Southern Housing Group Limited (202128297)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128297

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 December 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 handling of:
1. Repairs in the kitchen.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated bathroom repairs.
3. Record keeping
4. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 17 February 2014. The property is a three-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident and his three children occupy the property. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident or his children. The resident has reported that one of his children is immune compromised.

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported new repair issues which include damp in the bedrooms. This Service expects residents to raise a formal complaint and exhaust the landlord’s complaint process before the Ombudsman can consider a complaint. It remains open to the resident to raise a new complaint with the landlord regarding damp in the bedrooms. This investigation is focused on the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom as this was considered in the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord’s obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes).
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
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; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate to residents about actions.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy refers to both emergency and routine repairs. With regards to emergency repairs the policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health, and that it will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of being notified. For routine repairs, the policy states that the landlord aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible, at a time that suits the resident and to finish the work the first time, whenever possible.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also states that residents are responsible for getting their own contents insurance to cover loss or accidental damage to furniture and contents within their home, and that its building insurance will not cover resident’s belongings in the event of damage. The tenancy agreement confirms this stating that the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas and that residents are advised to take out a policy to protect themselves in the event of any loss or damage to the contents of their home.
Social housing landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. A property fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout;
3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC;
5. Adequate external noise insulation; and
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure which states:
At stage 1 the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a formal response within ten working days.
At stage 2, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a full and final response within 20 days following a full investigation of the complaint.

Summary of events

Repairs to the kitchen

For context, there has been a long-standing issue with kitchen doors/ drawers falling off since 2012. This included that:
1. On 31 May 2012 and 6 July 2012, the resident’s ex-partner who previously had the tenancy reported that front of a kitchen drawer had fallen off. It is unclear whether the drawers were replaced as the records state invoice accepted.
2. On 29 March 2013 the resident’s ex-partner reported that 5 drawers had fallen off in the kitchen. Also, the mixer tap in the kitchen was leaking. It is unclear whether the drawers were replaced as the records state invoice accepted.
The records show a gap in reporting between 2014 to 2018. At this time this Service is aware that the resident’s ex-partner had sadly died and, the resident took over the tenancy and moved into the property in 2014. The records show that the resident reported issues with the kitchen units in 2018. This included:
1. On 2 May 2018 the resident reported that kitchen drawers needed replacing. The records are unclear on the outcome of this report as the repair log states it was cancelled as incorrect details were entered. It then states adjust any loose kitchen door, therefore, it is unclear what, if any, action was taken.
2. On 9 May 2018 the landlord completed an inspection of the kitchen. There is no record of what the inspection found.
3. On 31 May 2018 the landlord adjusted the loose kitchen door and renewed 2 kitchen drawer covers.
4. On 25 September 2018 the resident reported that 2 kitchen drawers needed replacing. The records state this was cancelled and the landlord needed to ease and adjust any loose-fitting kitchen doors. Taking this into account, it is unclear what action was taken at this time.
5. On 3 December 2018 the resident reported that 2 kitchen drawers needed replacing. It is unclear what action was taken as the records state it was partially completed.
The records show that since 2019 the resident reported repairs to the kitchen on:
1. 16 January 2019 the resident reported that the kitchen units needed repairing. The records show a site visit took place on 26 January 2021 but the records do not state what this found.
2. 10 July 2019 the resident reported that painting was required around the radiator under the window. The repair logs state this was cancelled as incorrect details were entered.
3. 3 September 2019 the resident reported skirting needed to be replaced below the window. The records show this was partially completed on 12 September 2019. The records state at this time the landlord identified that 2 drawers and 1 kitchen door needed to be changed.
The landlord’s records does not show any further reports of repairs to the kitchen between 3 September 2019 and 2021 until the resident raised a formal complaint.
