Sanctuary Housing Association (202208663)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208663

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of wet room and boiler repairs.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat. He has a disability from a back injury, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In July 2022, the resident’s boiler passed its annual gas safety inspection by the landlord as safe to use and was serviced. He then told the Ombudsman in the same month that he disputed the landlord’s gas safety certificate for his 30-year-old boiler, which was faulty and need to be replaced. He said that an external contractor had confirmed this. The resident added that his walk in wet room had no hot water other than a very weak electric shower. This was too weak to wash him or clean the concrete floor, which could not be mopped or otherwise cleaned. The resident was therefore left without the hot shower that his surgeon said that he needed in the morning to reduce his pain. However, the landlord would not repair this without an occupational therapist’s assessment, and so the Ombudsman advised him to formally complain to it.
  3. The resident subsequently reported that the landlord had received a referral for him about his weak shower from the local council and an occupational therapist in September 2022. However, he reported that the landlord had taken no action for this. The local council then confirmed to the resident in November 2022 that the landlord had received the referral. This recommended wet room works including replacing the electric shower with a gas power shower, and the flooring with a non-slip, non-abrasive covering. The landlord subsequently noted on 1 December 2022 that the resident had reported that his hot water only worked when the heating was on. He added on 9 December 2022 that he could not afford the heating, so mould was growing throughout his property.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident on 9 December 2022 to offer to speak to his energy provider on his behalf, and checked if there was any help that it could provide to support him with his heating costs. It also asked him for more information about the mould for it to request an urgent job to be raised for it to investigate this. However, the resident then made a stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2022 about a leak from his gas meter, unsafe practices by the landlord’s gas engineer, its poor communication, shower repair delays, and damp and mould. It raised orders to investigate this on the same date, and its surveyor inspected his property on 16 December 2022, but they found no damp or mould and only condensation from a lack of ventilation and heating. The landlord therefore continued to ask if the resident could be helped with his heating costs and raised an order to replace his wet room fan.
  5. On 20 December 2022, the landlord checked on the resident’s wellbeing. He reported further damp and mould affecting his cupboards and bed. The landlord’s surveyor suggested on 21 and 29 December 2022 that there was a cold spot in the corner of the resident’s room, and that the mould growth was due to condensation on this that needed to be heated and ventilated. It then responded to his report about his lack of hot water without heating by confirming on 10 January 2023 that there were no issues with this and that the hot water was working. However, the resident complained to the landlord, the local council, and the Ombudsman again on 17 January 2023 about his shower and damp and mould.
  6. The resident explained that the landlord had only inspected his property and fixed his wet room fan, and so his shower was still not working properly and there was damp and mould throughout the property. This affected plaster, flooring, a doormat, carpets, furniture, and clothing, which meant that he had to move out of his bedroom to sleep in his front room. The resident’s dehumidifier had also collected 2 litres of water per day and he said that his GP had stated that the mould was dangerous for his breathing difficulties. He therefore had to pay to travel to shower elsewhere and considered his property to be uninhabitable and life-threatening. The local council responded by inspecting the property on 24 January 2023, but they did not find any damp and explained that the mould was caused by condensation.
  7. The resident was therefore advised by the local council to heat and ventilate his property more, monitor his new humidistat system, and seek Government support for his heating costs. The landlord was asked by the local council to install draught excluders around his front door, and it raised an emergency job to check and repair his shower, as well as to discuss refunding him for bathing elsewhere. However, the resident’s solicitors issued a disrepair claim against the landlord on 31 January 2023 under the pre action protocol for housing conditions claims (the pre action protocol). This was for defects in external walls, plasterwork, and damp and mould, with a single joint expert chartered surveyor proposed to inspect and report on the property. The landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response of 2 February 2023 therefore declined to respond to the resident’s damp and mould reports. He was instead referred to his solicitors, who its disrepair team would respond to.
