Southwark Council (202123229)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123229

Southwark Council

31 January 2024

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of associated remedial works, including the time taken to arrange temporary accommodation.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a ground floor 2 bedroom local authority flat. The resident holds a secure tenancy which started on 6 May 2019. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident first contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 20 January 2022. She explained that there was damp and mould in the property and that the landlord had delayed repairs. In addition the resident was unsure at what stage of the internal complaints process her complaint was at.

Scope of investigation

During the course of the complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding the impact delays were having on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord in September 2020 to report that there was damp and mould in the property. On 7 September 2020 the landlord commissioned a local authority surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The landlord explained that there were penetrating damp issues in the living room and on the kitchen chimney breast. It further explained that the damp showing on the chimney breast was unusual and not where one would expect to find it. Consequently, it requested further investigation from a surveyor.
The surveyor inspected the property on 11 September 2020 and issued a report to the landlord. The surveyors inspection found that:
1. There was 100% Wood Moisture Equivalent (WME) reading on the mould spot in the living room.
2. Readings taken on the return wall and wider area plasterwork were sound and measured less than 10%.
3. The timber laminate floor was dry and there were no visible defects.
4. There was 100% WME on the timber skirting on the edge of the chimney breast in the kitchen.
5. The rest of the skirting in the kitchen was sound.
6. There was no other signs of damp or mould in the kitchen.
The surveyor concluded that water ingress occurred as a one-off in the living room and left residual moisture within the wall, which caused discolouration and soaked the plaster. They added that the damage was limited and affected a 200mm diameter and that the surrounding plasterwork and woodwork was sound.
With regard the damp found in the kitchen, the surveyor found that the residual moisture from the concrete floor had saturated the timber skirting. It found that the melamine carcass of the kitchen base unit was sound.
The surveyor recommended the following works:
1. Carefully remove and set aside corner base unit.
2. Hack off plaster to low corner – 0.5m².
3. Remove skirting and cart away (front section only) – 1.5m.
4. Supply and fit new skirting to match existing – 1.5m.
5. Replaster using sand/cement render and skim coat finish – 0.5m.
6. Paint 2 coats of emulsion to walls – 30m².
7. Paint gloss finish to new skirting.
The landlord’s repairs notes showed that a job was raised for the contractor on 8 October 2020. The work related to the existence of damp and mould in the living room. The notes reflected the surveyors findings and the remedial works were as suggested by the surveyor in the report.
On 10 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord regarding outstanding works at her property and increasing issues with damp. The resident stated that up until that date the landlord had made 3 visits to the property to investigate the damp. She added that a specialist contractor attended one of the visits and she understood that it had been instructed to carry out the works but that she had not received a date for this to commence. The resident stated that there was extensive damp in the front room, the kitchen and her child’s bedroom. In addition, she said the property was draughty and the damp was getting worse. The resident asked for it to be resolved before Christmas.
The landlord responded on 19 November 2020 advising that it understood works were ongoing at the property. Based on the notes in the repairs log, this appeared to be in relation to the chimney at the block being capped.
The landlord’s repairs notes showed that the contractor contacted the resident on 14 December 2020 to arrange an appointment for 5 January 2021. It is unclear from the notes if this appointment took place. The contractor made another appointment with the resident on 28 January 2021 for 2 February 2021. The landlord’s note showed that these works were completed on 9 February 2021.
On 1 June 2021, the resident reported damp in her property. She said that there were mushrooms growing from the ground inside the property. The report was logged on the landlord’s system with a target date of 29 June 2021.
The following day the landlord’s repairs log showed a works order to remove the corner kitchen unit and some of the flooring around it to investigate the cause of the damp. The target date for this was given as 30 June 2021. The same day the repairs log showed that the radiator would need to be isolated and removed to allow for an investigation of the saturated floor/chimney breast. The repairs log showed that the job was recorded as complete on 7 June 2021, the radiator was refilled and left working.
