Southern Housing Group Limited (202118236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118236

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A leak in the bathroom ceiling.
This investigation will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents live in a one bedroom flat and hold an assured shorthold tenancy, which began in March 2015.
The landlord inspected the property in January 2019 to investigate and resolve the cause of excess condensation that was making the walls damp and causing wallpaper to peel away. It was found that there was a clear ventilation issue and that the old, single glazed windows were contributing to this. Following the inspection, the landlord recommended a survey to confirm whether suitable glazing could be installed, whether this would be part of an ad hoc or planned repair programme or whether the resident would benefit from advice on how to manage the condensation.

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair outside walls, windows, internal walls, floors and ceilings. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible, and at a time that suits the resident. It also states that it may carry out repairs that a tenant is usually responsible for to make the property safe and fit for habitation or where failure to act may have direct health implications for a resident.
The landlord has a Compensation Policy where, for poor service, it will pay the resident £25. Service failures include missed appointments, failure and delays in undertaking repairs and failure to follow its procedures. For multiple service failures and unquantifiable loss, it will pay between £25 and £50. The landlord also provides discretionary payments in recognition that every case is different, and to take into account the severity of the issue. It states there is no limit in terms of the amount that can be paid, but that the payment must be agreed by a senior manager.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It acknowledges stage one complaints within three working days and aims to send a response within 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to respond within this time, it can request an extension of an additional 10 working days. The second stage of the process offers the resident three different options. A compensation review takes place when the resident is unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord has offered. A complaint review panel is held when the resident is unhappy with the outcome of a stage one response and where the landlord has not offered any redress. A senior management review can be requested for all cases unless the issue is about an increase in compensation. The policy states that the landlord’s decision on the most appropriate option is based on the resident’s desired outcome, along with the outcome of the stage one complaint.

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 17 September 2020 to ask what was happening about the damp treatment in her flat. She said that her wall was severely damaged and wet, and that a surveyor had attended the previous year and recommended that her wall needed to be plastered.
On 11 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to say that she had severe condensation in her property and that a surveyor had visited but nothing had happened since. The landlord called back the same day and left a voicemail message for the resident to call it back.
The resident called the landlord on 17 December 2020 to raise a formal complaint after she had been trying to get her windows replaced for over a year. She said that, after inspecting the windows 27 times, the landlord had done nothing to move things forward.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 21 December 2020 and confirmed that the resident’s complaint was that her windows had been in a poor state of repair for some time and, despite a number of visits, they were yet to be replaced or repaired.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 January 2021 and offered to carry out an inspection on 15 January 2021. The resident replied on the same day to say she was available. On 15 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that nobody had turned up for the visit that was scheduled as part of her complaint resolution. She said that, when she called at 1.30pm, the person she spoke to said there was a pandemic therefore no appointment had been arranged. The resident said this was unacceptable and asked for this to be added to her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 22 January 2021, which stated the following:
1. It apologised for the delays and missed appointments and stated that this was not the level of service it aimed to provide.
2. The landlord confirmed that its Capital Works team would be overseeing works to replace all the windows in her property and it was proposing to bring forward the works in conjunction with another programme. It said it hoped to start works in April 2021. Its contractor had been instructed to carry out the required surveys and it would contact the resident in due course.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2021 to report a leak from the bathroom ceiling that was causing mould. She explained that a surveyor had attended in October 2020 to look at the damp and mould on the walls and, following a complaint she made, the landlord had agreed to replace the windows. The surveyor had advised that it had to repair the walls before replacing the windows but she had not heard anything since. She stated that there was so much condensation that water was dripping down her walls. The landlord arranged an appointment for 26 February 2021.
On 26 February 2021, an operative attended the property and identified that there was a suspected leak from the flat above. The contractor was unable to gain access to the neighbouring property and escalated the matter to the landlord, who established that the leak was coming from the roof.