On 14 August 2021 a surveyor attended the resident’s property to inspect the kitchen. In an email to the landlord the surveyor said the kitchen was not in a bad condition. Therefore, a replacement kitchen was not required. The surveyor recommended that the landlord replaced missing kitchen cupboards and drawer doors. Further, the surveyor noted that the resident said bathroom components needed to be replaced. The surveyor said after looking into this and from contacting the planned works team they found the bathroom renewal was not due until 2048. The surveyor confirmed that works had been requested to move the bath so it fitted flush against the wall.

Repairs to the bathroom

Historically, in 2015 and 2017 the resident reported a leak in his bathroom. This included that on:
1. 14 April 2015 the resident reported that a repair was needed for the tap in the bathroom which resulted in a leak.
2. 21 July 2015 the resident reported that the bath had dropped at an angle and come away. The records state the landlord said the bath needed to be measured and ordered but the logs do not state the outcome.
3. 2 March 2017 the resident reported a leak from the bath in the bathroom. The records state this was practically completed and that the resident has a new bath.
4. 18 April 2017 the repair records state the need to treat mould, repair wall and renew floor sheet and basin. For an unknown reason the order was cancelled by the landlord. Therefore, it is unclear whether works took place.
5. 11 May 2017 the resident reported a leak by the plaster. The records state that it was carrying out works in the bathroom and the job was financially complete.
6. 21 June 2017 the landlord hacked off and replastered behind the sink in the bathroom.
The landlord’s records does not show any reports by the resident regarding complaints about the bathroom between 2017 and 2020.
On 19 October 2020 the resident reported an issue with laminate flooring in his bathroom and damp and mould. The landlord completed repairs to the flooring on 27 October 2020.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord completed a mould wash in the bathroom.
On 29 April 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that laminate flooring in the bathroom had water getting in. The resident reports that this was due to the fact that the bath was not flush against the wall causing the seals to be loose around the bath.
The landlord’s records show it completed repairs to the laminate flooring on 11 May 2021.
On 21 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the laminate flooring was damaged due to the water getting into the gap. Also, that damp and mould was present in the bathroom.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord recorded that it took a humidifier to the property to help with damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021 and raised a formal complaint. The resident complained that:
1. He had been provided conflicting information on when his kitchen would be replaced. The resident said he was told it was 2021, then was told it would be in 2031 then was advised it would be in 2027.
2. He was not happy he was left with mismatched cupboards and drawers. Also, that the flooring was rotting and skirting boards needed replacing.
3. He had to fight for other repair issues in his bathroom following a bathroom refit job which caused a flood. The resident said this left water spilling into his hallways causing damage to property including belongings from his later partner and mother of his children.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had received his complaint. The landlord said it aimed to provide its stage 1 complaint response within ten working days.
The landlord records state it practically completed a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom on 2 August 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August 2021 to confirm that there was a delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it needed to extend its timescale to support its investigation and would provide its response by 23 August 2021. The same day the landlord requested a damp survey.
On 12 August 2021 the landlord repair records noted the resident’s bathroom needed a stain block to the ceiling wood following a leak.
On 15 August 2021 the landlord attended the property to replace the valve on a radiator but the resident said the radiator had been removed due to mould works required in the property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 16 August 2021. The landlord’s records state that the landlord inspected the bathroom to establish the best way to dry the walls following a leak from the property above.
On 18 August 2021 the landlord attended the resident’s property due to a breakdown of the radiator in the bathroom. The landlord did not find any issues with the radiator’s function but noted it was rusty. The resident reported that mould was forming in the bathroom and in the inner crevices of the centre of the radiator. Therefore, the landlord arranged to have the radiator replaced.
On 23 August 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. The resident’s kitchen was due to be replaced in 2027. The landlord said it arranged for a surveyor to attend. The surveyor recommended that the kitchen needed to be replaced sooner than 2027, however, the works were delayed due to a leak in the property above the resident’s flat.
2. It had repaired the leak from the neighbouring property above the resident’s and it had arranged a date to replace the radiator in the kitchen. The landlord said it would complete an action plan for repairing the kitchen.
3. The landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom radiator on 31 August 2021 and noted that the valve was faulty on the new radiator so a replacement was ordered.
