Sovereign Network Homes (202213941)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213941

Sovereign Network Homes

29 February 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner in a property located within a new development, having purchased his flat in August 2020. The records show that the resident owns 25% of the property and the landlord owns 75%. The property was subject to a 12 month defect liability period.
On 10 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that his wall leading to the balcony and the wall next to it were showing signs of damp. He said that it looked like there was a leak coming from outside.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2021 and advised him that his property was outside the defect liability period and he should “source a contractor to investigate the damp” inside his property. It stated that, if the landlord was responsible for the repair, he should send the contractor’s report to its leasehold services team
On 14 December 2021, the resident told the landlord that he had heard back from a number of contractors who said they did not investigate new build properties. This was because they should have 10 year guarantees after being built. He stated that the damp had started to seep into the carpet, all along one side of the property. The landlord responded on the same day and said that, as he was a shared owner, internal repairs were his responsibility. It reiterated that he should source a plumber and send it the contractor’s report.
A plumber inspected the property on 21 December 2021 and found no leaks to internal plumbing or radiators. It recommended that, as there were water marks on the balcony wall, the landlord should check the flat above to find out why water was coming down the wall. He also recommended checking the tanking on the balcony and the brickwork outside the resident’s flat. The resident sent the landlord the plumber’s report the following day.
The resident chased this up on 14 January 2022 and the landlord carried out a leak detection survey of the property on 11 February 2022. According to the report, the engineer saw a leak coming from the flat above. As nobody was in the neighbouring property at the time, the engineer went to the second floor balcony. From there, he was able to see water “continuously dropping from the roof into the second floor balcony, and from there into the first floor balcony”. The survey recommended further works “to restore the area to its original condition, prior to the leak” and further investigation of the neighbouring property.
It is not clear what action the landlord took following the inspection. Between 29 March and 8 April 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update. The evidence suggests an appointment should have been booked for an operative to visit the property. However, on 8 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had spoken to its contractors, who advised that access issues prevented it from completing the job. The resident responded on the same day to say he had not been given prior notice of the appointment. He stated that it had been 5 months since his first email about the leak and that the mould was affecting his health and the building.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates. He wrote to it on 23 May 2022 to say that an operative visited 2 weeks prior to look at the leak but that he had not heard anything since. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm that a follow on appointment had been made to “carry out further works” on 15 June 2022. It is unclear from the evidence whether the appointment went ahead or what action the landlord took following this contact.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022 to say that, after the recent storms, “a good three metres squared of the flat” was flooded. The resident contacted the landlord again to say he had been advised to get “all information in writing” and that he was happy to organise weekend work or give the contractors a key. He added that he had been available on weekdays during March and April 2022 but that the landlord had not followed up on this at that time.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that its contractor would be attending on 26 September 2022 “to do all they can to complete the outstanding repairs”. It added that, as the last visit to his property was “a few months ago”, additional works might be needed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022 to say he had made access arrangements for his property in the hope the repairs would be completed. However, instead of work being carried out, a plumber had attended instead. He stated that a plumber had already assessed the property a while ago. He added that “more and more” water was getting into his flat, seeping into his carpet and damaging the skirting board.
On 6 October 2022, an operative attended to inspect both the resident’s property and the balcony of the flat above. On 18 October 2022, the landlord forwarded the resident an email from its contractor. It stated that the operative who attended was a carpenter, who reported that the slabs on the balcony were “out of level causing water to flow back into the property”. The contractor added that the carpenter was not a qualified groundsman and could not advise on the best way to resolve the issue.
On 27 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that, since November 2021, work had still not started. He stated that he had sought legal advice and was making a final attempt to get the works started before pursuing the matter through a solicitor. The landlord responded on the same day to say it believed the problem was due to a “defect originating from the development of the scheme”. It confirmed it would contact the original building contractor to arrange for the repair to be completed.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2022, in which he stated:
1. He was dissatisfied because of the extent of the damp throughout his property, due to an outstanding repair he had reported in November 2021;
2. So far, 6 professionals had attended the property but the problem had still not been resolved;
3. The condition of his flat was starting to affect his physical and mental health;
4. He felt the landlord’s communication had been poor and that he had received no response from the leasehold property manager.