  8. The stage 1 complaint response nevertheless apologised for the failures in service the resident experienced while waiting for the response. This was not the service the landlord expected, although it said that his 9 December 2022 gas meter leak was resolved by his energy provider and gas network. The landlord gave the resident a temporary heater for this on that date and could find no failures in its service from its previous gas safety inspection and servicing. It also assessed his shower on 1 February 2023, which did not need a repair but a disability adaptation that it agreed to look into. The landlord therefore partially upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised, and offered him £200 compensation for his inconvenience and its delayed complaint response. It went on to attend his report of no heating and hot water on 2 March 2023 by topping up his boiler pressure on the same day.
  9. On 13 and 15 April 2023, the single joint expert chartered surveyor inspected and reported on the resident’s property, respectively. They found no structural damp, mould, or defects, but that the external walls in good condition. Only a kitchen ceiling repair was required for a leak from the flat above, which also needed their plumbing inspected and repaired. The mould on the resident’s wardrobe and duvet was said to be caused by condensation and not by any disrepair or defect with his property. His dehumidifier was also described as extracting condensation from the air that was always present in an occupied property. The landlord therefore offered the resident’s solicitors £113.71 damages for this, to repair the kitchen ceiling in 5 months, and to pay his legal costs on 24 April 2023, which they accepted at his request on 4 May 2023.
  10. The landlord subsequently fitted a thermostatic shower mixer to the resident’s shower on 26 April 2023 and carried out repairs for the other works mentioned above on 15 May 2023. In the meantime, he reported that his upstairs neighbour’s incorrectly installed tumble dryer doubled the humidity in his property, which he could not afford to dehumidify. The resident added that the detergent in the water affected his coughing, breathing and skin, which his GP agreed was due to his detergent allergy. The landlord therefore visited him and the neighbour in June 2023, but its surveyor could not confirm that this was occurring. The resident’s final stage complaint about this, as well as damp and mould, was then accepted by it on 27 June 2023, which it responded to on 18 July 2023. The landlord repeated that it could not look into the damp and mould due to his disrepair claim, but that it had booked a follow up surveyor’s inspection for 11 December 2023.
  11. The landlord also apologised that it did not previously escalate the resident’s final stage complaint after he had contacted it 5 times in May and June 2023. It therefore apologised for this, confirmed that it had addressed this with its team, and repeated the importance of excellent customer service and good communication to them. The landlord also increased its compensation offer to the resident to £350, which was broken down into £200 for his stage 1 complaint, £100 for its complaint handling, and £50 for its poor communication. It then completed and post inspected his kitchen ceiling repairs on 31 August 2023.
  12. However, the resident continued to report damp, mould, and high humidity affecting his health and his pets, as well as cracks, subsidence, skirting, and radiator works. The landlord’s surveyors’ further inspections still found no damp or mould, but poor ventilation and heating, which it raised wet room and kitchen fan and bedroom wall vent works for. It nevertheless only recorded raising a visit for wet room flooring works on 25 September 2023.
  13. The resident therefore complained to the Ombudsman, and he told us that he wanted to live in a safe and dry home as the outcome to his complaint. However, he considered that the landlord’s handling of his damp and mould reports meant that he was unsafe from the high humidity there. He added that he was dissatisfied with its handling of his cracks, subsidence, skirting, and radiator works, as well as that it was declining to repair his wet room floor. The resident said that the local council’s and occupational therapist’s flooring wet room works referral was therefore not being followed. He added that his lungs were being affected by the humidity at his property, which he said that he received medication and fortnightly checks from his GP for. However, the landlord told the Ombudsman that no works were outstanding at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of works at his property for cracks, subsidence, skirting and a radiator, which are concerning. However, these matters are outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because, under the Scheme, we may not consider complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. There is no evidence that a complaint from the resident about its handling of cracks, subsidence, skirting and radiator works has exhausted the complaints procedure yet. These matters are therefore not considered by this report. Instead, this report will focus on the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the wet room, the boiler, and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain his property’s walls, windows, floors, ceilings, and major internal plasterwork. It aims to complete non-emergency appointed repairs within 28 calendar days under its repairs procedure. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (the spotlight report) recommends that the landlord takes a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and review whether its approach will achieve this. Its self assessment against this states that it does so through its thorough initial diagnosis of damp and mould, making faster initial property visits, and using smart thermostats to reduce risk factors and help with fuel poverty.