4. The landlord did not offer any compensation and an apology was not offered at this stage. The landlord advised the resident that if he remained dissatisfied with its response, he should reply within 20 working days.
On 23 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say he was waiting for work to be completed in the bathroom and this formed part of his complaint. This included that mould block paint needed to be used, skirting boards painted, and he wanted an update on when the kitchen would be upgraded. The resident confirmed that he had refused works for a like bath for bath replacement and requested for a larger bath to be fitted or for the bath to be moved.
On 20 October 2021 the resident reported that the new radiator in the bathroom had caused a leak.
On 27 October 2021 the resident called the landlord and said he was very frustrated and did not feel listened to. The resident went onto say that he was not happy with how the landlord was progressing his case. The resident referred to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response which said the kitchen would be renewed once the leak was fixed. However, the resident was since told there was no date for this. Further, the resident has since been told that kitchen cupboard doors and drawers would be renewed.
The landlord issued an amended stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2021. The landlord said:
1. The information provided was about the bathroom when the complaint should have been about the kitchen. The landlord apologised for its incorrect information and offered £25 as a remedy.
2. It confirmed the kitchen will be replaced in 2027. The landlord said its surveyor had found the kitchen fit for purpose with repairs required due to mismatched units.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021 and confirmed his query was about the kitchen. The resident said surveyors did visit the property and recommended a new kitchen. Therefore, the landlord was being difficult.
On 2 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord regarding its amended stage 1 response. The resident said:
1. He is wanting a new kitchen installed as it was in a poor state and had not received a response about the kitchen.
2. The previous person living in his home was terminally ill and struggled to maintain the kitchen. Therefore, the doors and drawer colours do not match, the flooring is coming away and is chipped and the worktops is revealing its chipboard underneath which is unhygienic. The resident reported that this making him unwell with depression and stressed.
3. The bathroom works still remain uncompleted. Also, the new radiator in the bathroom was incorrectly installed causing a leak and damage to the new flooring.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 11 November 2021. The email from its contractor who carried out the inspection states that there was no evidence of damp and mould in the property. The contractor stated a humidity meter test was used which also did not detect any damp and mould.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2021 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and that the landlord had closed his complaint. Therefore, the resident requested that the landlord provide a stage 2 complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2022 to request for an update on receiving a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord confirmed that it was dealing with a backlog. The landlord opened a further complaint regarding delays in it completing repairs to the bathroom.
The same day the landlord sent an internal email following the resident’s call. The landlord stated the complaint was a mess as the notes of the complaint had been mixed up regarding the resident’s complaints about the kitchen and bathroom. As such, the landlord said:
1. It incorrectly said in its stage 1 that the radiator in the kitchen was leaking when it was actually the radiator in the bathroom.
2. It failed to respond to the resident’s actual complaints about his bathroom it in its first stage 1 response.
3. It acknowledged that this was a missed opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint about repairs to his bathroom.
On 26 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say he has 2 complaints. The first complaint about the bathroom which was at stage 1 and his complaint about the kitchen was at stage 2. The resident went onto say that he had suffered 18 months of negligence, misinformation and incompetence from the landlord. The landlord responded the same day to apologise for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. The landlord asked the resident if he wanted it to escalate all of his complaints to stage 2 as a housing adviser had logged a new complaint regarding the bathroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 March 2022 and said he was unsatisfied with how the landlord was handling his complaint. The resident said he had not received any updates on his complaint and requested for urgent contact. The resident reported that that he was upset with his living conditions and all the outstanding repairs.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed it was extending its stage 2 complaint response date to 23 March 2022.
The resident responded on 11 March 2022 and said he was disappointed that the landlord was not adhering to its complaint process. The resident said due to the delays on the landlord’s behalf his bathroom was overrun with mould. The resident said he was being fobbed off with the lie that someone had attended his property in November and found no issues following a humidity test. The resident said he had provided a video to the landlord showing mould spreading to his bedrooms. The resident went on to say, that due to not having heating in the winter it left him with a freezing cold bathroom. Also, a dripping radiator which leaked over flooring and skirting he had laid. The resident requested that the landlord complete outstanding works as it was impacting on his mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2022 to confirm that he had escalated his complaint to this Service. The resident said this was due to the continued failure of the landlord to satisfactory and fairly resolve his complaints. The resident said works was still outstanding in the kitchen and the bathroom. This included that he had no heating in his bathroom since 2021 due to leaking radiators and mould. Additionally, the kitchen floor was damaged, he had broken kitchen doors and draws which had not been replaced and worktops coming away from the walls.