On 28 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the developer to report a defect that was affecting the resident’s property. It stated that the absence of a water proofing layer or damp-proof course underneath the balcony door threshold was “allowing water to ingress through into the living room floor”. It told the developer that, since it had previously recognised this as a defect, it wanted to give it the opportunity to inspect and repair it. The building contractor responded to the landlord on 2 November 2022 to say that, as the property was under warranty, it would need to make a claim through the National House Building Council (NHBC).
The resident raised a disrepair claim on 3 November 2022. On 11 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. This stated:
1. While it appreciated the matter had been ongoing since November 2021, its complaints policy stated it would “examine a repairs history of up to 6 months”. For this reason, it had started its investigations from 15 February 2022.
2. An operative attended on 30 March 2022 but could not gain access to either the resident’s or his neighbour’s property.
3. The operative attended again on 11 May 2022 and reported that the brickwork was in good condition but there was moss growing due to a leak from the balcony above. He also found that the roofing insulation on the resident’s balcony was not properly fixed, and required a roofer to attend.
4. The landlord had tried to arrange for a roofer to visit. However, due to difficulties booking a suitable time with the resident and his neighbour, and an administrative error it had made, the job was closed down on 18 July 2022.
5. The resident had sent the landlord an email, stating no works had been carried out to rectify the leak. It chased this up with its contractor, who stated that the resident was unable to provide the roofer access due to his work commitments.
6. A plumber inspected the resident’s property on 26 September 2022 and confirmed there was damp and mould to the wall by his balcony door.
7. A carpenter inspected both the resident’s and his neighbour’s property on 6 October 2022 and reported an issue with the balcony slabs.
8. Technical ground workers attended the property on 21 October 2022 and reported that the resident’s balcony was causing internal damage and asked if the property was under warranty.
9. On 26 October 2022, the landlord received an email from the resident’s sister, stating she was unable to reside at the property with her young child due to the extent of the damp.
10. The landlord was awaiting the outcome of a claim it had submitted to the warranty provider, after it had established the leak was due to a design issue with the balcony.
11. It recognised there was potentially a missed opportunity to have identified the issue on an earlier visit. However, the delays since then were outside of its control and dependent on the resident’s availability.
12. It acknowledged it had made an administrative error when it had asked the wrong team to arrange access with the resident. However, even then, the landlord would not have been able to access the property any sooner.
13. It had recently held a team meeting where it discussed the impact of its errors, and would use this as a learning opportunity.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had made a claim to the NHBC.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 18 November 2022, where he stated:
1. The landlord excused its delay by using his inability to take time off on weekdays. However, he had arranged for a family member to allow access to contractors on 26 September 2022.
2. In addition, he had only been told about some of the appointments the landlord had mentioned the day after they were scheduled.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 25 November 2022. It stated that it expected to conclude a review of his complaint by 28 December 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2022 to say that, with regard to his disrepair claim, its surveyor wanted to attend the property to inspect the balcony and “locate the entry points of water ingress”.
On 28 December 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. Its surveyor arranged an inspection for 30 November 2022 and completed a condition survey report. It had submitted the recommended works to its legal disrepair team.
2. The NHBC would be attending to inspect the property.
3. Whilst it had made “every attempt” to do so, it was unable to reasonably provide any further updates on the progress of the repairs. However, its legal disrepair team would keep him up to date on the progression of the repairs, through to completion.
4. It apologised that the resident was sometimes unaware of appointments until the following day. It would not be able to prove or deny this claim as it would not have recordings of calls the contractor had made to him.
5. It acknowledged it had failed to resolve the repairs within its timescales.
6. It offered the resident £1,288 for the delay, distress, and time and trouble from December 2021. It stated this was in line with its compensation policy and apologised for the poor service it had provided.