In response to the works order made on 2 June 2021 to investigate the cause of damp, the contractor attended the property on 23 June 2021 and repaired a burst cold water pipe under the kitchen floor.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord added a works order to remove the kitchen chimney breast skirtings and hack the plasterwork back to brick. It added that the kitchen corner units would need to be removed and set aside. The work was given a target date of 27 July 2021.
The following day another job was added with a target date of 28 July 2021,to inspect the damp present in the kitchen, living room and adjacent bedroom and to remedy the defect.
According to the repairs log, the contractor attended the property on 2 July 2021 but was unable to complete the works to the chimney breast. Consequently it arranged with the resident to return on 10 July and 17 July 2021.
The repairs log showed a request on 27 July 2021 to complete works to the property as per the suggestion from the contractors. It was given a target date of 20 working days.
Between 25 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 there was an email exchange between the contractor and the landlord advising that there was evidence of rot in the floor structure. It noted that the laminate flooring was preventing access to determine the extent of the repair needed and the contractor was seeking guidance from the landlord on how best it could proceed. Following on from the communication with the contractor, internally the landlord questioned whether the resident would be compensated for the flooring if it were removed. A further email from the contractor on 3 September 2021 explained that it had lifted a section of flooring in the lounge and rear bedroom and there was evidence of progressive wet rot decay to the structural wall plates and joist sections set adjacent to external walls. It added that given the findings, the joists would need to be repaired and treated, once the laminate was lifted. In addition it said that given that the property was occupied, it would be appropriate to resolve issues in one room at a time and asked the landlord to confirm it agreed with this proposed course of action. In response the landlord asked the contractor if it would be preferable for the resident to move out temporarily so the work could be completed.
On 8 September 2021, a note was added to the repairs log, with a target date of 6 October 2021, to complete the work as per instruction from the landlord. It is not clear from the log what the landlord instructed, but it was directed as work for the contractor.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2021. She stated that she had experienced damp since the start of the tenancy and that she had raised concerns in 2020. She stated that she felt the landlord had delayed resolving the issue and had completed sub-standard repairs in an attempt to resolve the issues, which have caused the damp to worsen. The resident acknowledged that a new contractor had been instructed and work was progressing. Nevertheless, she explained that she was living with her child in one room of the property whilst the work was taking place. The resident added that she had asked to be decanted as the conditions were difficult to live in.
The resident explained that the situation was distressing and that it had affected her health. She added that she had been told by contractors that there were issues with the foundations of the property but that the landlord had made her feel the issues were ‘self-inflicted’.
The resident accepted that the situation was ‘niche’ but given the length of time it was likely to take to complete the works, she did not feel the landlord had given her adequate support.
Following on from the complaint, an internal email exchange between 24 September 2021 and 1 October 2021 requested an update on the situation in order to respond to the resident’s complaint. The relevant officer explained that a contractor was working at the property but that there was a lot to do and the resident would need to be placed in temporary accommodation. The email set out the extent of the issue and explained that once the works were completed the resident would need a new kitchen and decoration in the living room, both bedrooms and the kitchen. The Officer responsible for responding to the complaint asked to be updated once the temporary accommodation was arranged.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 1 October 2021. It confirmed the cause of the damage was a long term leak under the floor, which had been difficult to detect. It added that repairs were being carried out by a specialist damp contractor and acknowledged that the works were intensive and ongoing. The landlord confirmed that the laminate flooring had been taken up and that a claim was being submitted to its insurers. In addition it explained that the kitchen floor would need to be taken up to renew water damaged floor joists and consequently the resident would need to be placed in temporary accommodation for at least 3 weeks.
The landlord apologised for the delays and added that it would update the resident with a start date for the work to repair the floor joists once the temporary accommodation was confirmed.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that the insurance claim for the resident’s laminate flooring was forwarded to the claims adjuster on 5 October 2021. On 12 October 2021, the claims adjuster contacted the resident by email to acknowledge receipt of the claim and confirmed that it would begin investigating. It stated that it would provide its liability decision as soon as possible and explained that it was allowed a 3 month investigation period, which began the date the claim was acknowledged.