  2. The spotlight report also recommends that the landlord identifies opportunities to extend the scope of its damp and mould diagnosis within its buildings to ensure the effectiveness of its early responses. Its self-assessment against this says that it maintains, tracks, and interrogates possible or actual damp and mould data in its properties’ histories in order to do so. The spotlight report additionally recommends that the landlord avoids taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident to deal with damp and mould. Its self-assessment against this states that it does so by not apportioning blame for damp and mould.
  3. The landlord’s self-assessment against the spotlight report says that it follows the recommendation from this to clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding its actions to resolve damp and mould by including this in its service standards. The spotlight report also recommends that it identifies complex damp and mould cases at an early stage, and that it has a strategy for keeping residents informed and for effective resolution. The self-assessment states that the landlord’s process diagnoses the complexities of cases and residents’ vulnerabilities at first contact, as well as the best approach to keep them informed through to resolution via improved communications.
  4. The spotlight report additionally recommends that the landlord identifies where independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyors should be used, and to then act on their accepted recommendations in a timely manner. Its self-assessment against this says that it does so by using appropriate surveyors, engaging with residents, and taking timely action. The self-assessment states that the landlord will continue to deal with damp and mould complaints after the pre-action protocol has commenced until legal proceedings have been issued, as recommended by the spotlight report. This is through its legal and complaints teams working together unless complaints are withdrawn by residents.
  5. The resident began to report to the landlord that there was mould throughout his property as he could not afford to heat this from at least 9 December 2022. Its self assessment against the spotlight report committed it to helping him with fuel poverty and therefore to assist him with this. The landlord was also obliged by the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs procedure to aim address any effect on the property’s structure within 28 calendar days. This meant that it was appropriate that it attempted to do so by arranging for its surveyor to inspect his property after 7 calendar days on 16 December 2022. Moreover, the landlord initially followed the spotlight report and its self-assessment against this by making this faster initial property visit and by seeking to help the resident with fuel poverty. It did the latter by offering to speak to his energy provider about this on 9 December 2022, and by checking internally if it could support him with being unable to heat his property.
  6. However, the landlord’s surveyor’s inspection then found no damp or mould in the property, but only high humidity and condensation from a lack of ventilation and heating. It therefore only advised him to ventilate and heat the property regularly on 16 and 29 December 2022. This was rather than taking the further action that the resident sought for the landlord to resolve this itself. This was because its findings attributed the condensation to his actions at the property. However, the spotlight report and the landlord’s self-assessment against this recommended that it not put the onus on the resident to deal with this and to avoid blaming him for this. Therefore, it would have been preferable if it had also considered providing him with further assistance, such as assessing whether it could have improved the property’s ventilation, or checking externally as well as internally if he could be helped to heat his property.
  7. The landlord nevertheless did follow its surveyor’s advice to address the humidity and condensation at the resident’s property by replacing his wet room fan. It did so by raising works for this in December 2022, which he confirmed that it completed within 28 calendar days. This was therefore appropriate action to try and resolve this in line with the landlord’s repairs procedure’s non-emergency repair timescale. It also visited the resident to check on his wellbeing on 20 December 2022, which was suitable. However, the landlord’s surveyor then only responded to his further report of damp and mould damaging his furniture at that time by repeating their previous advice. This led to the resident contacting the Ombudsman and the local council about this, as well as the landlord again, on 17 January 2023. He added that his property’s plasterwork, flooring, carpets, walls, as well as his health and clothing, had been damaged by this.
  8. The resident additionally reported that his dehumidifier was collecting large amounts of water from the property, and that he had to sleep in his front room to avoid this in his bedroom. He therefore considered the property to be uninhabitable and life-threatening. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not follow the recommendation of the spotlight report and its self-assessment against this for it to clearly and regularly communicate with the resident. This is as well as not following the recommendation for it to identify the complexity of his case at an early stage.