7. Any further compensation would be managed through the disrepair process.

Events following the conclusion of the complaints process

The landlord carried out a damp inspection of the property on 18 January 2023. It reported elevated moisture levels around the balcony area, both externally and internally. It also stated there was “potential water penetration from above”. On 19 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had not yet traced the source of the leak. It added that there were several flats with a similar issue and that its specialist was drawing up a schedule on how it could investigate all the affected properties.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 January 2023 to inform him that the NHBC would be inspecting his property on 22 February 2023. It had also raised an order for a contractor to carry out a mould wash and to “aqua vac” the resident’s carpets to absorb some of the water. The resident responded on 22 February 2023 to say he was “still living in a swamp” and that the landlord’s offer of compensation was “an insult”. He said he was unable to use 80 per cent of his flat and that the landlord’s offer would “barely cover” a month’s rent.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the disruption and inconvenience the issue was causing, and that it was trying to get it resolved as soon as possible. It was waiting for the contractor’s report and photographic evidence so it could provide the findings to the NHBC.
The landlord carried out a tracer dye water leak detection test on 17 April 2023 and contacted the resident on 21 April 2023 to say it had identified the cause of water ingress. It said it had instructed its contractor to carry out a permanent repair.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident an email, which it referred to as a “stage 2 follow on”. This stated:
1. There was water ingress from the balconies of his and his neighbour’s flat, which was one continual balcony split between the two properties.
2. It would fully replace the balcony membrane to stop water ingress through the threshold. The replacement would cover any other areas where water may have been entering, and provided a 20 year guarantee on the works.
3. The contractors would be erecting scaffolding outside the balcony area and intended to start works before 8 May 2023. The works would take around 15 working days. Following a drying out period and further water tests, the landlord would carry out internal redecoration.
4. Although it had received a group complaint, the resident had already completed its complaint procedure at both stage 1 and 2. It would therefore write to him as a further follow on stage 2 response instead of being part of the group complaint, or a new stage 1 complaint.
5. It expected to be in a position to conclude its investigation by 22 May 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2023 with its “final decision”. It provided a timeline of the actions it had taken since it issued its initial stage 2 response, on 28 December 2022. It also stated that:
1. It was completing internal works inside the property and it had attached a list of the repairs it was carrying out.
2. If the resident had suffered any damage to personal items, it advised him to claim on his home contents insurance, or via its own public liability insurance. However, if he provided a list of items and their costs, it would review whether any of those could be covered under an NHBC claim.
3. There was a defect within the building that the developer had not accepted responsibility for, which is why it made a claim with the NHBC.
4. It hoped that no further works were needed other than the balconies being completed in the next 4 to 5 weeks. Once all repairs were resolved and settled, it could review its compensation offer.
5. It offered additional compensation of £598 to cover the period from 28 December 2022 to 23 June 2023, making a revised total of £1,886. It broke this down as follows:
  1. 26 weeks x £10 for delays = £260.
  2. 26 weeks x £10 for distress = £260.
  3. 26 weeks x £3 for time and trouble = £78.
Between 18 and 27 June 2023, the resident was decanted into hotel accommodation while the landlord completed the internal repairs to his property. On 31 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say there was still a lot of the contractor’s equipment in his flat and the scaffolding was still up. He added that he had not heard anything about the reimbursement for damaged items, general compensation or about his carpet that still needed to be replaced.
The landlord responded on 23 August 2023 to acknowledge that the internal decorations had been concluded, apart from the carpet. It stated it could therefore review the resident’s claim for compensation. It said it would write to him within 7 days with a revised offer, taking in account any damaged items that it could include.
On 17 October 2023, the resident contacted the Service to say that his flat had not been completely repaired and that his carpets were “missing”. He stated that due to the landlord’s inaction, he had had to live in one room for almost a year.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord re-sent the resident a revised offer of £2,664 compensation. It said it had sent this on 27 September 2023 but the resident had not received it. Its offer took into account further delays between 23 June 2023 to 3 August 2023, when it had completed the internal decoration on 3 August 2023. The additional sum comprised of the following:
1. 6 weeks x £20 for distress = £120.
2. 6 weeks x £10 for delays = £60
3. 6 weeks x £3 for time and trouble = £18
4. £600 towards damages the resident had reported.
The resident responded to the landlord’s revised compensation offer on 2 November 2023. He stated that he did not feel £2,664 was sufficient considering the amount of time and energy he had given to resolve the matter. He said that the landlord should have covered the rent for the whole period he had been unable to use his whole flat, plus for damaged items, which totalled £2,587.