Between 6 October and 19 October 2021 there was an email exchange between the landlord and the resident in which the landlord advised that the contractor would telephone the resident directly in order to arrange a start date for the work. The resident asked if a date had been arranged for the walls to be stripped and skimmed as she hoped that it could be done whilst she was still in the property. She added that she understood the contractor would be back at the property on 1 November 2021.
An internal email dated 1 November 2021 questioned why temporary accommodation had not been arranged on 1 October 2021 as per previous conversations, and also questioned if any attempt had been made to provide temporary accommodation.
A further internal email on 4 November 2021 explained that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. On 9 November 2021 another internal email asked for an appropriate person to contact the resident to provide her with an update on the works.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord visited the property to establish which works had been completed. The landlord acknowledged that the delay in arranging temporary accommodation had caused a delay in carrying out the remedial works.
The request for temporary accommodation was sent to the relevant team on 11 November 2021. The following day an internal email advised that due to the amount of work needed, the contractor would not be available until after Christmas and consequently the request for temporary accommodation could be put on hold until then. However, the landlord would try to get the decorating done in the areas that had been completed.
The landlord repairs log showed that on 15 November 2021 a job was added, requesting decorating to both the living room and the second bedroom that had both been plastered. Both rooms required trunking to all the exposed wiring and to wall sockets and light switches. The work was given a target date of 13 December 2021. An internal email dated 25 November 2021 showed that the jobs had been booked in to be completed on 1 December 2021.
The landlord contacted the contractor on 18 November 2021 to confirm a start date for the works, preferably at the start of January 2022. On 22 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the situation. In addition, the resident asked for the painting to be completed, for the light switches and plug sockets to be re-secured and for the radiator in the kitchen to be reattached by Christmas.
Between 6 January and 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance company for an update on the claim for her damaged laminate flooring. It is not clear if the resident received a at this time.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord notified the resident that the work would commence on 24 January 2022, and that she would be temporarily moved for 2 weeks. However, later that day the contractor advised the landlord that 2 weeks would not be sufficient time to complete the works. The landlord completed the required internal forms to request temporary accommodation which was agreed on 18 January 2022.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 20 January 2022 to establish how far the complaint had progressed. The landlord responded the same day advising that the complaint had been through stage 1 and that it would accept the communication from HOS as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Also on the same day, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails in relation to the proposed temporary accommodation and the resident’s preferred location. The following day the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation in a studio flat within the borough.
The works began on the agreed date of 24 January 2022.
On 28 January 2022, following her request for an update on the insurance claim for the damaged laminate flooring, the landlord forwarded the resident a copy of the claim sent to the insurance company on 5 October 2021. The resident subsequently chased an update with the insurance provider.
On 7 February 2022 the repairs log showed that the works had a target date of 7 March 2022. However, the following day this was changed to a target date of 18 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2022 advising that she had spoken with the contractor who had said that the works would go beyond 21 February 2022, which was the date the landlord had proposed the temporary accommodation would end. The landlord agreed to extend the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation until 28 February 2022.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the report from the contractors carrying out the work, The report, dated 14 February 2022, set out extent of the damage caused by the leak and the remedial works required.
On 23 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the insurance claim.
The contractor finished decorating the living room and second bedroom and fixed the trunking to the exposed wiring and wall sockets and light switches in both rooms on 28 February 2022. Despite there still being some outstanding works, the resident moved back the same day. She explained that the commute to her place of work and her child’s school from the temporary accommodation, was too far. She understood that the work to replace the kitchen was still outstanding but she agreed that this was preferable to the additional commuting time.
On 9 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the decoration in the property and an update on the insurance claim for the laminate flooring. Two days later she reported that there was no hot water in the kitchen. The landlord arranged to attend the same day but the resident was not aware of the appointment and consequently unavailable. The job was rebooked for 18 March 2022. An operative attended that day and concluded that there was an issue with the heat exchanger and a replacement part was needed.
On 21 March 2022 an operative attended to replace the heat exchanger but discovered that the issue was with the new pipework that had been laid in the kitchen to resolve the leak. The following day the landlord added a works order to the repairs log to restore the hot water in the kitchen. Notes on the repairs log dated 30 March 2022 showed that the new pipes under the kitchen floor had been crossed when they had been replaced, resulting in a loss of hot water and the floor would need to be lifted in the kitchen to establish where the problem was.