  9. It is noted that the landlord’s position was supported by the local council, which confirmed to the resident on 24 January 2023 that they had found no damp at his property. They instead advised that there was condensation causing mould and reiterated the landlord’s advice to him about this. However, the local council did recommend further works for the landlord to address the humidity and condensation at the resident’s property by installing draught excluders around his front door, but there is no evidence that it did so, which was inappropriate. Moreover, it then failed to follow the spotlight report and its self-assessment against this after his solicitors made a disrepair claim to it for damp and mould under the pre-action protocol on 31 January 2023.
  10. This is because the landlord confirmed to the resident on 2 February 2023 that it would not respond to his formal complaint to it about its handling of his damp and mould reports. It explained that this was because of his disrepair claim that would be handled by its disrepair team instead, and so it referred him to his solicitors to deal with this. This was inappropriate and contrary to the spotlight report and the landlord’s self-assessment against this. These state that the landlord should instead continue to deal with the complaint after the pre-action protocol had commenced until legal proceedings are issued.
  11. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s actions meant that the resident’s damp and mould reports were moved from its faster, more directly responsive repairs route to a slower, less directly responsive legal process. This was demonstrated by the fact that it only offered to carry out the works recommended by the single joint expert chartered surveyor for the disrepair claim within 5 months. This was instead of the 28 calendar days required by the landlord’s repairs procedure. The kitchen ceiling repairs and upstairs neighbour’s leak inspection and repairs recommended were therefore completed on 31 August 2023. This was an inappropriately excessive 138 calendar days after the works were recommended in a report on 15 April 2023.
  12. The landlord did follow the recommendation in the spotlight report and its self-assessment against this by agreeing to the resident’s solicitors’ request to instruct the single joint expert chartered surveyor. This is because they were independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified, as recommended, finding no structural damp or mould but only mould growth on a wardrobe and duvet caused by condensation. However, the landlord did not then follow the recommendation for it to act in a timely manner, which was unreasonable. It was nevertheless appropriate that it later extended the scope of its damp and mould diagnosis within the resident’s building by investigating his upstairs neighbour’s property, as recommended by the spotlight report and its self assessment.
  13. The landlord also subsequently extended the scope of its damp and mould diagnosis again in response to the reports from April 2023 that his neighbour’s tumble dryer had greatly increased the humidity in the resident’s property, and that their detergent affected his health. This is because the landlord visited the resident to discuss this on 8 and 21 June 2023, before confirming on 23 June 2023 that its surveyor had visited his neighbour, but it could not confirm that these issues were impacting the resident. It is additionally noted that it continued to communicate with him about this, including when its housing officer and surveyor visited him on 31 August and 15 September 2023, respectively. Although they again found no damp or mould at his property, but high humidity due a lack of ventilation and heating, which they repeated their previous advice for. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it continued to extend the scope of its damp and mould diagnosis in the resident’s case by responding to his further reports about this.
  14. Moreover, the landlord completed works for this to the resident’s bedroom wall vent within its repairs procedure’s 28-calendar-day timescale on 12 October 2023. It also raised wet room and kitchen fan installation works to address the resident’s property’s high humidity, although there is no evidence that it completed these works. Therefore, while there is some evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s damp and mould reports appropriately in line with his tenancy agreement, its policies and procedures, and the Ombudsman’s good practice guidance, it did not do so fully. This is because it only provided him with limited practical assistance with this, did not always communicate with him clearly and regularly, and it did not complete all of the works recommended or begin them in a timely manner.
  15. These were failings on the landlord’s part that would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience in addition to the concerns that he reported having about the property’s condition and the alleged negative impact of this on his health. Although it is noted that its surveyors, the local council, and the single joint expert chartered surveyor did not find damp or mould impacting the structure, fittings, or installations at his property, but only condensation-related mould affecting his furniture and belongings. It is also noted that no medical evidence was provided in relation to this case. Nevertheless, the landlord could have both reassured the resident about this and resolved the issues that affected the property but its failings in his case prevented it from doing so.