The resident called the landlord on 3 March 2021 to follow up on the leak from the neighbouring flat and to report that there was a large patch of mould in the area of the leak. She said that the neighbour above was not opening the door and asked if the landlord was able to gain access in exceptional circumstances.
The resident raised a further stage one complaint on 10 March 2021 and stated the following:
1. She had a leak in her bathroom, which she had called the landlord about multiple times over the previous three weeks. The contractor sent an engineer, who advised that he needed to access the property above. However, as the neighbour was not opening the door, the engineer said he needed to ask the landlord to help gain access.
2. The resident said she heard nothing for a few days but, when she contacted the landlord, it told her it knew nothing about what the engineer had said, but promised to contact the neighbour. Since the landlord had made contact with the flat above, the resident had heard nothing further from the landlord.
3. The leak was getting bigger and the area was covered in black mould. The resident said there were now two rooms covered in mould due to issues with the windows that the landlord had ignored for years. She added that the other resident in the flat suffered from respiratory problems and that they had to vacate the property for several days each month to bleach it.
4. She said that water was streaming down the windows in her front room. They were covered in mould and she had bought a dehumidifier, which was on all day and night.
5. The resident sent the landlord photos of the damp and mould in her flat.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 April 2021 and, on 7 May 2021, following repairs it had carried out to address the leak, it carried out a mould treatment in the resident’s flat.
On 4 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to follow up on her complaint. She said that, as part of the complaint resolution, the landlord had agreed to repair her walls and replace her windows in April 2021 but she had still not heard back about this. She had called the landlord several times and, despite telling her it would contact her, it had failed to do so.
On 11 August, the landlord contacted the resident about her reports of damp and asked her to provide photos so it could arrange to send a contractor. The resident responded on 14 August 2021 to say she had provided photos several times but the landlord had taken no action. She said she had made two complaints, one of which the landlord had completely ignored and that following her second complaint, the landlord told her it would replace her windows in April 2021.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 16 August 2021, which stated the following:
1. Due to the unusually high volume of complaints it had received in late 2020 and early 2021, it had been unable to complete a full investigation of the resident’s complaint. It said that, whilst it would not be able to provide the resident with a comprehensive response, it assured her that it had actively addressed its complaint handling.
2. It had contacted her to ask for photos of the damp and mould so it could investigate further but had yet to receive them.
3. It offered £25 compensation for not fully investigating the resident’s complaint and stated that the offer of compensation was being made on the basis it did not constitute admission of liability.
The resident raised a further complaint on 18 August 2021, which stated the following:
1. After making multiple calls to chase up the outstanding repairs, the landlord had only dealt with the leak in the bathroom. It had never repaired the windows that were rotting and covered in black mould.
2. Contractors had attended on at least four occasions and advised that the windows would be repaired but this had never been followed up. The resident said she had contacted the landlord at least 15 times and it gave every kind of excuse, from stating it had lost the resident’s number to lack of communication between departments.
3. The resident said that, even after bleaching the flat twice a month, her clothes and mattress were still mouldy.
4. She had received a complaint response stating that her walls and windows would be repaired on April 2021 and then, after calling and emailing multiple times, a contractor finally attended to tell her this would not happen. Even when the landlord told her the windows would at least be repaired, it still never contacted her again. The resident attached further photographs.
The landlord responded on 18 August 2021 to thank the resident for sending the photos and said it was trying to establish if the damp and mould were caused by the recent leaks. It added that, because the photos were dark, it would send contractors to inspect the property and establish what work needed to be done. It confirmed that major works had been planned but, due to lack of funding, it had to delay the window replacement until further notice.
The landlord sent a further acknowledgement letter on the same day, to confirm that it had recorded her email as a stage one complaint and said it had spoken to its surveyor, who had organised for the contractor to make a follow up visit.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2021 to say that she had spoken to the surveyor on 23 August 2021, who told her she would ask the contractor to get in touch with her. Since then, she had heard nothing. The resident also clarified that the ongoing damp was nothing to do with the leak but was to do with the windows she had been complaining about for the past three years. She said she had done everything from buying her own dehumidifier to washing clothes in the local laundry but the windows were in an appalling state. Surveyors had attended three times and the resident had been told the damp walls were going to be repaired but, despite calling and writing to the landlord many times, it never contacted her back.