Between 22 March 2022 and 11 April 2022 there was an email exchange between the resident and the landlord with regard the outstanding works, insurance liability claim for the damaged laminate flooring and the ongoing complaint.
This Service contacted the landlord again on 19 April 2022 for an update on the stage 2 complaint. The following day the landlord responded that it had escalated the complaint and it would respond by 10 May 2022 as per its complaints procedure.
The repairs log showed that on 29 April 2022, the copper pipes under the kitchen floor were renewed and rerun.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 5 May 2022 who explained that she was still waiting for an update on the insurance claim. On 10 May 2022 the landlord updated the resident with regard the stage 2 complaint and explained that it was finalising its response.
On 12 May 2022 the resident reported an issue with the boiler, this was fixed the same day.
There was an email exchange between the resident and the landlord on 24 May 2022 in which the resident listed the following as outstanding:
1. The insurance liability claim for the flooring.
2. The kitchen floor had not been replaced.
3. Decoration to both bedrooms, the front room ceiling, hallway and kitchen was still outstanding.
4. Debris from the ongoing repair works to be removed from the garden.
5. There was no hot water or heating.
The landlord responded that it had understood that the heating and hot water had been re-instated on 29 April 2022. The resident explained that there had been an issue with the boiler on 12 May 2022, which had been fixed the same day but subsequently broke again the following day. She confirmed that she had not reported the issue as a repair. The landlord arranged for the boiler to be repaired the following day.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 30 May 2022. It set out its understanding of the complaint and a timeline of key events that took place from October 2020, when it was first recorded that there was an issue with damp in the property. It confirmed that there were several visits to the property between October 2020 and June 2021 to investigate the damp issues the resident had reported. The timeline concluded on 25 May 2022.
In its response the landlord acknowledged that it took a long time to identify the cause of the leak. It was satisfied that it continued to investigate and monitor the situation until the source of the leak was identified.
The landlord accepted that it had failed to action a recommendation to move the resident to temporary accommodation on 24 September 2021 and as a consequence there was a delay in the completing all necessary works. It confirmed that the resident went into temporary accommodation on 24 January 2022 and remained there for 6 weeks. It noted that the resident returned to the property even though the kitchen hadn’t been installed and also acknowledged that there was an issue with the newly replaced pipework under the kitchen floor, which was only discovered on 11 March 2022 following the resident’s return to the property. The landlord confirmed that the hot water was restored to the kitchen on 29 April 2022. The landlord accepted that this caused a further 17 week delay, which included the subsequent issue with the boiler, that was resolved on 25 May 2022.
In its response the landlord provided the following dates that it had chased the insurance company for an update on the claim: 5 October 2021; 23 February 2022; 28 February 2022; 9 March 2022; 11 April 2022.
The landlord confirmed that it was monitoring the ongoing works at the property.
In conclusion the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that once the extent of the required works were established, there were delays of 17 weeks to place the resident into temporary accommodation, and for those works to commence. It also confirmed that there were a further 17 weeks of delays due to the incorrectly fitted pipework.
The landlord awarded compensation of £2000 made up as follows:
1. £680 for 34 weeks of delays, paid at £20 per week
2. £680 for the distress caused to the resident based on 34 weeks of delays, paid at £20 per week
3. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble.
4. £357 for the hot water outage, paid at £3 per day for a total of 119 days.
The landlord rounded the total to £2000.

Post internal complaints process

The resident responded to the stage 2 response on 7 June 2022. She explained that she did not feel that the complaint was fully investigated as the landlord failed to assess the impact from when the issues arose. The resident reminded the landlord that she had reported mould in the property as far back as September 2020. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord’s response regarding the insurance claim and added that each time the landlord chased the insurance company for an update, it was as a result of the resident pursuing an update from the landlord. The resident added that with regards the compensation payment, it should be noted that repairs were still outstanding. In particular the kitchen radiator that she mentioned in her email on 22 November 2021 had still not been fixed to the wall.
