Southern Housing Group Limited (202218376)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218376

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. mould
  2. boiler issues
2. Complaint handling;
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. Her six-year fixed term tenancy began in November 2017. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The resident occupies the property with her two children. One of the children was born during the below timeline.
The tenancy documents confirm the landlord is obliged to keep the property’s structure, exterior and installations in good repair. This includes the roof, plasterwork and central heating installations. The resident is responsible for internal decoration. The information seen suggests the weekly rent is £135.44 per week.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. This includes reports of no heating and hot water between 31 October and 1 May. If the landlord is unable to complete a repair, it will make the situation safe. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs as quickly as possible and during 1 visit if possible.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. A further 10 working days is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed. New complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days.
The resident has several vulnerabilities relating to her physical health. They include prolapsed discs, asthma and brittle bone disease. The information seen indicates her children also have breathing conditions. A representative helped the resident with her complaint at various points during the timeline. For readability, this report makes no distinction between the resident and her representative.

Summary of events

The landlord provided the property’s repair history from 2018 onwards. It shows repair orders to fit radiators were raised in January, February and March 2018. The corresponding repair notes lack detail and clear completion dates were not captured. From the information seen, it was also unclear whether the orders referred to the same radiator.
The repair history also shows the property suffered a roof leak in November 2019. Further, despite a number of repair works, the leak reoccurred in June 2020. The landlord’s other records indicate additional leak repairs were completed in January 2021. The information seen suggests these leaks prompted damp and mould. No information was seen to suggest further leaks occurred until later in the timeline.
The repair history suggests 5 works orders were raised to address boiler issues between 2 and 30 November 2021. The orders on these dates referenced a lack of heating and hot water. These comments likely reflected the resident’s reports to the landlord. The orders were marked complete on 4 and 30 November 2021. We were unable to confirm if the landlord attended the 1st appointment in line with its emergency repair timescale. Based on the landlord’s other records, the resident also reported mould had returned to the property in mid-November 2021.
The information seen indicates the landlord’s senior surveyor visited the property on 9 December 2021. Their inspection report said there were “some minor patches of mould in the master bedroom and a very small patch in the 2nd bedroom”. It also said the resident was concerned a previous roof leak had returned but, following a “thorough inspection”, no leak was found. Instead, the mould was attributed to insufficient heating and high humidity. The main points were:
1. A follow up appointment with the landlord’s new thermal imaging camera was required. The camera removed the need to open up a wall in the bedroom.
2. A leak was identified on the property’s indirect hot water system. The leak should be urgently addressed by the landlord’s heating contractor.
The Ombudsman has seen a number of undated images that seem related to the above inspection. They show patches of black mould developing in corners at ceiling height, along with clothes drying on a radiator.
During internal correspondence on 14 December 2021, the landlord said the resident had called several times about “disrepair” issues. Further, she reported sleeping on a living room sofa due to mould throughout the property. In addition, the landlord’s surveyor had “promised a cleaner this side of Christmas”. This comment was understood to refer to mould cleaning works.
The Ombudsman has not seen a first-hand copy of the resident’s original complaint. We have seen the landlord’s complaint notes and acknowledgement from 23 and 24 December 2021. They referenced: a bedroom radiator repair that took over a year to complete, ongoing mould in both bedrooms; a dispute over whether the mould was caused by a 4th roof leak or condensation and boiler issues, which included a leak, a lack of heating and hot water for around 4 weeks, and a lack of corresponding updates.
The complaint notes also said the resident was three months pregnant and she should not be sleeping on a sofa given her back problems. Further, her daughter’s asthma was getting worse which had prompted several medical appointments. They described the boiler as “temperamental”. No information was seen to show the resident disputed the complaint summary contained in the landlord’s acknowledgement.
