Sovereign Network Homes (202225299)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225299

Sovereign Network Homes

30 August 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reported repairs which included:
  1. the roof.
  2. the guttering and downpipe.
  3. windows throughout the property.
  4. the bathroom flooring.
  5. the living room floorboards.
  6. the front door.
2. damp and mould in the bedrooms and bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in her 3 bedroom house since June 2018. She lives with her partner, 3 children and pets.
In 2020 the resident reported that her roof was leaking. The landlord attended and carried out temporary remedial works. In April 2021 the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out permanent repairs to the roof, but it was unable to complete the works due to birds nesting at that time. The landlord’s repair logs show that no further reports about the roof were made in 2021.
On 25 November 2022 the resident reported the following:
1. damp and mould in all the upstairs rooms, including the bathroom.
2. outstanding roof repairs that had been reported in 2020.
3. guttering and downpipe issues, which had caused water ingress and damp.
The landlord attended on 2 December 2022 and found that:
1. the roof needed repairs.
2. there was damp and mould in the bathroom and the bedrooms.
3. the resident’s bathroom window was rotten and had water ingress.
4. the front door was in “bad” condition.
5. gutters were blocked and the downpipe had come away from the roof which caused the water ingress.
On 10 January 2023 the resident reported that there was a gap underneath her living room floorboards.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a property inspection and noted:
1. the property windows were in poor condition.
2. the resident’s living room floor was “very spongy and dangerous”.
3. there was “mould everywhere”.
4. the front door needed “quite a bit of attention”.
On 23 January 2023 the resident made a complaint. She said that there were many unresolved repairs which included:
1. the roof.
2. the guttering and downpipe.
3. windows throughout the property.
4. uneven bathroom flooring
5. living room floorboards.
6. the front door.
7. damp and mould in the bedrooms and bathroom.
She also said:
1. the property was not safe to live in. The landlord and its contractor had also told her this.
2. her daughter could not sleep in her bedroom because of the mould and damp.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it was unable to complete the roof works in April 2021 because of the nesting birds. It said that it did not “pick up” that the works were still needed and apologised for the service failure. It had found issues with the roof on its 2 December 2022 inspection and decided to replace the roof by April/May 2023.
2. it would clear the gutters and reinstall the downpipe on 15 February 2023.
3. the resident’s bathroom, including the windows and flooring would be replaced in April/May 2023.
4. it had arranged for the property windows to be overhauled. It had requested that its contractor report back on the condition of the windows.
5. a mould wash for the bathroom and bedrooms was booked for 7 February 2023.
6. it had asked its contractor to quote for the living room floor works. Once received, it would raise the necessary order.
On 15 March 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she was unhappy that repairs remained outstanding.
2. she was told that she needed to be decanted and she was concerned that it would not be possible due to the size of her family and pets. She had no friends and family that she could stay with.
3. she had to keep chasing the landlord for updates during stage 1 for it to progress the works. She said that the landlord would not contact her at the agreed times.
4. an officer had told her that the works that needed to be done was “above his pay grade” and that she needed to escalate her complaint to get “anything” done. She said that she should not have been told this.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The resident would be decanted on 29 May 2023 for 4 nights and the living room works would be undertaken during that period.
2. the property windows would be added to its 2023-2024 planned works programme for replacement.
3. the new bathroom would be completed once the roof and skylight were completed.
4. the roof replacement works had started.
On 15 January 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied. She said:
1. most repairs were completed but some were outstanding.
2. the roof work had been completed but she had noticed a gap in the roof. It then had rained and the damp and mould had returned.
3. she was decanted after her complaint, and the property was a 5 hour drive, as the other options were not suitable.
4. one of her bedrooms was not used for around 18 months due to damp and mould.
The resident subsequently referred her concerns to this Service for further consideration.