The resident advised this Service that all repairs and related remedial works including the replacement flooring was completed in October or November 2022.
The resident also explained that she had reported to the landlord that damp was reappearing in the kitchen but that the landlord has failed to offer a permanent solution.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

The landlord’s repairs guide explains how it will deal with different repairs based on the classification of their urgency. It states that:
1. Emergency repairs will be dealt with within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 3 working days.
3. Non urgent repairs will be dealt with within 20 working days.
A report of damp is given as an example of a non-urgent repair. The guide adds that there may be occasions when major work is required to resolve the issue identified and in those cases there may be a reasonable delay before starting work as long as there is no risk to health and safety.
The repairs guide states that the best way to report a repair is by telephone on its freephone service, that is available 24 hours a day. Additionally on completion of the repair the landlord will carry out a satisfaction survey.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act.
The landlord has provided its guide to residents making insurance liability claims. The guidance explains the basis for making a claim and how the procedure works. It explains that once a claim has been made, the resident will receive an acknowledgement from the insurance company within 10 days, which will include the relevant contact details. Once the resident receives acknowledgement of the claim having been received, any further communication concerning the claim should be made by the resident directly to the insurance company.
The landlord encourages early resolution of a complaint as part of its informal process. If it is unable to resolve the complaint at the informal stage it will respond formally. It operates a 2 stage complaints process and states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and respond formally within 15 working days. At stage 2 of its complaints process it will acknowledge the escalation within 3 working days and respond formally within 25 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

It is not clear from the information provided when the issue of damp was first reported. However, we can see that the landlord was aware of it at least from 7 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged that further investigation was warranted and instructed a surveyor to investigate the damp. This was a reasonable and appropriate response and demonstrated that the landlord was seeking a resolution.
The surveyor attended 4 days later and carried out an investigation of the affected areas. The resulting report found that the water ingress appeared to have occurred as a one off and the surveyor made recommendations for remedial works.
According to evidence provided by the landlord, a contractor was instructed to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor in November 2020, and further to landlord notes the work was completed in February 2021. However, the resident made a further report of damp on 1 June 2021.
When the resident reported damp and mould in the property on 1 June 2021, the landlord recorded this correctly and gave a timescale of 20 working days to respond to the issue reported. This was an appropriate response and in keeping with the landlord’s policy.
We are satisfied, based on the evidence presented that when notified of the presence of damp in September 2020, the landlord arranged for an appropriate investigation into the cause of the damp and mould and it was carried out in a timely manner.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on a professional report when investigating the cause of the damp. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take the steps suggested in the report in order to resolve the issue.
Between the date the resident reported the issue on 1 June 2021 and 25 August 2021, the landlord has shown that it carried out further appropriate investigations to establish the cause of the damp and assess what action was needed to remedy it.
This Service finds no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord has provided evidence to demonstrate that having been notified of the presence of damp in the property it carried out investigations, initially in September 2020 and instructed a surveyor to carry out a further in-depth inspection. It has also demonstrated that it acted promptly in June 2021 to investigate the resident’s further report of damp.

The associated remedial works, including the time taken to arrange temporary accommodation.

There was a lack of evidence in relation to the work carried out at the resident’s property between November 2020 and February 2021. It is not clear, based on the evidence provided, how remedial works were progressed at that time. The landlord has failed to appropriately monitor remedial works. In addition, there is no record of a satisfaction survey having been completed as per the landlord’s repairs guide. The Knowledge and Information spotlight report published in May 2023 is very clear that information must be stored and maintained appropriately to ensure it can be recalled should the need arise.
Following the resident’s further reports of damp at the property on 1 June 2021, the landlord ordered works to be carried to remedy the damp. The works proposed were similar to those proposed by the surveyor in September 2020, which suggests that either the work was not completed by the first contractor between November 2020 and February 2021 or the works that were completed were of a poor standard. The landlord’s repairs policy states that in cases of damp and mould there may be a delay in carrying out the works to allow for any major works needed. However, it was reasonable for the resident to expect that once the surveyor had investigated and found the assumed cause of the works that the situation would have been remedied.
