expected completion date. It should also assign and provide details for a member of staff to be a point of contact for the resident and monitor the ongoing works through to completion.
94. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the resident and this Service. This should consider the evidence that was available (or may have been available at the time) in relation to the resident’s reports, any missed opportunities there were to resolve the repair issues at an earlier date, points of learning that can be taken from the case, and actions it could take to improve its future response to similar cases. The focus of the review should include (but not be limited to):

a.     A review of its service level agreements with contractors and subcontractors to ensure that there is a clear process in place to avoid delays in obtaining quotes.

b.     A review of its processes for monitoring repairs to ensure that works are managed effectively through to completion and staff are aware of their responsibilities in relation to this.

c.      A review of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (May 2023) alongside its current record keeping practices to ensure that it acts on recommendations made and that its processes are in line with best practice.

d.     A review of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Damp and Mould (October 2021 and February 2023) alongside its current approach to damp and mould to ensure that it acts on recommendations made and that its processes are in line with best practice.

95. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

 Recommendations

96. It is recommended that:

a.     The landlord contacts the resident in relation to his reports of pests within the property and arranges pest control and proofing works where necessary.

b.     The landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are informed where there is likely to be a delay in issuing a complaint response, responses clearly detail where service failures have occurred and there are mechanism in place to establish points of learning from the complaint.

97. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in respect of the recommendations made above within four weeks of the date of this report.