  16. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for its failings in handling his reports of damp and mould, as identified by this investigation. It has also been ordered to contact him to arrange the follow up surveyor’s inspection that it booked for his property, if it has not done so already. This is in order to produce an action plan and schedule of works to complete the outstanding damp and mould works at the property, and to work with the resident to overcome the humidity and condensation there. The landlord has additionally been ordered to carry out a case review to identify exactly why its failings in the resident’s damp and mould case occurred, as highlighted by this investigation, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future. It shall provide him and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  17. The landlord awarded the resident £113.71 for its handling of his reports of damp and mould. This partly recognised the time, trouble, and inconvenience that he experienced from its failings in handling this, which its compensation guidance recommends up to £400 compensation for to recognise a high effort and impact from such failings. This is also within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to fully recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the resident reported experiencing from its handling of his damp and mould reports by paying him £286.29 further compensation. This is in addition to the £113.71 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
  18. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of the spotlight report, its self-assessment against this, and its repairs procedure. This is to ensure that all of their requirements and recommendations are followed in response to every report to it of damp and mould, so that residents are reassured that the issues they report to it will be resolved. This is line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of wet room and boiler repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain and keep in proper working order his property’s floors, gas, water and sanitation installations, and space and water heating equipment. Its repairs procedure requires it make safe emergency repairs including winter heating repairs where there is no other heating within 24 hours. The landlord aims to complete non-emergency appointed repairs within 28 calendar days. It is responsible for electric shower and boiler repairs under its repairs handbook. The landlord’s gas compliance and safety checks procedure requires it to carry out annual gas safety checks by competent and registered contractors of all of its gas appliances.
  2. The resident states that the landlord received a referral for works to his wet room from the local council and an occupational therapist in September 2022. There is evidence from the local council that the landlord received this by at least 24 November 2022. It was recommended to replace the resident’s electric shower with a gas power shower, which he reported was too weak to wash him or the wet room floor. The landlord was also recommended to replace the wet room’s concrete flooring with a non-slip, non-abrasive covering, as he reported that this could not be cleaned otherwise. The resident then chased it to carry out the works to replace his shower in his stage 1 complaint to it of 12 December 2022.
  3. The resident subsequently chased the landlord about his shower still not working properly again on 17 January 2023, reporting that he had to pay to travel and shower elsewhere. It recorded that it then raised a 24-hour emergency job to check and repair the shower on 24 January 2023, and that it would discuss reimbursing him for bathing elsewhere. However, the landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response of 2 February 2023 stated that its inspection of 1 February 2023 had found that the resident’s shower did not need a repair but a disability adaptation, which it agreed to look into.
  4. The landlord did apologise to the resident for failures in its service and offered him total compensation of £200 for reasons including his inconvenience. It went on to fit a thermostatic shower mixer to his shower on 26 April 2023. However, the landlord only recorded raising a visit for the wet room flooring works on 25 September 2023, and there is no evidence that it took any further action for this.
  5. The landlord therefore carried out the works to the resident’s electric shower recommended by the local council and an occupational therapist that it was required to by his tenancy agreement and its repairs handbook. However, it took at least 153 calendar days to do so from 24 November 2022 to 26 April 2023 instead of the 28 calendar days required by its repairs procedure. This was an unreasonably excessive delay that the landlord gave the resident no reasons or updates for. He therefore experienced time and trouble by having to continue to chase it to carry out the works to his shower, which was inappropriate. This also would have caused the resident further unnecessary distress and inconvenience because he reported that the shower was too weak to clean him or his wet room floor, leaving him without a hot shower in the morning for his back pain and having to pay to travel to bathe elsewhere.
  6. It is additionally very concerning that the landlord took over 10 months from 24 November 2022 to 25 September 2023 to raise a visit for the works to the resident’s wet room floor as recommended by the local council and an occupational therapist. This is particularly because there is no evidence that it then either carried out a visit or the works to the flooring that had been recommended. The landlord again gave the resident no reasons or updates for this even more unreasonably excessive delay, which was inappropriate given its repairs procedure’s 28-calendar-day works timescale.
  7. Moreover, while the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged and offered the resident remedies for its delayed shower works, it neither proposed a remedy nor acknowledged the delayed flooring works, which was unreasonable. This would have caused the resident further frustration as he explained that the flooring could not be cleaned otherwise.