Legislation, policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint the landlord’s responsive repair policy stated:
1. it would “try” to complete all responsive repairs within 28 calendar days on a ‘right first time’ basis.
2. it would identify major works to individual homes, this included “building components” which had not reached the end of their “theoretical” life, but needed to be repaired/replaced, such as windows.
3. planned maintenance included works that were needed for “elements of a home” that had reached their lifecycle or where their current condition meant that they needed to be replaced. Such as roofing, bathrooms.
4. a responsive repair was usually minor work to “an existing feature, or element of the home to make sure it continues to work or function.”
5. in most cases it would arrange for an operative to attend to fix any problems that had been identified. However, in some circumstances, it said that it may be more appropriate for someone else to visit to identify the cause of the issue and fully specify and scope the remedial work that may be required. It included examples, such as structural issues. If it could carry out the repair during the pre-inspection, it would aim to do so. If an inspection was required, it would complete it and the subsequent repairs within its target of 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. If further time is needed to respond to the complaint, it will notify the resident accordingly.
Landlords are required to consider whether there are any risks present within its properties using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as a guide. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.
Both the Decent Home Standards and The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 state landlords must make sure that its homes are free from ‘serious’ hazards and must ensure that its resident’s homes are fit for habitation.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is an implied term of the tenancy agreement requiring the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has explained that the damp and mould in her property has affected her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. 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 as a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to consider seeking legal advice, or requesting the details of the landlord’s insurer, if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.
The resident also raised concerns that while the roof works were completed she had noticed a gap which had caused damp and mould to return. She also said that she was decanted to a property that was a 5 hour drive away. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that were raised during the course of the complaints process. If the resident remains unhappy with these matters, she should contact the landlord accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs

Roof repairs

The evidence available demonstrates that the resident first reported the roof leak in 2020. The landlord carried out a temporary fix and returned in April 2021 to carry out a permanent repair. However, at that time it was unable to do so because there were nesting birds. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to intentionally damage or destroy an active nest of a wild bird. Therefore the landlord’s decision to cancel the works at that time was reasonable.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that it monitored the situation and returned to carry out the work once the nesting season had come to an end. This was unreasonable. The resident had made the landlord aware of the leak and while it was unable to carry out the repair in April 2021, it should reasonably have ensured that it was proactively monitoring the situation so that the repairs could be completed without further delay. As the landlord was not monitoring the situation, it was necessary for the resident to make a further report in November 2022. The evidence does not suggest that any reports were made by the resident later in 2021, or early in 2022. As such, it does not appear that the situation had worsened and the temporary fix carried out in 2020 had satisfactorily resolved the leak in the interim. However, it is acknowledged that a permanent repair was outstanding during this period and would reasonably have been the cause of concern for the resident. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to act appropriately. The apology went some way to put matters right. However, as the landlord’s failure to monitor the situation ultimately delayed the progression of works and caused the resident inconvenience, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered compensation. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put things right. Therefore an order has been made in recognition of this.
When the resident reported that that the roof was leaking again on 25 November 2022, the landlord carried out inspections on 2 December 2022 and 12 January 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of the inspection reports. However, it is noted from the other evidence that is available that there were “issues” with the roof and that it needed “quite a bit of attention”. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that the roof would be replaced in April-May 2023. While this was reasonable, it is unclear whether the landlord had considered whether the property would benefit from any temporary repairs. It is acknowledged that temporary repairs were completed in 2020; however, as the resident had reported that the roof was leaking again and the planned roof replacement was due to take place 6 or 7 months later, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any temporary repairs could be attempted. That it did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the situation. Further, the landlord did not explain what the resident should do if the situation deteriorated in the interim. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
When the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated in March 2023 she expressed concern that the roof works remained outstanding. When the landlord provided the resident with an update around the same time, it reiterated that the roof would be replaced in the upcoming months.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that the roof works had started. As it had advised the resident that the roof would be replaced in April-May 2023, that the work had started at the time of its May 2023 stage 2 response was reasonable. It is, however, unclear when the works were completed from the evidence that has been provided to this Service.
As the replacement of the resident’s roof was not a responsive repair the landlord’s timescales as set out in its policy were not applicable. However, as detailed above, the landlord failed to monitor the situation between April 2021 and November 2022. As a result, it had to be prompted by the resident to carry out the permanent repair and this was the cause of inconvenience to her. The landlord subsequently agreed to include the roof replacement on its planned works programme, and this was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that it considered whether a further temporary repair was possible, despite the roof leaking again. As such, the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of roof repairs was inappropriate.