On 24 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said it had let him down and made false promises. The resident reiterated that he had no heating in the bathroom, leaking radiators, and mould spreading from the bathroom. The resident said the landlord did not provide its complaint response by 23 March 2022 as promised.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2022. The resident said that the landlord had continued to fail to resolve his complaint and repair work. The resident said he believed the landlord fabricated the inspection report of November 2021. The resident said he wanted a home fit for purpose and he has had leaking radiators and mould had spread to other rooms. The resident said repairs were still outstanding in the kitchen including broken flooring, broken doors and draws.
On 11 April 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. Its surveyor attended the property on 11 November 2021 and did not find any evidence of damp and mould in the bathroom. This included completing a humidity test. The landlord advised the resident to get in touch if he suspected the property has damp and mould since this date and it would arrange for a further inspection.
2. With regards to the kitchen, the landlord said the resident should report any repairs to the kitchen cupboards when necessary. The landlord explained that if it could not repair kitchen cupboards it would seek to replace them with standard fittings. The landlord confirmed that kitchen replacements are only completed as part of its major works programme on a cyclical basis. The landlord apologised that the resident felt that remedial repairs were not the best option.
3. Overall, the landlord did not uphold the complaint as it was responsive to the residents’ reports and requests for repairs in relation to the damp/mould in the bathroom and repairs to the kitchen.
4. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £25 due to the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.

Post internal complaint process

The resident has reported that he has ongoing issues with damp and mould in the bathroom. Also, there is still outstanding works in the bathroom including painting and dripping radiator.
The resident reported on 26 April 2022 that the worktops in the kitchen and the flooring needed to be replaced. The records show on 14 August 2022 that the worktops still need to be renewed as well as kitchen units.
On 15 December 2022 a surveyor attended the resident’s property. The survey identified that:
1. The steel bathtub had rusted creating a hole so needed replacing.
2. A mould wash was required on the back wall and ceiling in bedroom 1 and 2. Also, stain block and redecoration after works complete.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of repairs required and put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
The earliest record of the resident reporting repairs to the kitchen was on 2 May 2018. At this time, the resident reported that kitchen drawers needed to be replaced. Five working days later on 9 May 2018, the landlord completed an inspection of the kitchen. Whilst the outcome of the inspection is unknown, the records show that the landlord adjusted the loose kitchen door and renewed the front of 2 of the kitchen cupboard drawers on 31 May 2018.
It is noted that the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not list estimated timescales for day to day repairs, however it does outline timescales for emergency repairs. Having such information within its policy could go some way to manage resident’s expectations in terms of timescales in which repairs would be addressed. However, as the landlord arranged an inspection, and replaced the kitchen drawers within 28 days this was reasonable.
The records provided to this Service shows that the resident continued to raise reports of repairs in the kitchen on 3 December 2018, 16 January 2019, 10 July 2019 and 3 September 2019. This included that the kitchen units needed repair and further issues with the kitchen drawers and doors. The information provided to this Service shows that all works were completed within 10 working days which shows that the landlord was proactive and timely in resolving the repairs.
The landlord’s records do not show any reports about the kitchen between September 2019 and 26 July 2021 when the resident raised a formal complaint. The evidence provided to this Service shows that at this time the resident requested for his kitchen to be upgraded due to the number of repairs requested over the previous years. The resident reported that this led to kitchen units and drawers being mismatched. This Service notes that at this time the country was in a covid-19 pandemic and landlords were not undertaking non-essential repairs. Therefore, we do not know if the gap at this time related to the pandemic as previously to this the resident had reported repairs on a regular basis. Further to this, the resident resumed reporting repairs at a time when the pandemic restrictions had lifted.