The landlord responded on 2 November 2023 to say it was reviewing the compensation it had offered for his damaged items. It wrote to him again on 10 November 2023 to say it had reviewed his compensation and stated the following:
1. It had agreed to pay the resident the full amount of £2,587 for his damaged items,
2. It had also increased its offer for delay, distress and time and trouble to £2,587, which it had calculated for 45 weeks. The total comprised of:
  1. 45 weeks x £20 for distress = £900
  2. 45 weeks x £20 for delays = £900
  3. 45 weeks x £5 for time and trouble = £225.
3. It added this to the previous offer of £1,288, making a total offer of £3,313 for delays, distress and time and trouble.
4. The total compensation it was offering was £5,900, (2,587 + £3.313).
5. It was aware the resident had taken his complaint to the Ombudsman and asked if its new offer meant he would consider withdrawing his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Legal and Policy Framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As per Section 11 of the same act, the resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building. This includes the roof, external walls and all parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder. The act says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states that the landlord will ensure that the fabric of its property is protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp and mould. It states that it works in partnership with residents to ensure:
1. Residents who report damp and mould in their properties are treated with respect and empathy;
2. Residents have access to and are provided with comprehensive advice, information, and guidance on managing and controlling damp and mould;
3. The process of reporting an issue of damp and mould is straightforward and easily accessible for residents;
4. That it clearly and regularly updates residents with advice regarding any actions it can take or have taken to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists 3 types of repair; emergency repairs, routine repairs and complex repairs. It attends to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make the property safe. Routine repairs are those that are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems, or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away. It aims to attend within 2 weeks of the resident reporting the repair, and aims to complete most repairs within 1 calendar month. Complex repairs include, for example, works to roofs, windows and major problems with water supply and drainage. For these, the landlord will provide the resident with an estimated completion date but will aim to complete planned repairs within 90 days.
The complaints policy states that the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If the resident wishes to escalate their complaint, it can ask for a review of how the landlord has dealt with their complaint at stage 1. This is the second stage of the process, and the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The compensation policy broadly separates compensation awards into 3 categories; low, medium and high. Low impact is where there has been a failing but this was rectified within a reasonable amount of time with low effort and low impact on the resident. Medium impact is where the issues have caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve, involving much time and effort. The policy classifies high impact as a “serious failure in service standards with severe consequences, which took a considerable amount of time and effort to resolve”. This relates to failures that have had a major impact on the resident’s enjoyment of their home. To remedy the level of impact, the landlord generally offers payments on a sliding scale of between £5 and £20 per week for delays, £5 and £20 for distress and £1 and £5 per week for time and trouble.

Scope of investigation

The resident mentions that the issues he had been experiencing with the ongoing leak at his property had detrimentally effected his mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health and understands the impact this situation may have had on his wellbeing. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress at the property

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while living with ongoing water ingress, and the associated damp and mould. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a property that was suffering from the effects of water damage for so long, especially when the resident was living with a health condition.
It is not disputed that the time taken to repair the source of the water ingress was excessively protracted. It is accepted by the landlord that this caused water to soak through a wall adjacent to his balcony and into the resident’s living room from November 2021, when he first reported it. The leak that was finally repaired around June 2023 caused damp, mould, and internal damage, including to the walls and carpet.
When the resident first reported damp and a possible leak, it was appropriate for the landlord to remind him of his responsibilities as a leaseholder. It was correct that the landlord advised him to source his own contractor to first check for any internal factors that may be causing the damp. However, although the resident reported the matter on 10 November 2021, it took the landlord until 2 December 2021 to give him the correct advice. The landlord could have been more customer-focussed when the resident first raised his enquiry. It would have been reasonable for it to have taken his details and then contacted him with the relevant advice. That the resident had to confirm his personal details twice, and it took nearly a month for the landlord to answer a relatively straightforward query added to the overall delays and caused unnecessary inconvenience. It should also be noted that the landlord could have advised the resident to approach NHBC about the issue.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy became effective from 2 December 2022, shortly before it issued its stage 2 response. However, it could have incorporated the good practice the landlord would have been expected to follow at the time. The policy stated that it aims to undertake effective investigations and implement reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to manage damp and mould. It also aims to ensure staff and contractors are trained on how to recognise, manage, and identify solutions to damp and mould.