During an internal email on 5 January 2022, the landlord said the resident had called chasing repairs. The email said there was a leak in the airing cupboard and a replacement thermostat was not working. As a result, the landlord’s heating contractor should reattend. Further, the resident reported “water was pouring down the walls” when it rained. In addition, her pregnancy was deemed high-risk.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred on 17 January 2022:
1. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed a recent follow-up inspection identified extensive repair works. They included installing thermal boarding to the walls and ceilings in both bedrooms, with “over boarding” to the window reveals in all rooms. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding inspection report. The surveyor said the resident was around 22 weeks pregnant and her health conditions were exacerbated by the property’s stairs.
2. The landlord said permanently rehousing the resident was neither “simple or quick”. On that basis, the surveyor subsequently agreed a temporary decant. They said the works would last around ten days and the family’s health conditions were noted.
3. The landlord issued holding correspondence advising the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaint. This was on the basis it was waiting for information from its contractors. The timeline suggests the correspondence was issued around 13 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord said it would respond within the next 10 working days.
The landlord’s case chronology contains a summary of a call with the resident on 18 January 2022. It said the resident was “at present…refusing the decant route”. It indicates the resident’s preference at this stage was to proceed with a management move panel hearing based on how the repairs would impact her medical conditions. Further, the resident explained she could continue to remain at the property providing the landlord treated the mould.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. The timeline confirms it was issued in line with the landlord’s holding correspondence. The main points were:
1. A surveyor’s inspection on 9 December 2021 confirmed there were minor patches of mould in the master bedroom, along with a small patch in the 2nd bedroom. No roof leak was found and the mould was attributed to insufficient heating and high humidity.
2. A further inspection was completed on 11 January 2022. Using thermal imaging equipment, a surveyor identified “severe cold bridging across the outside walls”. The resident had declined a recommended decant and was seeking a permanent move on medical grounds.
3. Mould washing and sealing works were scheduled for 14 February 2022. The landlord’s contractor had raised an emergency appointment in relation to the reported plumbing issues. However, it had no records relating to the either the historic radiator repair or the current boiler and water tank issues.
The repair history shows works orders to investigate boiler issues and fit a wireless room stat were raised on 28 and 31 January 2022. The orders were marked practically complete on 31 January and 2 February 2022 respectively.
The landlord’s call records from 1 February 2022 show the resident was advised to escalate her complaint by email if she was unhappy with its response. They suggest she was concerned about missed appointments and outstanding mould treatment works. They said she denied refusing a temporary decant. They also show the resident had been recently been in hospital. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding escalation email from the resident.
Internal correspondence from the following day confirms the landlord received further calls from the resident. The main points from the correspondence were:
1. The landlord’s contractor missed an appointment on 2 February 2022. It subsequently advised she should not be using the boiler. However, the boiler could not be switched off and the ongoing leak was causing a lot of humidity.
2. The resident may need to be decanted due to the mould in the property. However, she reported being advised a decant was unnecessary because she was requesting a move on medical grounds.
Within days the resident advised three call-back requests were not returned and the situation was affecting her mental health. Internal correspondence on 9 February 2022 said the resident had suffered a miscarriage.
The chronology shows mould washing and treatment works to both bedrooms were completed as scheduled on 14 February 2022. However, the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this date from the property’s repair history. Since no information was seen to show the resident chased the works after this date, the timeline suggests it took around 3 months to complete them following the resident’s report in mid-November 2021.
The landlord set out an action plan during internal correspondence on 23 February 2022. Its wording suggests the plan had been agreed by the resident. It said: the property’s existing boiler and water tank would be replaced with a combi-boiler, window repair works would prevent the build-up of damp and condensation, sills would be replaced on the affected windows and both bedrooms would be redecorated. It also said the landlord would investigate missed appointments by its contractor.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. The timeline indicates this was around 25 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It said she was seeking an apology for delayed repairs and around 6 missed appointments. The main points were:
1. On 5 January 2022 the landlord raised an urgent repair to address the resident’s heating and damaged water tank. “Unfortunately”, the landlord’s heating contractor failed to log the repair. The landlord’s records showed the contractor subsequently missed 3 appointments for various reasons.
2. Following the landlord’s recent action plan, all agreed repairs had been scheduled for 26, 28 and 29 April 2022. These works would resolve the problems with the property’s existing heating system and remove the need for a decant.