Following the resident raising a formal complaint the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property. The surveyor contacted the landlord on 23 August 2021, the surveyor said the kitchen was not in a bad condition. Therefore, a replacement kitchen was not required. The surveyor recommended that the landlord replaced missing kitchen drawers and doors and that the kitchen did not need to be replaced. At this time the landlord approach in engaging an independent surveyor to assess the kitchen was appropriate.
The resident has been clear in his contact with the landlord and this Service that part of his complaint related to being provided with conflicting information regarding the kitchen replacement. Particularly, as in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it advised that a kitchen upgrade was required earlier than the planned upgrade in 2027.
Whilst this Service recognises that a replacement kitchen was preferable to the resident, it is important to note that the landlord is only obliged to ensure a property is in a good condition. Therefore, it is not obliged to renew the kitchen unless required.
In this case, it is clear that the resident and his ex-partner (the previous resident) had raised a number of repair matters regarding the kitchen since 2012. The resident reports that the repairs led to kitchen doors and drawers being mismatched. As such, the resident said he was embarrassed to have family over.
Whilst this Service recognises that a planned upgrade of the kitchen was due in 2027, it would have been reasonable based on the landlord’s obligations set out under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the landlord to provide replacement kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts so that repeated failures would decrease. Particularly, given that the resident raising numerous reports of kitchen doors and drawer fronts falling off it is indicative that the kitchen units were unable to hold the repairs taken. As such, it is unreasonable to expect the resident to wait over 3 years for the scheduled kitchen replacement in 2027 and for the resident to be further inconvenienced raising further repairs if the units are not able to hold repairs.
Taking this into account, despite the resident and the surveyor recommending that kitchen drawers and doors needed to be replaced on 23 August 2021; eight months later when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in April 2022 repairs had still not been completed.
The tenancy agreement is clear that the landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable time. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy does not stipulate timescales it is best practice for routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days.
As this was not the case, the landlord missed an opportunity to complete the repairs within an appropriate timescale. As such, this only sought to exacerbate the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update and for action. Overall, a delay of over eight months in 2021 to complete repairs in the kitchen was not reasonable. Additionally, the failure to carry out repairs that are able to last a reasonable period of time so that a resident does not have to make multiple calls, accommodate multiple appointments and then seeing the same issue reoccur amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated bathroom repairs

As previously confirmed, the landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
The records show that the landlord was aware of the history of leaks in the resident’s bathroom since 2015. The resident also reports that the bathroom floor discolouration and rotting happened over a 3 to 4 year period. The landlord’s records go onto show it was aware that the property had a history of damp as the landlord completed damp works by way of mould washes in the property in 2017 and 2020.
In terms of the leaks, in 2021 the resident raised 2 reports that the laminate flooring in his bathroom had water getting in from the bath seals as they were not flush against the edges. The records show that the landlord initially completed repairs on 11 May 2021 following the resident raising the repair on 29 April 2021. Given that the leak was causing damage to the flooring in the bathroom, this should have been treated as an emergency and therefore, this should have been resolved within 24 hours, which it was not. As such, the landlord actions were not reasonable and was not in line with its own repair policy in listing the repair as a routine.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that following the resident’s further report on 21 June 2021 it took the landlord 6 weeks to complete further repairs to the bathroom floor. Whilst it was appropriate for landlord to provide the resident with a humidifier to help with the damp and mould to dry out the bathroom, it was not appropriate to leave the resident with damp and mould for 6 weeks. During this time, the landlord should have prioritised repairs given children lived in the property and the resident reporting that one of the children has an auto immune health condition.
The landlord’s repair records state that the resident had a further leak from the property above on 16 August 2021. The records state that repair works took place on 18 August 2021 which included painting where mould patches had formed following the leak. The repairs show as completed the same day which was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair obligations.