  8. The resident also disputed the landlord’s annual gas safety inspection passing his boiler as safe to use and as being serviced on 7 July 2022, but there was no evidence to the contrary. It was therefore reasonable for it to rely on the expert evidence of its gas engineer’s inspection about the condition of the boiler in the absence of any other conflicting expert or other evidence. This was in accordance with the landlord’s gas compliance and safety checks procedure. The resident subsequently reported to it on 1 December 2022 that his hot water only worked when the heating was on. He added in a stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2022 that there had been a leak from his gas meter and unsafe practices by the landlord’s gas engineer.
  9. The landlord then responded to the resident’s report that his hot water did not work unless the heating was on by appropriately confirming on 10 January 2023 that there were no issues with this and that the hot water was working. Its subsequent stage 1 complaint response of 2 February 2023 confirmed that his 9 December 2022 gas meter leak was resolved by his energy provider and gas network. The landlord also said that it had given the resident a temporary heater for this on that date, which was reasonable, and that it could find no failures in its service from its previous gas safety inspection and servicing.
  10. The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to ensure that the resident’s boiler was attended as required by his tenancy agreement and its repairs handbook. This is because it confirmed that the leak from his gas meter on 9 December 2022 was resolved on that date by his energy provider and gas network. The landlord additionally addressed the resident’s winter heating repair within 24 hours by confirming this and providing him with a temporary heater for this on the same day, as required by its repairs procedure, which was reasonable. However, it is of concern that it did not follow the procedure fully.
  11. This is because the landlord only responded to the resident’s report of 1 December 2022 that his hot water only worked when the heating was on by confirming that this was working on 10 January 2023. It therefore took 40 calendar days to do so instead of the 28 calendar days required by its repairs procedure. While there may have been delays at this time caused by the fact that this took place over the Christmas period, no updates were provided about this and the procedure did not make any allowances for such delays. This is particularly concerning because the resident began informing the landlord from at least 9 December 2022 that he could not afford his heating bills, which would have also left him without hot water. This meant that he would have experienced further unnecessary distress and inconvenience from this, as he reported that he needed a hot shower in the morning for his back pain, and again no reasons, updates or remedies were given to him by it for its delay.
  12. The landlord therefore carried out some of the resident’s wet room and boiler repairs appropriately in line with his tenancy agreement and policies and procedures. However, it did not do so fully because it did not carry out all of the works recommended, delayed completing some of the other works, and failed to communicate with him about, explain or remedy all of its delays. This would have caused the resident to experience unnecessary additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience, which was a further failing on its part.
  13. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for its failings in handling his reports of wet room and boiler repairs, as identified by this investigation. It has also been ordered to carry out the works that were recommended to replace his wet room floor, if it has not done so already. The landlord has additionally been ordered to carry out a case review to identify exactly why its failings in the resident’s wet room and boiler repairs case occurred, as highlighted by this investigation, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future. It shall provide him and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. In order to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience that the resident experienced from the landlord’s failings in handling his wet room and boiler repairs, it has been ordered below to pay him £400 further compensation. This is in line with its compensation guidance’s and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to recognise a high effort and impact and the adverse effect on the resident. This is in addition to the £200 compensation that it previously awarded and is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
  15. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its repairs procedure. This is to ensure that all of the works that are recommended to it by local councils and occupational therapists, as well as boiler repairs, are completed in full in a timely manner. This is line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not consider complaints where legal proceedings have started. It is required to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) obliges the landlord to accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so and to address all points raised in the complaint.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2022 about a leak from his gas meter, unsafe practices by its gas engineer, its poor communication and shower repair delays, and damp and mould. It declined to respond to the damp and mould complaint because of his solicitors’ subsequent disrepair claim for this under the pre action protocol. However, the landlord responded to the other aspects of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023.
  3. The landlord then acknowledged that the resident contacted it 5 times in May and June 2023 to attempt to make a final stage complaint to it, which it subsequently accepted from him on 27 June 2023. Although it again declined to respond to the damp and mould aspect of his complaint. The landlord then responded to the other aspects of the complaint on 18 July 2023.