The landlord sent the resident an extension letter on 2 September 2021 to say it would need more time to investigate her complaint and that the reason was that it would have to review the contractor’s inspection report before completing a full response. On 14 September 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and, on 15 September 2021, it sent its stage one response, which stated the following:
1. The resident had reported a leak from the bathroom ceiling causing mould and the landlord had arranged an appointment for 26 February 2021. The contractor attended and identified a suspected leak from the upstairs property and, following further investigation, it established that the leak was coming from the roof.
2. After it had repaired the roof and the damp area had dried out, the contractor returned on 7 May 2021 to carry out a mould wash.
3. The landlord was aware the property still suffered with mould and it had been in contact with the resident to arrange an inspection. It said it would leave the complaint open until all the works were completed.
4. It said it was unable to offer compensation at that point as there had been no missed appointments but that, once the work was finished, it would investigate the delays.
5. It apologised that it was unable to close the resident’s complaint but had asked its contractor to keep it updated.
The resident responded to the landlord on 15 September 2021 to clarify that her complaint did not relate to the leak but to the windows in a different room. She said the landlord had not done any work on the front room and she had been complaining since 2019. The surveyor had said to her the previous week that he could see the comments he had sent to the landlord in 2019. She stated that the landlord was blurring two separate issues and that she had explained this to it on multiple occasions.
The landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response, which stated the following:
1. It said that it recognised there had been a misunderstanding on its part between different cases.
2. It reiterated that the repair to the leak in the bathroom was completed on 7 May 2021, when the contractor returned to carry out a mould wash. It noted that the ceiling had dried out and the issue has been resolved.
3. The landlord stated that, although it appreciated there was a delay, this was because the contractor needed to gain access to the upstairs property. As this was beyond the landlord’s control, it said it could not offer any compensation.
4. It had spoken to its surveyor, who carried out an inspection and discussed the windows in the living room with her on 24 September 2021. The landlord stated that it would confirm an appointment time within five days to either undertake a review or install secondary glazing. As this was an ongoing case, the landlord stated it was unable to offer any compensation.
5. The landlord stated that the issue with the rotting kitchen window was ongoing and a separate job had been raised for its contractor to assess and repair the window. It said it would contact the resident in due course with an appointment time.
6. The landlord offered £50 compensation in recognition of its confusing of different complaints, which would not have happened had its communication been better.
During a telephone conversation between the Ombudsman and the resident in June 2023, the resident confirmed that her secondary glazing was installed in August 2022 and that works to repair the damaged caused by the damp and mould in the property were completed in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

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

This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach. Landlords should be proactive in identifying potential problems; ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue and clearly communicate to residents about actions. The report was published just before the landlord issued its stage two complaint response; however, it consolidated some of the existing good practice that would be expected of landlords for such issues.
Following an inspection in 2019 that identified an ongoing build-up of condensation, there is no indication the landlord took any further action to address the source of the damp or provide any assistance to the resident to manage or minimise it. The inspection found that the damp in the resident’s property, which had severely affected the walls, was likely caused by the single glazed windows that were covered in heavy condensation. The recommendations were for the landlord to arrange a surveyor to confirm whether more suitable glazing could be installed or to provide the resident with advice on managing the condensation. There is no evidence the landlord acted on those recommendations, that any surveys were carried out, or that it made any attempt to provide the resident with advice or support.
There is no evidence the landlord made contact following the inspection and the resident was left to chase up the recommended actions, nearly two years after the inspection. It is not evident an inspection report was recorded or that the contractor’s recommendations from the inspection were passed to the landlord to be actioned. The evidence shows a lack of coordination between the landlord and its contractor, and poor record keeping, which together would have contributed to the landlord’s failure to take the appropriate steps following the inspection.