The evidence shows that the resident sent the landlord his plumber’s report on 22 December 2021. The report recommended inspecting the property above, the external brickwork and the resident’s balcony. It was not until 1 February 2022 that the landlord raised an inspection, and then until 11 February 2022 that it carried out a leak detection survey. Although it is acknowledged there would have been a delay over the Christmas and New Year period, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update and resend the report, which would have caused an unnecessary delay.
Given that the property was new build, the landlord could have considered, at an earlier stage, whether the issue could have been due to a building defect. This is because there would be an expectation that a property that was newly built should be water tight. However, there is no indication the resident had previously reported any water ingress or damp after he moved into his flat in August 2020. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to first investigate whether there were factors other than a defect that was causing the problem. It would have been expected that a defects inspection would have been carried out; however, the Service has not been provided with a copy of this. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord reviews its policies and procedures on dealing with repairs to new build properties. This is because earlier consideration of possible building defects could minimise delays in completing outstanding repairs in future.
The repeated unsuccessful attempts to find a permanent fix to the problem points to the lack of a structured, logical approach such as, for example, ruling out possible causes, looking at the property history, and making timely follow up visits. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord develop an action plan. This should then be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
The evidence shows that the repeated unsuccessful attempts to diagnose and resolve the source of water ingress points to operatives being sent with a lack of appropriate expertise. It is important that the operatives that landlords commission should have the necessary knowledge and expertise to be able to identify the root cause of a leak and then arrange a repair as quickly and effectively as possible. The evidence shows that, although the resident had already commissioned a plumber to assess the damp in December 2021, the contractor had sent another plumber to inspect the property on 26 September 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to want to arrange for its own plumber to assess the situation. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have arranged this promptly after the resident had instructed his own plumber. It would also have been reasonable for it to have communicated this to the resident, along with its reasons for wanting another plumber to inspect the flat. This suggests poor communication and planning on the landlord’s part, and this would have contributed to the protracted delays in resolving the leak.
In addition, the records show that a carpenter had attended the property on 6 October 2022 to assess the resident’s balcony. The landlord told the resident that, the carpenter was “not a qualified groundsman” and that he could not “advise on the best way to resolve the issue”. This is a further example that delays were being exacerbated by repeated attendances by operatives who lacked the necessary expertise. Not only did this cause avoidable disruption to the resident but also lengthened the process of diagnosis and repair while the resident’s flat was suffering further water damage. Although the evidence shows the contractor had allocated a qualified groundworker for 21 October 2022, it is unclear why this had not been arranged earlier. This may have avoided unnecessary visits by unsuitably qualitied operatives.
It is noted that, prior the plumber’s visit on 26 September 2022, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It told him that its contractor would be attending “to do all they can” to complete the outstanding repairs on his balcony. Not only was this misleading but again indicates poor communication with its contractor and lack of clarification as to the nature of the attendance. This would have caused frustration to the resident and a lack of confidence that the landlord was taking effective action to resolve the outstanding repair.
The report following the plumber’s visit of 21 December 2021 recommended that the flat above should be checked to see why water was “coming down the wall”. Despite the fact the landlord received this report on 22 December 2021, it was not until 6 October 2022 that the landlord inspected the neighbouring property. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, that it took around 7 months for the landlord to make arrangements to access the neighbour’s property was a failing, and would have significantly contributed to delays in identifying the source of the water ingress.