Guttering and downpipe repairs

On 25 November 2022 the resident reported issues with her guttering and downpipe, which had caused water ingress. The landlord attended on 2 December 2022 and raised an order for remedial works to be completed on 15 February 2023. While it is unclear, the landlord’s repair logs suggest that at the time of the complaint its routine and planned work timescales were both set for approximately 90 days for reported repairs to be resolved. It is also unclear how the landlord set those timescales as they are not included in its repair and maintenance policy.
The landlord’s records show that it had raised the guttering and downpipe works as a planned priority repair. It is noted that the work was related to the roof area. However, it is unclear why the works, which included clearing the gutter and reinstalling the downpipe needed a planned approach and could not be carried out as a responsive repair.
In this case, the resident had reported that the issues were causing water ingress and damp in her living room. It is therefore unclear why the landlord set a target date of 3 months for the works to be completed with no provision being made for interim works to mitigate the damage being caused.
The works were completed on 15 February 2023. While this was within the landlord’s planned works timescales, the works were completed approximately 87 days after being reported. As previously stated, given that the resident had raised concerns that the issue had caused water ingress and damp, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken steps to provide an earlier appointment to try to mitigate the damage being caused within the property. This action would have been in accordance with our March 2022 Damp and Mould spotlight report that stated landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. There is no evidence that it did so. That was unreasonable.

The property windows

On 2 December 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom window and noted that they were “rotten” and that there was water ingress. Its contractor later noted in early January 2023 that [all] of the property’s windows were in “poor” condition. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with information about its next steps to resolve the matter, including any interim measures. As we do not have a contemporaneous record of both of these visits, it is unclear whether the landlord did so.
In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that it would replace the windows in April/May 2023. It said that it would arrange for its contractor to “overhaul” all of the windows. This meant that it had asked its contractor to inspect and where needed repair the windows. Its records show that it raised the order on 1 February 2023. Given that the landlord had identified that the bathroom window was rotten in December 2022 and that all of the windows were in “poor” condition early January 2023, it is unclear why the order was not raised prior to February 2023. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed the inspection on 20 February 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of the inspection report. As such, the detail of what was found on inspection and whether any interim repairs were attempted is unclear.
When the resident escalated her complaint in March 2023 she said that the window repairs remained outstanding. In response, the landlord reiterated its stage 1 complaint response and said that the windows would be replaced in the upcoming months. While the target had not been missed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ascertain whether the situation had deteriorated and then take action as necessary. If the situation remained unchanged, then it was reasonable to simply remind the resident that it would be carrying out the works in the coming months.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it would replace the bathroom window before it replaced her bathroom. Its records show that it replaced her bathroom around June 2023. However, its records show that it did not raise an order to replace the window until October 2023. Furthermore, the landlord told us in early 2024 that the window was “being replaced”. At that time, it was approximately 7 months after it had completed the bathroom works. It is unclear why the replacement of the window was delayed. However, the landlord had provided the resident with an assurance as to when it would complete the work and it failed to adhere to this. It is also unclear whether the works have now been completed. Therefore an order has been made in relation to this matter.
It is also noted that within its May 2023 stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that it would replace the windows in its 2023-2024 planned works programme. Given that it told the resident that it would replace the windows by April/May 2023 in its stage 1 response, it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to acknowledge that it was unable to meet the original deadline. It is acknowledged that the scheduling of planned works is dependent on budgetary constraints. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it kept the resident updated. Its failure to do so meant that it did not manage the resident’s expectations reasonably on this matter. The landlord’s record show that the windows were replaced in December 2023. This was within the revised timescale that was set out within the stage 2 response.
Overall, the landlord failed to raise an order to overhaul the windows in a timely manner. As we do not have a contemporaneous record of the contractor’s inspection the outcome of the visit whether any repairs were carried out at that time is unknown. The landlord missed opportunities to ensure that it could mitigate any water ingress from the bathroom window while the resident waited for the windows to be replaced. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge that its original deadline for replacing the windows had been missed and the impact of this on the resident. Therefore the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of window repairs was overall inappropriate.

