Sovereign Network Homes (202303563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303563

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

17 May 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:
1. Reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs;
2. Complaint.
This report will also assess the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

At the time the resident raised her complaint, she lived with her family as an assured tenant in a 3 bedroom bungalow. The resident moved into the property in May 2017. She reported that she suffered from “severe mental health issues” and that her children also had various health issues.
On 24 January 2019, the resident reported that rain water was flooding into her home. The bedroom was already flooded and water was coming in through the back door. The landlord raised this as an emergency and, according to its repair log, it delivered sand bags to stop the water from entering the property.
The resident reported on 13 December 2019 that her back door had a large gap along the bottom and was letting in a lot of water when it rained. It is unclear from the records what action the landlord took in response.
On 20 January 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She stated that:
1. Several operatives had attended her property and told her that her back and front doors were leaking and needed to be replaced.
2. Whenever it rained, her bedroom and hallway would become flooded. The landlord had told her it would replace her carpets.
3. An operative who inspected her living room wall advised her that it was unsafe, “could come down at any time” and should be raised as an emergency.
4. She had rented a garage from the landlord and made “loads of complaints” regarding leaks that had caused “hundreds of pounds worth” of damage.
5. Despite the abovementioned reports, the landlord had failed to take any action in response.
6. She could not keep her house warm due to the outstanding repairs.
7. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for the damage to the belongings she had stored in her garage.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it was sorry to hear about the condition of her property and garage. It stated that it had tried calling her but there was no answer or voicemail facility. It confirmed it had logged her complaint and provided her with a case reference number. It is not clear from the records if the landlord took any further action.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord replaced the resident’s back door and door frame.
The landlord has not provided a date; however, prior to 12 January 2022, the resident sent it an email, which stated that:
1. She was “sick to death” of chasing the landlord about the issues in her property and did not want to live with damp and mould anymore.
2. Her children were “constantly ill” and her doctor had told her it was “to do with the damp and mould” in her home.
3. She had made reports of cracks around her front door, and the landlord told her to replace it herself.
4. She had also reported that her garden flooded when it rained and that water entered the property but the landlord had done nothing about it.
5. Her overflow pipe had been leaking for over 9 months but the landlord had told her it was “not a priority”.
6. Following a survey, she was told that her brickwork needed to be repaired but the landlord had not taken any further action since then.
7. She had reported the landlord to the local newspaper and would also be contacting the Ombudsman.
Following her email, the resident called the landlord on 12 January 2022. She said she wanted to raise a complaint about the damp and mould in her property and stated that:
1. The matter had been going on for 5 years. Several operatives and contractors had attended at different times for different reasons but the damp and mould was getting worse.
2. All the bedrooms suffered from mould and the beds had to be pulled away from the walls so her children could sleep.
3. Although the bathroom had been replaced, there were constant leaks.
4. After the area had flooded several years earlier, her door did not fit properly in the frame.
5. She had to replace her carpets, wallpaper and belongings due to damage from mould.
The records show that the landlord visited the property at the end of January 2022. The exact date of the visit is unclear. On 1 February 2022, it called the resident and left a voicemail with details of the repairs it had raised. The landlord has not provided details of those repairs or a schedule of works.
On 7 February 2022, the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a letter of claim for disrepair. It requested that the landlord did not correspond directly with the resident. Furthermore, it provided a list of the alleged defects she had reported.
Following receipt of the pre-action protocol letter, the landlord wrote to the resident. The date that the correspondence was sent is unclear. However, the landlord stated that:
1. It was writing regarding her “open complaint” relating to various issues within her property.