On further investigation, the cause of the water ingress was found to be a burst cold water pipe under the floor. This was fixed on 23 June 2021. Following on from this, the landlord instructed a contractor to repair the affected floor joists and carry out the necessary decorations within the property. This was an appropriate response.
The evidence has shown that once the cause of the damp was found further investigative work took place to establish the extent of remedial work needed.
The contractor advised the landlord on 3 September 2021 that, given that the resident was living at the property, remedial works could only be completed one room at a time. Evidence has shown that a request was made for the resident to be placed in temporary accommodation, in an internal email dated 24 September 2021. However, the request failed to reach the team responsible for actioning such requests, which caused a delay in carrying out remedial works and further inconvenienced the resident.
The request for temporary accommodation was queried again internally on 1 November 2021 and a formal request was submitted to the relevant team on 11 November 2021. However, due to the amount of work needed the contractor was no longer available to start the work before January 2022. It was not acceptable that the landlord delayed in its request for temporary accommodation as this inevitably resulted in a delay in starting the required works. In addition, the resident and her child continued to live in the property whilst works were taking place around them. The landlord was aware in September 2021 that it should have placed the resident and her child in temporary accommodation so as to progress the works and to minimise the impact on the resident. It failed to do this and caused further distress to the resident who was limited in her use of the property.
With regard the resident’s liability insurance claim, an internal email showed that the landlord had questioned if the resident would be compensated for this. The claim was in the resident’s name but it is reasonable to assume given evidence provided, that she was guided to make the claim by the landlord. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for updates about the insurance claim. She maintained that the landlord only contacted the insurance company for an update on progress when the resident chased a response. From the evidence provided this appears to be a reasonable assumption. However, it must also be noted that in line with the landlord’s guidance on insurance liability claims, the onus is placed on the resident to deal directly with the insurance company. Nevertheless, given the circumstances regarding the damage it would have been reasonable for the landlord to proactively progress the claim.
The landlord’s repairs guide sets out the timescales for works to be completed. It explains that where major works are needed there may be a delay in starting the works as long as there is no risk to health and safety. The effects of damp and mould are well documented, it was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to delay the remedial works.
Nevertheless, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and recognised the remedial works were delayed because of its own delay in arranging temporary accommodation for the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings.
The landlord also acknowledged that there was a delay in restoring the hot water in the kitchen. In recognition of the delays caused the landlord awarded compensation at its maximum level for the 34 weeks of recorded delays. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated that the landlord recognised its failings.
The landlord also awarded compensation at its highest level for the distress to the resident caused by the 34 week delay, and for the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking a resolution. The landlord understood that its failings and delays caused the resident inconvenience and it sought to remedy this.
In addition, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was left without hot water following the error made in reconnecting the water pipes and awarded compensation in line with its policy. This was an appropriate response and in line with its own policy position.
When the resident moved back to the property on 1 March 2022, the main structural works had been completed. The remaining works included decoration in the affected areas and installing the kitchen, the majority of which was completed by 5 May 2022. The amount of remedial work needed was extensive. There were undoubtedly delays in completing the works but this Service is satisfied that the landlord has acknowledged its failings.
The resident reported an issue with her boiler on 24 May 2022, which the landlord fixed the following day. This was an appropriate response and showed that it was willing to learn from mistakes previously made.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there were still some ongoing works to decorate the property throughout and this was being monitored accordingly.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has acknowledged the delays in competing remedial works once the cause of the damp was identified. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays, distress and inconvenience to the resident. It recognised that there were areas in which it could do better and stated that it would review and amend procedures accordingly to ensure the failures it had identified would not be repeated.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This Service finds reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the associated remedial works, including the time taken to arrange temporary accommodation. The landlord has shown that it has acknowledged its failings and taken steps to put this right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint on 9 September 2021. The landlord responded on 1 October 2021, which was 17 working days after the complaint was submitted and 2 working days outside of its prescribed timescale. In its response the landlord apologised for the delays which it partly blamed on the lockdowns associated with the Covid 19 pandemic. It confirmed that works were taking place at the property and that the resident would need to be moved into temporary accommodation for at least 3 weeks so that the works could be completed.