Despite the fact the landlord was continually made aware by the resident of the problems she was experiencing with damp and mould, and that it had carried out numerous inspections of the property, it made no attempts to address the immediate problem. There is no evidence of any risk assessments to determine the possible impact the damp and mould could have on both the resident and the property, despite the fact the resident made the landlord aware she was having to bleach her flat on a regular basis and that her fellow resident suffered from respiratory problems.
The evidence suggests that, although the whole property was affected, the front of the property, which incorporated the living room and kitchen, was particularly impacted by severe condensation, damp and mould and it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of these rooms was severely reduced. There is nothing to indicate that the landlord made a proper assessment of how ventilation could be improved, if additional extractor fans were needed, or if the landlord could carry out mould treatments in order to reduce the risks of the mould to the residents. It is also not evident that the landlord made any attempt to explore whether there were any structural factors that may have been contributing to the severe damp in the property.
In addition, the landlord did not offer to provide dehumidifiers in order to help the resident minimise the condensation, while she waited for her windows to be replaced or repaired. When the resident informed the landlord she had purchased her own dehumidifier and had to keep it on 24 hours a day, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider offering to pay towards the resident’s additional energy costs while she waited for the damp issue to be resolved. In addition, there is no indication the landlord gave any advice to the resident or even provided any literature on managing the excess condensation.
It is unclear what actions, if any, the landlord took following the numerous inspections. Instead, the resident had to endure the disruption and intrusion of repeated visits without any kind of follow up, or anything happening as a result. It should also be noted that, although it is clear the landlord had carried out several inspections, there is nothing to show it had kept any records of inspection reports or recommendations that should have been followed. This once again demonstrates that consistently poor record keeping contributed to the landlord’s lack of action in dealing with the reports of damp and mould. It is evident that the reason an excessive number of inspections were arranged was due to the lack of record keeping, which meant the outcomes from those inspections were not communicated to the correct teams, which resulted in recommendations not being carried forward.
It should also be noted that the landlord made repeated requests for the resident to provide photos of the damp and mould. It is unclear what happened to the previous photos and whether the landlord had lost or misplaced them but it was inappropriate to repeatedly ask the resident to send photos when it should have had systems in place to store the original ones she had provided. The landlord’s inadequate systems and processes for keeping records would have contributed significantly to the delays and lack of action in dealing with the resident’s damp and mould reports and caused additional inconvenience during an already stressful time.
It is also evident that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report states that a landlord must ensure it clearly and regularly communicates with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise, to resolve reports of damp and mould. There is no indication the landlord made any effort to provide the resident with updates or to keep her informed at any point, and it was always left to her to repeatedly contact the landlord for information. This suggests she made significant efforts to progress the window repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
In addition, the landlord consistently failed to contact the resident after having committed to do so. In its initial stage one complaint reply, it informed the resident that, to resolve her complaint, it would replace the resident’s windows in April 2021. The landlord later retracted its commitment due to lack of funds. Landlords do need to carefully manage repair and maintenance budgets and ensure that planned works are adequately funded, as well as having adequate provision for responding to emergency repair needs. This can mean that plans and programmed works may need to be delayed or reprioritised. However, this should be a carefully considered decision, taking into account the condition of properties and impact of further delays, and should be clearly communicated to residents who are affected by such changes. There is no evidence the landlord provided any written communication at the time to inform the resident it could no longer replace her windows in April 2021. It was only after the resident contacted the landlord several times for an update that a contractor informed her, during a visit, that the work was on hold and that it would install secondary glazing instead.
The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a customer focussed approach or to provide any updates for eight months meant the resident was unprepared for the possibility the works may not go ahead. Instead, she was led to believe for nearly a year that her windows would be replaced and that her complaint had been resolved, which would have resulted in considerable disappointment and frustration.