3. The landlord was sorry for the identified service failure. It awarded £175 in compensation comprising: £50 for failure to complete a repair, £50 for service failure and £75 for three missed appointments. The resident should confirm her acceptance.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 11 March 2022 said the resident reported there had been 11 missed appointments in total. The email gave the following missed appointment dates: 22 November 2021; 1,6, 15 and 30 December 2021; 5,12 and 27 January 2021; 2 February 2022, 2 March 2022 and 10 March 2022.
Around ten days later, the landlord’s contractor responded to the resident’s list. It said, in 2022, it diagnosed an incorrect part on 2 February and missed an appointment on 10 March. However, it had no records of scheduled appointments on: 1, 15 and 30 December 2021, or 5 January 2022. Further, it attended the property on the following dates but it was unable to gain access: 22 November 2021, 6 December 2021, 12 January 2022, and 2 March 2022.
The landlord’s repair history and case chronology record the boiler was replaced on 17 March 2022. However, an internal email from 23 March 2022 shows the resident subsequently chased the boiler installation date. It said there was an issue with the property’s water pressure and a boost pump was needed to install a combi-boiler. The information seen suggests the works were completed by 4 April 2022. This is when the landlord accepted its contractor’s invoice. No information was seen to suggest the leak was fixed prior to this date.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord issued a “follow-up” stage 2 response. It included a table with the landlord’s response to each of the resident’s reported missed appointment dates. The landlord accepted there had been an additional missed appointment on 15 December 2021. As a result, it increased its previous compensation award, by £25, to £200 in total.
The chronology shows PVC trims and mould were removed from the windows on 26 April 2022. Further, 4 window sills were renewed 2 days later. The 2nd date is supported by the repair history.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident a copy of its surveyor’s recommended works. The schedule confirms plaster boarding was required to both bedrooms. Further, mould would be cleaned, walls and ceilings would be treated with stabiliser and the master bedroom radiator would be upgraded. It shows full builder’s and carpet cleans would also occur on completion.
On 20 May 2022 the resident reported she was pregnant again. Further, she was still sleeping on the sofa or away from the property altogether. This confirms the bedroom works from the landlord’s action plan remained outstanding around 12 weeks after they were first agreed.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 4 and 25 of July 2022:
1. The landlord asked its relevant supervisor if it should extend the duration of the resident’s temporary decant. It said it was 8 days into the decant and it was unclear whether its target completion deadline would be met. (This suggests the resident was decanted on 27 June 2022).
2. Repair notes said radiator and carpet cleaning works were outstanding at the end of the decant period. However, the resident had agreed they could be completed as soon as possible after the family returned to the property.
3. The resident reported difficulties reaching her point of contact. She also reported being left homeless for a night, around 11 July 2022, after being advised the property was not ready following the end of her hotel stay. The information seen indicates the decant ended around this time.
4. During an internal email, the landlord subsequently said a new complaint should be raised to address any decant issues.
5. The resident chased the landlord for repair and complaint updates. The landlord’s internal correspondence said its repairs team had failed to contact her to arrange an appointment as requested.
The landlord made internal enquiries about the status of repairs over a number of emails on 8 August 2022. Its relevant correspondence said “extensive mould works” and a carpet clean had been completed some time ago. However, the resident previously refused two replacement radiators. No information was seen to support this version of events. In contrast, call records from 11 August 2022 show the resident reported the only outstanding repair concerned a radiator in the property’s main bedroom.
Internal correspondence from early October 2022 said the resident had chased the outstanding radiator repair. It also said she reported the property’s heating and hot water was not working and she wanted to ensure a repair had been logged. This was on the basis she had not heard from the landlord’s contractor. Further correspondence said the landlord was unable to calculate compensation until the radiator repair was complete. The landlord’s contractor subsequently said it would arrange an emergency repair, which would also investigate the radiator.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 November 2022. It said it understood the resident wanted to accept its revised compensation offer from the follow up response on 30 March 2022. It said, to accept the award, the resident should provide information including her bank details. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s response to this correspondence.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 14 November 2022 confirms the resident reported damp had returned in the property. It said she wanted the situation resolved quickly given the overall duration of the repair issues and the fact she was heavily pregnant. In a separate email the same day, the landlord’s senior surveyor said they had not had time to arrange a post-inspection. Nevertheless, it was evident, from images they had seen, that their specification of works had not been followed. They said the works had been ongoing for a year and should be prioritised.