On 4 November 2021 the resident escalated her complaint. Whist the landlord did not formally acknowledge the complaint with the resident, it has provided evidence showing that it was aware of the escalation. Yet, the landlord failed to respond to the escalated complaint within the prescribed timescale. On 24 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge the escalation and consequently failed to adhere to its own policy.
On 20 January 2022 we contacted the landlord for an update on the stage 2 complaint. At this point the landlord formally acknowledged the stage 2 request. However, the landlord subsequently failed to respond to the complaint, nor did it provide a reason for this.
Following further contact from this Service on 19 April 2022, the landlord said that it would deal with the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process and respond by 10 May 2022. The landlord responded formally on 30 May 2022, which was 142 working days after the request was submitted on 4 November 2021, and 90 working days after the landlord first acknowledged it. The landlord failed to follow its policy and failed to respond within its prescribed timescales.
The Complaint Handling Code is clear that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure. It is also clear that landlords must acknowledge their failings and set out their intentions for improvement. Not only did the landlord fail to respond to the stage 2 complaint within its prescribed timescale, it also failed to acknowledge this delay in its eventual response. This is not acceptable and does not promote a positive landlord and resident relationship.
The Complaint Handling Code is also clear that landlords must not delay a response to a complaint due to outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far, and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The landlord was aware of the stage 2 escalation on 4 November 2021. Nevertheless, it failed to formally acknowledge the complaint and consequently failed to respond within its prescribed timescale. Given the evidence provided it appears that the landlord failed to properly record the escalation and as a consequence failed to react in accordance with its timescales. Following contact from this Service on 20 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, yet once again failed to respond within prescribed timescales. This shows a lack of appropriate record keeping and a lack of regard for the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s failure to correctly record the stage 2 escalation caused the resident unnecessary stress and frustration.
In addition, the landlord failed to provide all relevant information in respect of the complaint when first requested and failed to provide all information dating back to the start of the issue in September 2020, stating that there had been a change in how it responded to requests for evidence. Landlords must have appropriate systems in place for recording and storing information and landlords must ensure that databases are easy to interrogate and that data and information can be easily extracted, when required.
It is clear from the information provided that the landlord was aware of the stage 2 escalation on 4 November 2021. Nevertheless, it failed to formally acknowledge the complaint and consequently failed to respond within its prescribed timescale. The landlord failed to provide a timely response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Consequently, causing the resident unnecessary stress and frustration. This Service finds maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and an order has been made to reflect the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds no maladministration of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds reasonable redress of the associated remedial works, including the time taken to arrange temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration of the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has provided evidence to demonstrate that having been notified of the presence of damp in the property it carried out investigations, initially in September 2020 and instructed a surveyor to carry out a further in-depth inspection. It has also demonstrated that it acted promptly in June 2021 to investigate the resident’s further report of damp.
The landlord has demonstrated that it acknowledged its failings and offered an appropriate level of compensation in line with its policy and the ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord failed to respond within the prescribed timescales, forcing the resident to continuously pursue a response causing the resident unnecessary distress and frustration.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £2300, which comprises of:
  1. £2000 offered in its stage 2 response for the delays in completing remedial works. If this has already been paid to the resident then it should be deducted from the total.
  2. £300 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Ensure relevant staff are reminded of the timescales for acknowledging and responding to complaints at both stages of the process.
4. Provide evidence of the reviews it carried out and the improvements it made to the relevant procedures it highlighted in stage 2 response to ensure similar failures would not reoccur.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to provide training on the emergency temporary accommodation approval procedure to relevant colleagues.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with these orders with 4 weeks from the date of this determination.

Recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should consider the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management report recently published by the Ombudsman.
This Service recommends that within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord reviews and agrees its expectations with contractors, and if it hasn’t already done so ensure its procedure allows for the monitoring/checking of completed works.
The resident has raised further concerns that the damp has reappeared in the kitchen, this Service recommends that the landlord contacts the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to investigate the damp. If damp is found, the landlord should provide an action plan to the resident for appropriate works within 4 weeks of its investigative visit.