Uneven bathroom floor

The resident told the landlord that her bathroom floor was uneven during its 12 January 2023 visit. From the evidence that is available it is unclear what was discussed or agreed at the time. The landlord’s repair logs show that during the months that followed the January 2023 visit, the resident reported several bathroom repairs. When the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the bathroom flooring repairs, the landlord informed her that it would replace it as part of the wider bathroom replacement works. While the decision to replace the bathroom was reasonable, it is unclear whether the landlord had kept the resident updated. There is no evidence that it did so and this was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord should reasonably have provided the resident with a clear explanation about what action it was proposing to take in relation to the bathroom flooring, and when, soon after its visit. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord told the resident that it would replace the bathroom by April/May 2023. While it is unclear, the evidence available suggests that the bathroom works started around March 2023, but the resident and landlord agreed to put them on hold. This was reiterated in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response when the landlord said that the work would start once the roof works were completed. The landlord’s repair logs show that the bathroom works were completed around the beginning of July 2023.
While the evidence available demonstrates that the works were completed within a reasonable time. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report about the flooring was appropriate.

Living room floorboards

On 10 January 2023 the resident reported that there was a gap underneath her living room floorboards. The landlord and its contractor inspected them over the following days. The landlord’s contractor noted that the floor was “very spongey and dangerous”. However, it is unclear what the issue was deemed to be or what remedial work was identified. The evidence available suggests that the landlord’s contractor visited the resident to quote for the remedial works around 21 January 2023 which was reasonable.
When the resident complained that the living room works were outstanding in her initial complaint, the landlord explained in its response that it was waiting for the quote from its contractor. It said that once received, it would raise necessary works. Its response went some way to assure the resident that it was taking the matter seriously and was taking reasonable action to resolve the issue. It also said that a temporary decant may be necessary to carry out the works. It was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectations about what might be involved to repair the floor.
It is unclear when the landlord received the contractor’s quote. However its records show that it raised an order for it to carry out the work around 17 February 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 March 2023 to discuss decant options. The evidence available shows that the landlord contacted its property provider for a decant property around the same time. This was appropriate. However, it appears that the provider was unable to find a suitable property as the available options at that time did not allow pets, which the resident had.
The evidence suggests that alternative options were explored in March 2023, such as the resident staying with friends and or family and kennels for the pets. However these options were not suitable for the resident.
In April 2023 the landlord arranged a visit for the resident to further discuss decant options. This was reasonable and demonstrates that the landlord was keen to progress matters and complete the necessary repairs. It is noted that the resident had to rearrange the initial visit, so it went ahead in mid-April instead. The landlord and resident agreed that the resident would be decanted to a holiday park chalet as these allowed pets. It was agreed that the decant would happen within the resident’s children’s May school holidays. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was resident focussed by taking into account the resident’s family make up and its schedule.
The evidence shows that the works went ahead as planned in May 2023. It took the landlord approximately 4 months to complete the work. However, the evidence available demonstrates that it was taking reasonable steps in that time to find a suitable decant property for the family. It also agreed to carry out the work during the school holidays to mitigate the disruption of the resident’s daily life, while this added to the delay, this was also reasonable. Therefore the landlord’s handling of the resident’s living room floor repairs was reasonable and appropriate.