The landlord’s subsequent correspondence detailed the following outstanding repairs: damp works, bath enamel damaged during previous repairs, re-wiring to the pressure booster and radiators to be replaced. It said the works should be completed urgently given the resident’s circumstances.
In a telephone update to the Ombudsman on 16 November 2022, the resident said a roof leak had returned despite three previous repairs. Further, damp and mould at the property were ongoing and there was a lack of communication from the landlord. Our call notes show the resident was very upset and anxious about her pregnancy. She said she wanted to feel safe in the property when her new baby arrived. Her main points were:
1. The landlord ended the decant period before the property was ready. When the family returned the resident was advised they were unable to enter. The landlord failed to recognise the stress the decant caused, and the hotel was a significant distance from the family’s school.
2. Leaks and damp had damaged the resident’s bed. The landlord declined to reimburse these items on the basis she should claim through her contents insurance. However, insurers had declined to cover the resident due to a faulty entry system which was the landlord’s responsibility.
3. Repairs should be completed as soon as possible without decanting the family. The landlord should acknowledge the resident’s carpets were ruined and that there were 13 missed appointments in total. In addition, there were both outstanding and incorrectly completed repairs. The landlord should acknowledge the stress the resident experienced during her previous pregnancy and increase its compensation offer.
The landlord’s chronology and correspondence shows the following events occurred between 16 and 24 November 2022:
1. The landlord said a damp section of bedroom wall should be removed. This was to identify the root cause of any water ingress while it was waiting for scaffolding to be erected.
2. The removal was completed the following day. The operative reported the plasterwork was “dot and dab” rather than the studwork. They also reported there was no sign of a leak in the loft. Their report included several images that appeared to show damp patches on a wall. None of the images seen appeared to show mould.
3. The landlord’s senior surveyor confirmed their specification had not been followed. They said the contractor was being recalled accordingly.
Additional records, from around the same time, show the landlord decided not to raise a new complaint. This was on the basis it wanted to monitor the situation. They suggest its senior repairs leader was tasked with overseeing the landlord’s response. This was with a view to expediting the works and keeping the resident updated.
The case chronology shows the landlord’s contractor undertook “extensive” works relating to the landlord’s specification on 6 December 2022. The Ombudsman was unable to confirm this information from the property’s repair history. Internal correspondence on 12 December 2022 said rewiring works to a pressure booster and a number of replacement radiators were still outstanding. Further, the landlord’s contractor had been unable to gain access to the property. The landlord replied works had been scheduled over 3 days that week.
It subsequently said a recent post-inspection confirmed the property met satisfactory standards. However, because they did not have a copy of the work specification, the inspecting representative was unable to confirm whether the repairs were completed as specified. Internal correspondence on 17 December 2022 described the resident’s complaint as “very high profile”. It said the landlord had held a case conference involving its complaints team and various service leaders. The main points were:
1. A comprehensive post-inspection should have been completed to “ascertain everything had been completed; which we now know it was not”.
2. Given the circumstances it was “crucial” the landlord’s response was “on point”.
The landlord exchanged emails with its contractor between 15 and 23 December 2022. The exchange began when the landlord asked when a radiator would be removed. The correspondence shows:
1. The landlord’s operatives were working in the property but works could not continue until the radiator was removed. The landlord was keen to avoid further delays for the resident.
2. The contractor advised it had scheduled an appointment on 19 December 2022. However, when the resident reported its non-attendance, it subsequently denied booking an appointment on this date. At this point, it told the landlord the appointment was scheduled for 21 December 2022.
3. The second appointment did not proceed as scheduled. The information seen suggests, contrary to her request, the contractor did not inform the resident it was on its way to the appointment. The contractor said its operative had attended the property but they were unable to gain access.