The resident had continually made the landlord aware of the extent of the problems he was experiencing with damp and mould. For example, on 9 September 2022 he told it that, with the storms of the previous days, a “good three metres squared of the flat” was flooded. Despite numerous inspections of the property (the resident mentioned 6), it made no attempts to address the immediate problem. There is no evidence of any risk assessments to determine the possible impact the damp was having on both the resident and the property, despite the fact the resident made the landlord aware of the impact the mould was having on him. The landlord could have provided some advice and support on how he could help mitigate the effects of the damp while waiting for the outstanding repair to be completed.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a damp inspection of the property on 18 January 2023. This showed “elevated moisture levels” to the internal living room floor and walls toward the open balcony area. It is also recorded that, following the inspection, the landlord raised an order on 26 January 2023 for a mould wash of the walls and “aqua vac” of the carpets. However, this was over a year after the resident’s repeated reports of worsening damp and mould. In addition, there is no indication the landlord considered offering to provide dehumidifiers or other means to assist in drying out the flat. The landlord’s lack of urgency and failure to take any steps to support the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint would have contributed the his loss of confidence in its handling of the issue.
This Service’s guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, recommends that landlords give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take and should keep residents regularly updated and informed. The records show a lack of coordination between the landlord and its contractors. Although the evidence shows that the landlord and contractor may have faced some challenges arranging appointments with the resident, it is also evident there were occasions when contractors had failed to give the resident prior notice of appointments . It is also clear that the contractor had provided misleading information, which led the resident to make efforts to arrange access for unnecessary attendances. In addition, the records show the resident had offered to provide the landlord with a key so contractors could access his property.
There are several examples where the resident had to chase the landlord for updates following long periods where it failed to communicate. On 9 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that it had been a month since he sent his last email and he had “heard nothing since”. The resident was left to contact the landlord himself for up to date information, which suggests he made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repairs. This should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a customer focussed approach or provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether the works would progress.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 May 2022 to apologise that he had “still” not had any contact from its contractors. The records show that it took around 3 months for contractors to attend the property following the leak detection survey. That the landlord was unaware there was significant delay before its contractor took any appropriate action was a failure. This Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, its records demonstrate a lack of effective collaboration, proactive monitoring and communication in dealing with the issues, and would have contributed significantly to the excessive delays in completing the repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the repairs policy of completing complex repairs within 90 days. In addition, there are no records to show that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
The evidence shows there were several attempts to diagnose the repair and, each time, the resident was left with a damp property that was experiencing ongoing damage. It should also be noted that, despite the assurances the landlord gave to the resident that it would resolve the issue, and numerous visits the long periods of inaction meant the resident was left to suffer from the consequences of ongoing leaks and penetrating damp for an unreasonable period of time.
The records show that it was only when the landlord’s technical services team became involved that reasonable progress was made in order to identify and complete the outstanding repair. Once this team became involved, the evidence shows the issue was promptly diagnosed and the landlord took steps to make an NHBC claim. This was nearly a year after the resident provided the landlord with his plumber’s report. It is unclear why it took so long for the landlord to involve its technical services team. Had it become involved sooner, this could have helped to minimise the delays and prevent the property from sustaining further water damage. The landlord should consider earlier involvement of its technical service should any similar issues arise in future.
The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out internal repairs to the resident’s property after it had repaired the leak. Although there was a delay replacing the resident’s carpet, it is noted that the landlord completed most of the redecoration in a timely manner. It was also appropriate that it had decanted the resident into temporary hotel accommodation while it completed the works, and met the cost of the accommodation and associated expenses, as it was obliged to do in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord took steps to put things right. It offered compensation of £1,886 at stage 2 and then a further £4,014 for continued delays and distress, once the works were completed, making a total of £5,900. It is noted that this offer included a payment of £2,587 for reimbursement of damaged items.
The compensation of £3,313 it offered for delays, distress, and time and trouble was in line with its compensation policy. However, the landlord’s offer of redress fell short of recognising the full impact of the delays, and the fact the resident was unable to enjoy full use of his property for over a year and a half. Due to the cumulative impact of the landlord’s failings, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order the landlord to pay additional redress. This is in recognition of delays, distress and time and trouble resulting in the resident not being able to properly use his living room for a period the landlord has acknowledged to be 21 months.
According to the resident’s lease, he has paid approximately £1000 per month in rental payments during the period that the leak was ongoing and repairs were outstanding. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the resident was unable to enjoy use of his living room from December 2021 to August 2023, which is 21 months.