Reports of leaks in the bathroom continued into October 2021 this time from the new radiator fitted in the bathroom in August 2021. At this time, the records are unclear as to when or if the landlord attended the property to contain the leak. It is notable that the landlord’s repair records lack details of action taken. As such it would be appropriate for the landlord to improve its records keeping as this would have significant benefit to both the landlord and its residents. Further to this, it would allow the landlord to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to the repairs completed so that it could consider the most appropriate response.
Overall, the evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to identify the causes of leaks in the bathroom for a significant period of time. As such, this led to the resident raising long standing concerns that damp had formed as a consequence.
The landlord’s repair records show that the landlord was aware of the history of damp and mould in the resident’s property. In this case, the limited evidence available shows that the landlord originally completed a mould wash on 29 October 2020. The resident raised recurrent issues with damp and mould in June 2021. As such, the landlord provided a humidifier to help with the damp and mould in June 2021. Further to this, the landlord completed a mould wash and stain blocker to the bathroom ceiling on 12 August 2021.
The evidence provided by the landlord, by way of an internal email, shows that the landlord instructed a contractor who completed an inspection of the bathroom three months later on 11 November 2021. This followed works that had taken place to treat damp and mould in the bathroom which included a mould wash and a stair block. Following works taking place, the inspection did not find any evidence of damp and mould in the property. In addition, it completed a humidity test which did not identify any abnormalities.
Whilst the landlord did engage in part with the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues in arranging an inspection of the property, the landlord should have taken robust action at an earlier stage when the resident first raised concerns in October 2020. Additionally, the landlord should have taken action to identify the underlying causes of the damp and mould. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have instructed a surveyor or inspection earlier as it would have gone some way to reassure the resident that his concerns were being taken seriously.
Following the landlord completing an inspection in November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in March 2022 to disagree with the results. The resident was clear that he felt the inspection was ‘fabricated’ as the property did have mould which had subsequently spread to further rooms.
In response to this, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to undertake a further investigation to establish the root cause of the mould. Particularly when it is clear the issue was reoccurring and previous works had not been effective.
The records show that no further inspection took place prior to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. The stage 2 response did, however, advise the resident that he if was still having issues with damp it could complete a further inspection. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have aimed to resolve the issues the resident’s faced in a timely way by taking ownership and being proactive in arranging an inspection when put on notice of damp and mould.
Taking this into account, this shows that there has been a repetitive pattern of the resident reporting issues with the bathroom and the landlord completing repairs. As such, the evidence indicates that the landlord was not proactive in establishing the source of the leaks or the totality of damage caused by leaks. This led to the resident making a formal complaint inclusive of concerns that the leaks had led to damp and mould formulating in the property. This amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s record keeping

The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information to assist with our consideration of the resident’s complaint. The documentation provided was limited. The records are not detailed in showing the resident’s reports of damp inclusive of pictures or videos the resident took and supplied to the landlord. Although the records demonstrate that a survey and an inspection took place to assess the resident’s kitchen and to assess the damp and mould, no report was produced. The records provided only reference the findings by way of internal emails. They do not provide the level of detail reasonably expected to be recorded e.g., the areas inspected, full technical findings, photographs taken, any testing for example moisture readings.
The repair records are not detailed as to what works were completed and do not provide sufficient details of dates of completion. This is not an effective way of the landlord recording repair history. Access to such key information should be centrally accessible to ensure a co-ordinated approach to communication.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The failure to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. It was unable to demonstrate adequately how it responded to the resident’s reports of repairs. This hindered its response to the complaint, and this investigation. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident for the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The associated complaint

The resident initially complained to the landlord on 26 July 2021 about his kitchen and bathroom. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day on 27 July 2021. A month later the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2021. This Service finds that the landlord’s delay in providing its stage 1 response was unreasonable and contrary to its own policy and the Code to provide a response within ten working days.
In addition, the landlord’s initial stage 1 response contained incorrect information regarding the resident’s complaint. This included that the landlord had referred to works in the bathroom when the resident had complained about the kitchen. As such, the resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2021 for an update and the landlord issued an amended stage 1 complaint response just over a month later on 27 October 2021.