4. The landlord subsequently advised the contactor not to move the radiator. This was on the basis the resident should not be left without heating over the Christmas period. The contractor was asked to provide an appointment date in the new year.
Her subsequent comments to the Ombudsman, from April 2023, suggest the resident was decanted again on 23 December 2022. From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to establish the exact decant dates. However, an internal email on 13 January 2023 said the resident was due to return to the property on 17 January 2023. As a result, the landlord said, the radiator needed to be installed the day before. The landlord has not disputed that a further decant took place.
During the interim period, between 23 December 2022 and 17 January 2023, 5 repair orders were raised relating to radiators. The history shows, after taking initial measurements, all orders were marked “practically complete by 17 January 2023. Again, no clear completion dates were given. It was noted the events previously outlined suggest only 1 or 2 radiators were required. It was therefore unclear why additional repair orders were raised.
Based on the chronology and the Ombudsman’s own records, the following events occurred on 14 February 2023:
1. The resident notified the landlord “a small section of mould had returned in the living room”. The landlord initially recommended installing a Positive Input Ventilation System but later changed its mind. This was on the basis the system was unsuitable for the property type.
2. A “very minor leak” through the roof/guttering was found to be affecting both corners of the property. The information seen shows scaffolding was required to rectify the leak.
3. The resident told the Ombudsman her baby was born with pneumonia and the family’s health conditions were related to mould in the property.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor emailed it an inspection report. The report said there were no condensation problems at the property. However, there were leaks from the roof. Nevertheless, the contractor made several recommendations including: a replacement double glazing unit and upgraded kitchen and bathroom fans.
The resident updated the Ombudsman again during a phone call on 26 April 2023. She said damp and mould were still ongoing due to the landlord’s incorrect repairs. Further, the landlord had been aware of a leak for around 6 weeks. However, no action had been taken and she was unsure what was happening. As mentioned, the resident said she was decanted for a second time on 23 December 2022. Her main points were:
1. The resident’s baby was born with a number of health conditions including pneumonia and sepsis. An awareness of the resident’s personal circumstances was not sufficient to prompt an improvement in the landlord’s services. The landlord also failed to provide her with sufficient support.
2. The resident was trying to obtain a permanent move based on medical grounds and the property’s condition. Whilst her immediate priority was ensuring the landlord completed the necessary repairs, compensation was necessary given what had happened.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it approved a permanent move on medical grounds the following day. During internal correspondence around a week later, the landlord said the local authority had agreed to grant the resident the highest level of priority for a move on disrepair grounds.
The landlord’s chronology suggests its contractor completed the recently recommended internal repair works on 16 May 2023. However, it also suggests the roof repairs were outstanding. It said internal redecoration would not take place until the roof was repaired.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions affected the family’s health or the resident’s pregnancies.
The scope of this assessment is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because, generally, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. As a result some issues, such as the landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial decant, are beyond the scope of this assessment. Nevertheless, we will explain our approach and make relevant orders and recommendations to address issues where possible.

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

It is understood the resident feels mould she reported in mid-November 2021 was a continuation of previous issues with the roof. In other words, it resulted from the landlord’s failure to fully repair the roof in January 2021. The Ombudsman is not expert in construction matters, so we cannot independently establish whether the issues were related. Instead, we typically rely on the expert opinion of relevant qualified professionals. We are also mindful of continuing reports about similar repair issues following completed repairs.
In this case, though the resident’s January 2022 comments about pouring water were noted, there was little evidence to support her assertion that the mould was linked to the previous issues. For example, there was no indication of damp walls in the landlord’s December 2021 inspection report or the images associated with it. Nor was any information seen to show the resident continued to report either damp or mould issues between January and November 2021. As a result, a professional opinion would likely be needed to establish a connection.
Similarly, no information was seen to show the February 2023 leak was related to the resident’s original complaint in December 2021. For example, there was no indication the landlord should have reasonably diagnosed this leak during either its initial inspections, including the thermal imaging inspection in January 2022, or its subsequent repair works. On that basis, in the first instance, the resident should raise a new complaint with the landlord if she has any concerns about its handling of the February 2023 leak.