The Spotlight report advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. The landlord made an arrangement with the resident in January 2021 for an inspection but nobody attended or contacted the resident to say the appointment was cancelled. The landlord did not appear to have any record of the inspection when the resident contacted it, which indicates a lack of joined up working between different teams and a failure in the landlord’s internal communication systems. In addition, the landlord offered no apology, either at the time or in its complaint response for the missed visit or a proper explanation of why this happened. The evidence shows that the resident was never given a single point of contact or that any specific team had taken overall responsibility for her complaint. Because of the poor communication between the landlord and its contractor, the staff she spoke to were rarely able to provide any updates on her case. Instead, the landlord would assure the resident it would call her back and, more often than not, it failed to do so.
The consistent lack of communication both with the resident and between teams, together with poor record keeping and an absence of any kind of proactive approach in trying to resolve the resident’s damp and mould concerns demonstrates that the landlord took no steps to respond to the resident’s reports. The landlord made no attempt to explore ways to minimise the condensation in the property and, even after it had failed to deliver on its commitment to replace the resident’s windows, there is no indication it made any efforts to provide alternative solutions with any urgency. This would have caused the resident considerable frustration and distress while having to live with severe condensation, and damp and mould in her property for nearly four years before the landlord completed work in August 2022 to install secondary glazing.
The landlord states in its complaints policy that, as part of its response to the resident’s complaint, it will offer a remedy that reflects the extent of any service failures, and the level of detriment this may have caused, taking into account all of the circumstances. This may include; acknowledging where things have gone wrong, providing an explanation, apologising, taking action to correct the issue, offering compensation, and using the feedback to inform improvements or changes to its services. The landlord made no attempt to acknowledge its service failures or apologise for the delays and its poor communication. It stated in its complaint responses that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and could not offer compensation because there were no missed appointments, even though this was factually incorrect. In addition, although the landlord offered compensation for its poor complaint handling, it offered no compensation for its numerous other service failures or provided any details of any improvements it proposed to make following its service failures. For these reasons and in recognition of the cumulative impact on the resident caused by the failures detailed above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident has paid approximately £690 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started in September 2020, which was the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the resident lost full use of her property. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £3,864 in compensation for the impact on the resident of a flat that was in a poor state of repair. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question (September 2020 to May 2023 = 33 months. For the calculation, this has been reduced to 28 months to account for the period when the level of service provided by the landlord was impacted by Covid-19 restrictions). Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom ceiling.

The evidence shows that the resident reported a leak coming from her bathroom ceiling in February 2021. Following a repair to the roof and resolution of the leak, the landlord completed a mould wash in May 2021 to the damp area caused by the leak. It cannot be established from the landlord’s records when the roof repair actually took place, but the available information indicates the landlord acted appropriately in waiting until the damp area completely dried out before carrying out a mould wash. Although there were delays between when the leak was reported and when the landlord carried out the mould treatment, this can be attributed to the time the landlord took to organise access to the neighbouring property and the period of having to wait for the damp patch to dry. The landlord therefore responded appropriately to the report of a leak and had repaired it within a reasonable time.

Complaint Handling

The landlord states in its complaints policy that its aim is to provide residents with a response within 10 working days. If this is not possible, it will contact the resident and let them know why it is not able to do this and when it will provide the response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days.
It took the landlord around six months to respond to the resident’s second stage one complaint about the leak in her bathroom ceiling and it made no contact in the meantime to apologise for the delay. There is no evidence the landlord gave any assurances within that period that the complaint was being investigated, and there is nothing from the landlord to advise the resident that it would have to extend its timescale. Its response made no attempt to answer the complaint, even though the leak had been resolved by that time. It is clear no effort was made to conduct any kind of investigation. Instead the landlord explained that it was unable to complete an investigation due to the high number of complaints it had received. By not responding to the complaint, the landlord failed to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or follow its own complaint process. Although it offered £25 compensation for its poor complaint handling, the amount was disproportionately low, taking into account the full extent of the service failure.