The front door

The landlord noted that the resident’s front door was in “very poor” condition during its 2 December 2022 visit and raised a further inspection to measure up for a new door. In January 2023 it raised an order for a new door to be fitted as planned works. The landlord’s decision to raise the front door replacement under its planned works timescale was reasonable and was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s repair logs show that the front door was replaced on 14 March 2023. This meant that it took the landlord approximately 69 days to replace the door. While the landlord’s policy does not stipulate a timeframe for the completion of planned works, this was reasonable in the circumstances and we have seen no evidence of any undue delay.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. reasonably keep the resident updated about the status of her repairs.
2. demonstrate that it considered carrying out interim repairs to mitigate any further detriment to the resident when it had decided to carry out planned works.
3. acknowledge where there had been delays and failings in the service that it had provided. Some of the failings identified by this investigation should reasonably have been identified during the course of the complaints process, and the landlord should have taken steps to try to put things right.
It has been highlighted on several occasions in this investigation that the landlord has failed to provide this Service with supporting evidence, such as inspection reports in order to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable and appropriate steps to progress and resolve the resident’s reported repairs. Landlords should reasonably ensure that they keep an accurate audit trail of any actions taken in response to a report of disrepair. In addition, landlords should also have adequate systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. In this case the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it did so. That is a failure.
Taking into consideration the findings of the investigation, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs and record keeping.

Damp and mould

On 25 November 2022 the resident reported that there was damp and mould in the bedrooms and her bathroom. It was considered that this was as a result of the repairs required to the roof, windows, downpipe and guttering. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order to inspect the damp and mould and to carry out a mould wash. The landlord visited the resident on 2 December 2022. The evidence that is available does not suggest that a mould wash was carried out at the same time. Given that the landlord had raised an order for one to be completed alongside the inspection, the reason why it did not is unclear. This was a missed opportunity to treat the mould in a timely manner. It is unclear what transpired over the following the visit or whether the landlord informed the resident of its next steps. However, the Ombudsman’s Damp and Mould Spotlight report 2021 states that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord did so, which was a failing.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident on 11 January 2023 when the resident reiterated that she had “huge” damp and mould problems the day before. It noted that there was mould “everywhere”. While the landlord visited the following day, there is no evidence that it took any further action to resolve the matter at that time and we do not have contemporaneous record of the outcome of the visit. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a formal risk assessment or considered the situation with reference to the HHSRS at this time. Given the circumstances, it was unreasonable that it did not. Doing so would have provided the landlord with an appropriate level of data to guide and manage its next steps to adequately resolve the matter. That it did not is a further failing.
It was not until 26 January 2023that the landlord raised an order to carry out a mould wash. This was approximately 2 months after it had been made aware of the issue, and it had first raised an order for one. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is inappropriate.
The landlord’s records show that the mould wash was completed on 7 February 2023. However, the evidence shows that in the meantime the resident remained concerned about the situation. It is noted that when issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023, the landlord confirmed its position regarding the repairs and that the majority of these were to be completed as planned works. As stated above, the decision regarding the repairs was overall reasonable given the scale of the works. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord’s attempts to treat the mould in the property in the interim were significantly delayed. As a result of the landlord’s failure to carry out mould washes in a timely manner, the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home was disrupted. Therefore we consider that a payment for loss of amenity would be appropriate in this case.
Based on the evidence that is available, we have concluded that it took the landlord approximately 13 weeks to undertake the initial mould wash. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1015 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 50% of the total rent during the period in question. In deciding on the level of loss of amenity, we have taken into account the landlord’s contractor’s comments that the mould in the property was “everywhere”. The evidence suggests that the majority of the rooms in the property were impacted by mould, and this would have significantly reduced the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
It is stressed that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it carried out a thorough damp and mould inspection.
2. kept the resident reasonably updated about its next steps to resolve the matter.
3. treat the mould within the property in a timely manner.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It is noted that the landlord implemented a damp and mould policy in August 2023. The policy is a welcomed resource which will support the landlord in resolving damp and mould matters in a timely and resident focused manner.