In contrast, the landlord decided not to raise a new complaint in November 2022. This suggests it felt the issues ongoing at this point, broadly outstanding repairs from its February 2022 action plan, were related to the resident’s original complaint. This is supported by comments its surveyor made in November 2022 about the overall duration of the repairs. It is also supported by the landlord’s comment that compensation could not be calculated until the outstanding radiator had been installed. The evidence we have seen supports the landlord’s assessment.
Nevertheless, no information was seen to show the landlord attempted to redress the resident for issues relating to either its initial mould response or for the delays in completing its action plan. The timeline confirms she had valid concerns about the landlord’s response to the mould. For example, it supports her assertion that an awareness of her personal circumstances failed to prompt a significant improvement in the landlord’s handling of the situation. The below will show redress was appropriate given what went wrong.
The landlord was aware the resident was pregnant in December 2021. Further, she had reported sleeping on a living room sofa. It was also aware the pregnancy was deemed high risk by the following month. Nevertheless, the timeline shows it took around 3 months, based on the period between November 2021 and February 2022, before mould treatment works were completed. This was an inappropriate timescale given the circumstances. The Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timeframe to complete routine repairs.
As a result, the timeline points to an unreasonable delay of around 2 months. It was noted the resident said she was assured cleaning works would be completed before Christmas on a number of occasions. Whilst the images seen pointed to comparatively limited mould growth in this case, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s vulnerabilities and high-risk pregnancy were significant aggravating factors. As mentioned, the landlord was aware she was at risk from an early stage of the timeline. It has not disputed she was sleeping on a sofa.
Given the resident’s circumstances, the landlord should have taken prompt action to mitigate the mould whilst it was arranging a detailed action plan. Since it felt condensation was a significant causal factor, it could have upgraded the property’s fans during the interim period. It is reasonable to conclude these works could have been completed quickly at a comparatively low cost. It was noted fan works were ultimately completed in May 2023.
The timeline also confirms the situation was prolonged because the landlord completed incorrect repairs. For example, on 24 November 2022 the landlord confirmed dot and dab plasterwork had been installed rather than the specified stud wall. It is reasonable to conclude this error stemmed from either the landlord’s record keeping, or a lack of contractor oversight. In any case, the timeline suggests this error caused significant upheaval to the resident at a time when she was already anxious about her 2nd pregnancy.
As mentioned, the landlord has not disputed a 2nd decant occurred in December 2022. The information seen indicates the resident likely returned to the property by the end of January 2023. Further, that the outstanding radiator, from the landlord’s action plan, was in place by this time. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have completed its specified repairs by the end of the first decant. Further, that the resulting delay of around 7 months, based on the period between 11 July 2022 and 31 January 2023, was avoidable, distressing and inconvenient.
It is also reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced during the combined 9 month delay period identified above. This is based on her concern about the property’s effect on her medical conditions and pregnancies. The timeline shows: she chased the repairs on several occasions and reported experiencing communication issues along with an impact to her mental health. Overall, the above information shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould.
This is because, despite an awareness of the resident’s situation, the landlord failed to expedite initial repairs to mitigate the situation. It later completed incorrect repairs that unnecessarily prolonged the timeline. It also failed to redress the resident for either of these key issues. The Ombudsman will therefore award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our compensation order will include a rent reduction element based on a 1 week rent refund for each month of the above identified delay period. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. The remainder of the compensation awarded will address the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
It is acknowledged the timeline suggests the landlord had good intentions in this case. For example, it recognised the need for urgency based on the resident’s circumstances. It also appointed a senior surveyor at an early stage and agreed seemingly extensive repair works. The timeline shows the landlord was undermined by its contractor at times. Nevertheless, the landlord was responsible for its contractor’s actions. It should have robust systems in place for supervising contractor activities and performance. The information seen suggests deficiencies in the landlord’s contractor management processes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler and heating issues

Little information was seen about the resident’s historic radiator concerns. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to make a fair assessment in relation to the issue. Nevertheless, the information seen appears to highlight issues with the landlord’s record keeping, which will be the subject of a separate section below. It also has implications for the landlord’s complaint handling, which will again be addressed in the relevant section.