The code states that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions. As this was not the case, this was not reasonable and led to the resident’s time and trouble contacting the landlord for a clear response. Whilst the landlord apologised for its error in communication in its amended stage 1 response, the miscommunication is not in line with the code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2021 to request it provided a stage 2 response. Six weeks later the landlord contacted the resident on 26 January 2022 to discuss the resident’s complaints. At this time the landlord apologised for the confusion regarding his complaints and for its delay in responding. Due to the lack of updates the resident contacted the landlord for an update on 3 March 2022. Seven days later on 10 March 2022 the landlord responded and confirmed it was aiming to provide its stage 2 response on 23 March 2022. Four months after the resident requested for the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response the landlord issued its stage 2 on 11 April 2022.
There is a clear failure in the landlord not providing its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response in a timely way. Further, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided any mitigation for the delays.
Further to this, this Service notes that the landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s complaint about the bathroom until its stage 2 response on 11 April 2022. This was 11 months after the resident initial raised his complaint about kitchen and bathroom repairs.
The landlord’s records show that it was only when the resident contacted it to chase a response to his complaint in January 2022 that it realised that it had not responded to all of the resident’s complaint. Despite this, at this time the landlord failed to apologise to the resident and initially raised another complaint. However, following conversation with the resident it agreed to provide a response to the resident’s complaints about the bathroom at stage 2.
The landlord’s significant delays in providing its stage 2 response was unreasonable. This adversely affected the resident and caused him unnecessary time and trouble requesting a response. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above.
The landlord has also failed to identify its complaint handling failings. At both complaint stages the landlord did not acknowledge its delays nor did it apologise. Therefore, the landlord did not offer any redress for the time and trouble, or distress and inconvenience caused to the resident being left in the complaint process for an unnecessary period of time. This is not in line with this Services code that if something goes wrong, a landlord should acknowledge this and put things right by way of remedy. In addition, the Code is clear that landlords should apologise for any failings identified and provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its service failings.
The complaint responses did not seem to have fully investigation the resident’s concerns and address them. This Service would have expected the landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property to enable it to provide a sufficient response. In addition, the landlord should have ensured that the kitchen cupboards were not in a state of disrepair before providing its complaint response.
The records provided to this Service show that the resident has reported further repair issues within the property following the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. This shows that the landlord’s complaint responses were not reasonable and did not offer a satisfactory redress for the issues complaint about.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. This delay and the landlord’s lack of effective communication regarding the delay constitutes maladministration. This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings and apologise to the resident for those it previously did not acknowledge.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the kitchen.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property and associated bathroom repairs.
3. Reports of the landlord’s record keeping.
4. The associated complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord completing repairs to the kitchen. The landlord failed to provide regular updates and did not keep accurate repair records. The landlord did not complete repairs in accordance with its own repair policy.
The landlord failed to treat the leaks as an emergency repair as such this led to the resident complaint about damp and mould forming. Further to this, despite the landlord being aware of leaks in the bathroom and the presence of damp and mould it failed to establish the root cause of it. The landlord also failed to promptly arrange for a survey or inspection to take place when it was first put on notice of the issues.
The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. This adversely impacted on the landlord’s communication with both the resident and this Service.
There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint response. Additionally, the landlord provided incorrect information in its initial stage 1 complaint response. Further, the landlord failed to respond to all of the resident’s complaints in a timely way. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy. It offered no explanation for these delays or make any undertaking on what steps it would take to ensure the same complaint handling failure is avoided in future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,000 compensation comprised of
  1. £1,000 to address the resident’s time and trouble and distress and inconvenience concerning repairs to the kitchen.
  2. £1,000 to reflects distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated bathroom repairs.
  3. £500 to reflect the inconvenience resulting from the landlord’s poor record keeping.
  4. £500 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
3. Arrange for an independent qualified surveyor to inspect the property at a time mutually agreed with the resident to assess whether any further works are required. In particular with the bathroom and kitchen If repairs are identified and areas affected by damp and mould, a schedule of works with timescales for completion should be agreed within 10 weeks of this report.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.