  4. The landlord therefore failed to comply with its complaints policy’s 10-working-day stage 1 complaint response timescale by responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint after 35 working days instead. It subsequently failed to follow the policy’s 20-working-day final stage complaint response timescale by failing to accept or respond to his final stage complaint when he first attempted to raise this in May 2023, and by instead only doing so after this timescale in June and July 2023.
  5. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord’s complaint responses followed its compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance by acknowledging, apologising for, and remedying its complaint handling delays. It did so by confirming that it had addressed this with its team, and that it had repeated the importance of excellent customer service and good communication to them. The landlord also awarded the resident total compensation of £350, which was broken down into £200 for his stage 1 complaint, £100 for its complaint handling, and £50 for its poor communication. This was in line with its compensation guidance’s recommendation of up to £250 for significant difficulties in raising a complaint and delayed responses. This was also within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failures that adversely affected the resident.
  6. The landlord therefore offered the resident compensation that was proportionate to recognise its poor complaint handling. However, it failed to acknowledge or learn from the fact that its refusal to consider his damp and mould complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure was contrary to both its complaints policy and the Code. This is because the landlord declined to respond to the damp and mould complaint because of the resident’s solicitors’ disrepair claim for this under the pre action protocol. Its policy nevertheless only stated that it would not consider such complaints where legal proceedings had started, and such proceedings had not begun yet in the resident’s case.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy therefore did not prevent it from considering the resident’s damp and mould complaint because it was permitted to do so during steps taken prior to legal proceedings, such as under the pre action protocol. Moreover, the Code required it to accept and address all of the points raised in his complaint, unless it had a valid reason not to do so. However, the landlord’s decision to treat the pre-action protocol as meaning that legal proceedings had started was not a valid reason for it to fail to accept and address the resident’s damp and mould complaint.
  8. Therefore, the below apology and case review orders have also been made for the landlord’s further complaint handling failings in the resident’s case identified by this investigation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to pay the resident the £150 further compensation that it previously offered him for its poor complaint handling and communication, if it has not done so already. It has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code. This is to ensure that all aspects of formal complaints to it are accepted, addressed, and responded to in full by it in a timely manner, unless it has a valid reason not to do so. This is line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Its handling of the resident’s reports of wet room and boiler repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise for its failings in handling his reports of damp and mould, wet room and boiler repairs, and its complaint handling, as identified by this investigation.
    2. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks to identify exactly why its failings in the resident’s damp and mould, wet room and boiler repairs, and complaint handling cases occurred, as highlighted by this investigation, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future. It shall provide him and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to arrange the follow up surveyor’s inspection that it booked for his property, if it has not done so already. This is in order to produce an action plan and schedule of works to complete the outstanding damp and mould works at the property, and to work with him to overcome the humidity and condensation there.
    4. Carry out the works that were recommended to replace the resident’s wet room floor within 8 weeks, if it has not done so already.
    5. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,150 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £113.71 that it previously awarded him for its handling of his reports of damp and mould, if he has not received this already.
      2. £200 that it previously awarded him for his inconvenience including from its handling of his reports of wet room and boiler repairs, if he has not received this already.
      3. £150 that it previously awarded him for its poor complaint handling and communication, if he has not received this already.
      4. £286.29 further compensation to fully recognise his time, trouble, and inconvenience from its handling of his damp and mould reports.
      5. £400 further compensation to fully recognise his time, trouble, and inconvenience from its handling of his wet room and boiler repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of the spotlight report, its self assessment against this, and its repairs procedure. This is to ensure that all of their requirements and recommendations are followed in response to every report to it of damp and mould, so that residents are reassured that the issues they report to it will be resolved.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its repairs procedure. This is to ensure that all of the works that are recommended to it by local councils and occupational therapists, as well as boiler repairs, are completed in full in a timely manner.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code. This is to ensure that all aspects of formal complaints to it are accepted, addressed, and responded to in full by it in a timely manner, unless it has a valid reason not to do so.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.