It is recognised that the landlord ultimately upgraded the property’s boiler. The information seen suggests it was not obliged to do this. Nevertheless, this was a welcome step given the circumstances. It also awarded the resident a total of £200 in related compensation. This was for delays caused by a failure to log an urgent boiler repair on 5 January 2022 and 4 missed heating appointments.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor said a leak should be urgently addressed. However, the timeline suggests it was not resolved until around 4 April 2022. This represents a period of around 4 months. In contrast, from the wording of its complaint correspondence, the landlord’s own delay calculation began on 5 January 2022. A similar issue was noted in relation to the resident’s report of a lack of heating and hot water. Since this was deemed to stem from a complaint handling failure, it will be addressed further in the complaint handling section.
It was noted the impact to the resident varied during the timeline. For example, her reports did not consistently reference a lack of heating and hot water. Nor did they refer to this issue occurring over an extended timeframe. Instead, she later said she had been advised not to use the boiler but it could not be switched off. From the landlord’s records, no information was seen to show the resident was advised not to use the boiler. In any case, the above information suggests the landlord’s compensation award was based on an incorrect calculation of the timeline.
The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. However, having considered both parties’ list of appointments, along with screen shots of text messages referencing appointments, we were unable to identify any additional missed appointments that the landlord failed to address. Given the above, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point. This is because the landlord attempted to redress the resident for its delays and failures.

Complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the wording of its responses shows the landlord failed to recognise there were short delays at stages 1 and 2. Given their duration, and the fact the resident was kept informed at stage 1, an apology would have been sufficient. However, the landlord’s failure to recognise the delays, or redress the resident accordingly, suggests it failed to consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge these delays was inappropriate.
More significantly, and contrary to the landlord’s internal correspondence from July 2022, no information was seen to show it raised a new complaint to address the resident’s concerns about the initial decant. This was despite reports of several related issues including an allegation the resident and her family were left homeless for a night. This was a serious matter which the landlord should have investigated accordingly through its internal complaints procedure. Raising a new complaint would have been appropriate given a stage 2 response had already been issued to address the resident’s initial complaint.
However, based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence suggests the resident’s decant concerns remain unaddressed around 11 months later. This was both inappropriate and unfair to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude her report of being made homeless amounted to a formal complaint. Further, the landlord should have responded proactively to the allegation by raising a new complaint case. No information was seen to show it advised the resident to raise the new complaint herself.
It was noted the resident alerted the Ombudsman to damaged personal items in November 2022. At this point, she said the landlord had declined to reimburse these items on the basis she should claim through her own insurance. Since no further information was seen to indicate the landlord’s handling of the situation, we were again unable to make a fair assessment. However, this was also a serious issue. If it has not done so already, the landlord is encouraged to investigate the matter through its internal complaints procedure.
In addition, the timeline suggests a lack of both engagement and follow up at various points. For example, the landlord’s initial complaint notes referenced a lack of heating and hot water for around 4 weeks. It repair records suggest this 4 week period began around 2 November 2021. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to reference this timescale at either stage of its complaints process. Since it failed to unpack this concern, it was unable to show its redress offer reflected the extent of any service failures, or the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.
It was noted the resident appeared open to the landlord’s compensation award in November 2022. However, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have improved its responses by reflecting her concerns directly. Further, it could have provided a clear timeline to help the resident identify the issues it had addressed. Similarly, the repair history indicates the landlord could have done more to investigate her historic radiator concerns. This is because there were records relating to historic radiator repairs and the landlord could have proactively asked the resident for more information.
In relation to follow up, internal correspondence in October 2022 said the landlord was unable to calculate compensation until an outstanding replacement radiator was installed. This shows the landlord was aware of a failure that required redress to put things right. However, no information was seen to suggest it ultimately revisited its compensation calculation when the works were completed. It is noted this issue may also relate to the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, as mentioned in the relevant section, the landlord’s failure to address the issue was inappropriate.