2. It was sorry the resident “needed to raise a complaint” about these issues and that they had not yet been resolved.
3. As she had logged a disrepair claim, the issues would be handled as part of the legal disrepair claim, which fell outside its complaints process.
4. It confirmed that it would close her complaint so she could progress her concerns via the “legal disrepair process”.
On 20 March 2022, the landlord carried out a disrepair survey as part of the pre-action protocol. The report did not find any issues with damp and mould in the property. However, in the bathroom, it noted that condensation was an issue and that the room would “benefit from a mechanical extractor fan”. The surveyor recommended some other minor works. This included patch plastering of a crack in the living room ceiling, renewing skirting board in the children’s bedroom and applying sealant to the front and rear entrance doors.
On 16 June 2022, the resident’s solicitor carried out an inspection and provided an “expert witness report” to the landlord. The report stated that, while several repairs were required, it could not identify some of the issues the resident had raised. It noted that a leak in the hallway had been “successfully repaired” and the area was ready to be redecorated. It added that there was “a significant issue of black mould to the bathroom ceiling caused by excessive airborne moisture in the room”, which was not being adequately removed by the existing extractor fan. It recommended replacement of the fan and window in the bathroom and “a small repair” to the ceiling of the corridor cupboard.
On 22 October 2022, the resident sent the landlord a further complaint. Although the landlord has not provided a copy, it summarised the concerns the resident had raised in its stage 2 response. There were as follows:
1. Kitchen: The exterior wall had cracking, poor mortar joints and broken bricks leading to water ingress;
2. Utility Room: There was damage to the ceiling from a leaking water tank;
3. Entrance Hall: Water penetration from a leaking valve causing damp, damage to wallpaper and damage to plaster;
4. Living room:
  1. water damage to the lower walls;
  2. cracking to the ceiling;
  3. movement to the inside wall when opening and closing the rear door.
5. Children’s bedroom:
  1. damp and mould on the skirting boards;
  2. blown windows;
  3. water ingress from the exterior wall and exterior door.
6. Master bedroom:
  1. damp and mould to the ceiling;
  2. eroded mortar to the roof tiles;
  3. water ingress due to damaged outside wall;
  4. blown window and mouldy frame;
  5. recent redecoration of the bedroom.
7. Bathroom:
  1. ceiling was damp with water ingress;
  2. cracked and loose mortar joints to the external walls.
8. External: defective mortar joints throughout, including the roof.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 11 November 2022, which stated that:
1. Its survey found that the mortar of the exterior wall was in good condition, with no cracks or leaks. From the photographs, the external wall of the kitchen was in “good condition”, with no defect that would constitute “disrepair”. However, it found some areas of spalling to the brickwork. It apologised for the delays in completing repair works for this and upheld this element of the complaint.
2. The utility room ceiling was damaged but the surveyor found no evidence of a leak. A repair was raised on 4 August 2022 and the landlord confirmed the work had been completed.
3. On initial inspection, there was no evidence of a defect in the entrance hall and the resident was unaware this had been raised by her solicitor. It had not taken any further action in relation to this as a result.
4. It had agreed at the time of its inspection that the rear door, window and frame in the living room moved when opening and shutting and it had booked a date to address this.
5. Its inspection found no defects to the bedroom skirting boards or windows; however, it had arranged for a carpenter to assess the skirting boards as a “goodwill gesture”.
6. The resident had not complained about the recent redecoration of her bedroom.
7. It did not find any penetrating damp in the bathroom. However, it found damp relating to condensation and was consulting with its electrical team to install a mechanical extractor fan.
8. It was sorry to hear that its contractor who was carrying out external repairs to the resident’s property had made inappropriate comments to her. It said it would raise the issue at its regular contractor review meeting.
9. It apologised for the delay in completing the works it had identified. It had made every effort to accommodate the resident when arranging repairs. However, this was not always possible and sometimes delays to routine repairs were unavoidable.
10. Although the complaint was complex, it hoped it had addressed the issues the resident had raised. It believed she had accepted £500 compensation as “full and final settlement” of the complaint and noted there were still some outstanding repairs.