The loss of amenity (loss of use of the living room) has been calculated as 30% of the property. In recognition of the fact that the resident is a 25% shared owner, we have calculated the loss of amenity to be 22.5% when calculating the rent paid in relation to this area. The total amount of compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £4,725 and has been calculated as 22.5% of the rent payable between December 2021 and August 2023 (£225 x 21). While it is noted that this is not a precise calculation, it is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount, taking all of the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

The landlord was correct to offer compensation at stage 2, which took account of the period from December 2021 to the date it issued its response. However, it is noted it did not offer any redress at stage 1. Considering the delays the resident had experienced, the distress and inconvenience caused and the fact the resident was unable to enjoy a part of his property for around a year, an earlier offer of compensation would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
In addition, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated it would use its discussions about errors it made in the case as a learning opportunity. However, it did not provide any details of the learning, or any indication of actions it proposed to take as a result. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided more specific information about how it had learnt from the case so it could have properly demonstrated the learning.
It was also inappropriate that, in its response, the landlord attributed the delays largely to the resident’s lack of availability. It is acknowledged his work commitments meant there would have been some challenges arranging suitable opportunities to access the property. However, given the contractor failed to give prior notice of appointments, the unnecessary and inappropriate visits by operatives and poor communication by both the contractor and landlord, the landlord’s failure to properly acknowledge its contribution to the protracted delays in its response was a failing.
It was appropriate that the landlord provided a timely stage 2 response and that it did not wait until the repair was completed before issuing it. It was correct that it kept its offer of compensation under review to take account of further delays in completing the outstanding repairs, and that it informed the resident that it was doing this. It was correct that the landlord provided a full explanation of its compensation offer and broke it down in order to demonstrate how it complied with its compensation policy. It was also appropriate that the landlord recognised the increase in the resident’s distress, time and trouble as the delays continued, and awarded additional redress following completion of the works. It is noted that the landlord also agreed to meet the cost of the resident’s damaged items, and to offer the amount of £2,587 that the resident had requested. It was appropriate that it exercised its discretion in this regard.
However, it was inappropriate in its final offer on 10 November 2023, for the landlord to ask the resident to consider withdrawing his complaint to the Ombudsman. Regardless of the outcome of a resident’s complaint to their landlord, they have the right to approach the Service. The landlord could reasonably have asked instead if the increased offer went far enough to put resolve the issue for the resident and would have been a better way to establish if resident regarded the matter as resolved.
However, that the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact of its failings in its stage 1 response, or offer any redress at an earlier stage was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The time the landlord took to diagnose the cause of and repair the source of the water ingress was excessively protracted. This was due to delays in progressing investigations, unnecessary inspections, lack of communication and poor joint working with contractors. Although the landlord took steps to put things right it failed to recognise the full cumulative impact of its poor service.
The landlord responded to both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in a timely manner, and within timescales as set by its policy. However, in its stage 1 response, it failed to properly acknowledge how it had contributed to the delays or to offer any redress. In addition, although it reviewed its offer of compensation in line with its policy, it asked the resident if he would consider withdrawing his complaint to the Ombudsman. It could have asked instead if the increased offer went far enough to put things right, which would have been more appropriate.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination the landlord:
1. To pay the resident a revised compensation amount of £7,412. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £5,900 and is calculated as follows:
  1. £4,725 in recognition that the resident had lost full use of the property due to delays in responding to reports of water ingress, damp and mould;
  2. £2,587 the landlord had offered in reimbursement for damaged items;
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
2. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for its failures.
This investigation has identified a number of issues relating to the liaison between the landlord and its own contractor. The landlord may have since addressed these matters with the contractor through its contract management processes. If so, the landlord is asked to provide confirmation to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, that the issues have been addressed and robust contract monitoring arrangements are in place with this contractor. If the landlord is yet to raise these issues with this contractor, it should now do so and provide confirmation to the Ombudsman of the actions taken within 8 weeks, as above.
The landlord should carry out a review of the learning from this case and what improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of contract management and complaint handling, and how the landlord deals with complex repairs that it is responsible for in shared ownership properties. The landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the review, and share this with the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its policies and procedures on dealing with repairs to new build properties. Particular attention to be paid to encouraging early identification of possible building defects, thus minimising delays in completing outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman to report back on the outcome of its review within 12 weeks of receiving this determination.