Finally, despite accepting that some delays and failures occurred, the landlord did not attempt to extract any learnings from the resident’s negative experience. Given her complaint highlighted a number of performance issues relating to the landlord’s contractor, the landlord could have reasonably provided feedback with a view to improving its service for other residents. Alternatively, the landlord could have highlighted the number of missed appointments to its leadership. Its failure to adopt even these comparatively simple steps was inappropriate.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling which led to short delays being overlooked. The timeline shows it also lacked engagement, proactivity and follow through at various points. Significant issues to the resident remain unaddressed. The landlord also failed to use her experience as a learning and improvement tool.

The landlord’s record keeping

The evidence also points to considerable failures relating to the landlord’s record keeping. For example, the repair history provided frequently lacked detailed descriptions of either the issues reported or the repairs subsequently completed. In addition, it was noted there often seemed to be multiple overlapping works orders, relating to the same repair, with little indication of the underlying rationale.
Significantly, the Ombudsman was unable to establish when the mould wash took place from the landlord’s repair records. This was inappropriate given the potential health and safety implications of these works. Similarly, the exact dates the replacement boiler and the outstanding radiator/s were installed was also unclear. Contrary to the landlord’s chronology, the repair history failed to reflect that the contractor was recalled in December 2022, having failed to follow the surveyor’s specification.
Given the above, it was unreasonably difficult to follow the landlord’s repair activities or measure its performance. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord also had difficulty keeping track of events. Further, this may have hindered both its repair response and its subsequent complaint investigation. For example, poor record keeping could have contributed to the seemingly high number of overall appointments. The timeline suggests the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping contributed to delays and the resident was ultimately impacted.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents. Given the above the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould.
2. Maladministration in respect in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
4. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler issues.

Reasons

Despite the resident’s circumstances, the landlord failed to expedite initial repairs that would have mitigated the mould. It later completed incorrect repairs that unnecessarily prolonged the timeline. It also failed to redress the resident for either of these key issues.
The landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling which led to short delays being overlooked. The timeline shows it also lacked engagement, proactivity and follow through at various points. Significant issues to the resident remain unaddressed. The landlord also failed to use her experience as a learning and improvement tool.
It was unreasonably difficult to measure the landlord’s performance from its repairs records, which lacked detailed descriptions of issues reported, repairs completed and completion dates. For example, the Ombudsman was unable to establish when mould washing took place based on the records. This was a repair with potential health and safety implications.
The timeline shows the landlord’s delay calculation was based on an incorrect timeline. However, the landlord attempted to redress the resident for its delays and failures. From the information seen, we were unable to identify any additional missed appointments that the landlord failed to address.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s senior leadership to apologise to the resident for the above identified delays and failures within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise: more could have been done to mitigate the mould given the resident’s circumstances, incorrect repairs prolonged the timeline unnecessarily and that the landlord failed to address decant issues of considerable importance to the resident. The Ombudsman should be given a copy/transcript.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,218.96 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,218.96 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s delayed response to the mould.
2. £500 for any additional distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above issue. For example, the timeline suggests she was decanted again in December 2022 whilst pregnant.
3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of boiler issues. This award reflects the correct timeline based on the evidence seen. If it has already paid the resident the £200 awarded in its follow up response on 30 March 2022, the landlord is free to deduct this amount from the total.
4. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to address the resident’s concerns about homelessness and the initial decant through its formal complaints procedure. If they haven’t already been formally addressed the landlord is encouraged to include her concerns about damaged personal items within the complaint’s scope. Before proceeding, the landlord should ask the resident whether any other concerns need to be included. The landlord should share the complaint scope with the Ombudsman.
The landlord to conduct a senior management review into the key issues highlighted by this report. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: repairs record keeping, contractor monitoring procedures, lack of engagement, proactivity, follow up or learning in relation to complaints handling and its inability to improve its services given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.

Recommendations

The landlord to formally update the resident about the status of her rehousing request.
The landlord to routinely consider its own complaint handling as part of every complaint investigation. This is to ensure delays or other procedural issues are addressed accordingly.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.