It is clear the landlord was struggling to deal with the complaints it had received and that there was confusion on its part between the different complaints the resident had made. This resulted in the landlord addressing issues that were different to those that the resident had actually complained about. In addition, when the resident made a further complaint about the damp and mould in her property, the landlord dealt with this as a further stage one complaint rather than investigating it under the second stage of its complaints procedure. This meant the resident was made to go through an unnecessarily protracted complaints process with the inconvenience of having to raise further complaints about the same issues.
The poor complaint handling and lack of communication from the landlord would have caused the resident considerable frustration, particularly as it was evident she had already lost her confidence in the landlord’s complaint service following its failure to properly respond to her second stage one complaint. Although the landlord did take some steps to put things right by apologising and attempting to provide some explanation for why it had confused the different complaints, along with its offer of £50 compensation, this does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, go far enough to acknowledge the impact its poor communication and complaint handling had on the resident.

Record Keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. The landlord’s repairs log, a copy of which was provided to this Service, contained no details of the completion date for when the landlord repaired the leak in the resident’s bathroom. Together with the absence of any records relating to the multiple inspections that took place, the failure of the landlord to provide a clear and full repairs log is evidence of poor record keeping. Although the Ombudsman has not made a separate finding on this, the landlord’s poor record keeping is one of the factors that had led the Ombudsman making a finding of severe maladministration. This was taken into account in the landlord’s overall offer of redress. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation to the landlord to review its record keeping system to ensure its records contain the information as recommended in the spotlight reports.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord consistently failed to communicate with the resident, to provide updates or to contact her when it said it would. Its communication between different teams and with its contractor was poor and its failure to keep records of the numerous inspections it made meant that no action was ever taken as a result of those inspections. The landlord made no reasonable efforts to address the issues that the resident was reporting and took no steps to deal with the condensation, assess the risks to the resident from the damp and mould, or to put any measures in place to try and identify and address the cause of the problem. This resident was left to live in a severely damp home, to pay for the additional cost of running her own dehumidifier and to have to regularly remove the recurring mould herself for a period of nearly four years.
Although there are no records to show when the roof repair took place, which resolved the leak in the resident’s bathroom, the evidence shows that the delays were largely outside the landlord’s control and therefore the leak was repaired within a reasonable time.
The landlord took six months to provide the resident with a stage one complaint response and did not send any holding responses in the meantime to apologise for the delay. The response it finally sent did not answer the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not escalate a complaint to the second stage when it should have done, and instead unnecessarily lengthened the process by providing a further stage one response. In addition, there was a breakdown in the landlord’s case handling system, which confused the different complaints the resident had made and provided responses to the wrong complaints. This meant that the resident had to repeatedly contact the resident about the same issue. The landlord failed to properly follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as well as its own complaints policy.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £3,864 in recognition for the loss of the full use of her property.
The landlord to pay the resident £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by living in a property with severe damp and mould for over a period of nearly four years, and the time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
The total compensation amount, of £4,864, which replaces the landlord’s original offer, must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord is ordered to provide, within four weeks of receiving this determination, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for its service failures.
The landlord to carry out an inspection of the property within eight weeks of this determination and complete a full damp survey of the property to determine whether there are any structural issues need to be addressed, whether any improved ventilation is needed and whether there are areas within the property that require a mould wash. The landlord to send a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman and to follow up on any recommendations from the inspection.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its record keeping to ensure it keeps clear, accurate and easily accessible records, and keeps comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections and surveys, as per the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The landlord to also review its systems for complaint handling in order to ensure all complaints are progressed in a timely manner, that residents are provided with regular updates whenever there are delays and to ensure all staff who deal with complaints are properly trained to follow the landlord’s complaints process and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the reviews and share this with the Ombudsman.
The landlord to review its repairs records for its other properties in the building to establish if any other households have been affected by similar issues to the resident. If the landlord identifies any such households it should proactively ensure that any outstanding issues around damp and mould in their individual properties are resolved and consider whether an offer of compensation would be appropriate if those residents have experienced similar failures by the landlord to take appropriate and timely action. The landlord is asked to report back to the Ombudsman on the outcome of this review.