Complaint handling

When the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her repairs on 23 January 2023, she also said that the property was not safe and that her daughter could not sleep in her bedroom because of the damp and mould. While, in its response, the landlord explained its next steps to resolve those issues, it did not address these concerns. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlords should address the specific concerns raised in the complaint. In this case, the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns about the safety of her home and that her daughter was unable to sleep in her room because of the damp and mould, meant that her concerns went unanswered. Given that effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood, the landlord’s failure to address the above points was unreasonable and caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord told this Service that it provided the resident with a public liability claim form in February 2023. However we have not seen evidence of this, therefore an order has been made in relation to this matter.
In its response, the landlord listed the outstanding repairs and provided an update. At the end of each update it explained whether the resident’s complaint about that repair was upheld. For example when it provided the update for the guttering repair, it said that guttering would be repaired on 15 February 2023. It then said “This part of your complaint isn’t upheld because [we] haven’t failed in our service, due to us being made aware they were blocked on 02.12.22 and booking a follow on job within our repair timescales.”
However, it used the same ending for several of the repair updates that followed. For example, it said that it would carry out a mould wash on 7 February 2023 and then said “This part of your complaint isn’t upheld because [we] haven’t failed in our service, due to us being made aware they were blocked on 02.12.22 and booking a follow on job within our repair timescales.”
While it is acknowledged landlords may use tools such as templates and standardised paragraphs to provide a consistent and fair approach to it services, such as complaint handling, it is important that the information that is provided is accurate. In this case the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord exercised due care when compiling its complaint responses. For example, the landlord stated that it could not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of the damp and mould in her home because it became aware “that they were blocked”. This did not make sense and would have understandably been the cause of concern for the resident. Therefore it undermined its own complaint handling principles that said “building and maintaining our customers’ trust is at the heart of our approach and we’ll make sure customers feel we’re taking their issues seriously.” In addition the Code states that landlords must provide clear reasons for any decisions. Here the landlord failed to ensure that it was providing a clear response and explanation for each of its decisions.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 15 March 2023 the landlord updated her about the status of her repairs on 24 March 2023. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was proactively communicating with and updating the resident accordingly. It is noted that we have previously highlighted some concerns about the content of the update earlier on in this report.
However, it was not until 23 May 2023 that the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This meant that the landlord issued its response approximately 26 working days outside of its policy timescales of 20 working days.
It is noted that the landlord was in contact with the resident during some of this period while it arranged the decant for her and her family. However, this should not have delayed the complaint response. If the landlord considered that it was unable to meet the deadline it should reasonably have agreed an extension with her as outlined in its complaint policy and in the Code. That it did not was a further failing.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she raised some new concerns that had not been set out in her initial complaint. For example she was concerned that she would not be able to be decanted due to her family make up and that the landlord had not contacted her when it said it would. The Code states if residents raise additional complaints during the investigation and the stage 1 response has already been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. In this case it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged these concerns as part of a new complaint and then referenced its actions its stage 2 complaint response. This would have demonstrated that it had acknowledged her further concerns and that it was dealing with them in accordance with its policy. There is no evidence that it did so. That was unreasonable.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. address the resident’s specific concerns.
2. issue its stage 2 complaint response within its own timescales. The landlord also failed to agree a revised timescale for the response.
3. reasonably address and action the resident’s additional concerns when she escalated her complaint.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £1865 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
  2. £1015 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. carry out an inspection of the property. If any of the repairs which were subject to this complaint remain outstanding, it should ensure that these are completed in accordance with its policy timescales.
4. confirm with the resident that she received the public liability form. If not provide her with the claim form.
5. contact the resident to ascertain whether she would like it to raise a new complaint for the issues that were mentioned in her complaint escalation request.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. it records all contact with its residents, such as visits and calls are logged on its system, in relation to repairs.
2. its categorised responsive repair priority timescales are reasonable and are in line with any published timescales.
3. damp and mould inspections and treatments are raised in a timely manner.
4. complaint responses address all of the resident’s concerns and responses are made within its policy timescales or extensions are agreed in accordance with the Code.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order within 10 weeks of the date of this report.