Events following completion of the complaints process

On 7 December 2022, the landlord carried out a post inspection to check that the recommended works had been completed. The landlord has not provided us with an inspection report. However, internal correspondence confirmed it had repaired external brickwork, and carried out some repairs to internal walls and ceilings. It also gave the resident £500 towards the cost of redecorating her hallway. However, some works remained outstanding.
On 14 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say one of her walls was “soaked”, as were the electrical sockets. Water was coming up from the floor and soaking the carpet, and there was damp and mould everywhere in the living room. She stated that her partner had been to his GP and had a respiratory infection due to the damp.
The landlord inspected the property on the same day and noted there were “wet patches in many areas”, which were bringing the skirting away from the wall. In addition, there was no guttering to the front, back or side of the roof. The landlord decanted the family into temporary hotel accommodation on the same day
On 16 January 2023, the resident and her family moved from the hotel into a relative’s home.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 January 2023. The landlord followed the conversation up in writing on 19 January 2023. It stated that:
1. The resident felt the internal walls were structurally unsound and had allowed water to pour into the property. It had already carried out a survey and was awaiting the schedule of works.
2. It was aware some works remained outstanding and would deal with these as part of the overall works it had identified.
3. It had notified its insurance team of the damage to her belongings as a direct result of the defects in her property and asked for a loss adjuster to carry out an assessment.
4. The resident was initially moved into a hotel by way of a temporary decant. As this was unsuitable, the resident had temporarily moved in with a relative. It was looking for an alternative and hoped to find accommodation by 20 January 2023.
5. It had approved the compensation payment of £500 and hoped to make payment that day.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 February 2023 to inform her it would carry out a structural survey of the property on 13 February 2023. It stated that it had been “diligently searching for an alternative decant” but, as the resident had requested a 3 bedroom property, this was subject to availability. It was pleased it had acted promptly in offering her alternative accommodation but that she had subsequently moved into her relative’s home. It added that it would make a payment of £40 per night directly to her
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2023 to say that no repairs had taken place. She stated that 2 cards had been left by operatives saying they tried to attend but she had not been made aware of those appointments. She added that she would not be moving back into the property and therefore, once she had collected all her belongings, the landlord could do what it liked with it. The landlord responded on 22 March 2023 to say that, as far as it was aware, it had made no decision regarding what works would be done or when they would take place.
On 4 June 2023, after the resident’s relative moved to another property, the resident’s decant to her relative’s former property was made permanent.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 June 2023 to say that the landlord had never carried out the repairs to her former property and that the water damage was “horrendous”.

Assessment and findings

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair and maintain in proper working order the structure and exterior of the property, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, electrical wiring, gas and water pipes, and heating equipment. The law 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. Section 9a of the Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘”fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same Act, ventilation.
Section 11 of the Act 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.
The landlord’s decant policy stated that the landlord will make a one-off payment to residents who are permanently decanted, to allow them to arrange and pay for removals and replacements. The Disturbance Allowance payment is based on the size of the property. For 3 bedroom properties, the payment is £2,500.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to provide appointments for all responsive repairs and given residents details of the appointment and the contractor who will attend. If it is unable to fully complete a repair on the first visit a temporary repair may be completed. Follow on repair works may be placed onto a programme for completion within 6 months of the date of the original repair visit. It also states that it will attend an emergency repair the same day, where feasible but always within 24 hours regardless of the day of the week or time of day.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2 stage process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged and logged with 5 working days of receipt. It aims to agree a solution with the resident within 10 working days. If this is not possible, it may need a further 10 working days and will let the resident know why. At stage 2, a senior manager will review how the complaint was handled and the decisions made. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. As with stage 1, it will let the resident know why it may need to extend this by a further 10 working days.

Scope of Investigation

The resident has raised concerns that her children’s health had been detrimentally affected by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health. 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. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from December 2019 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made for the purpose of providing context.
The resident has also raised concerns about the way the landlord handled her decant. As this did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this report. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have experienced distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while living with a property with a history of damp and water ingress. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a house with multiple outstanding repairs. This would have been particularly challenging for the resident while looking after children with health problems.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. It was published after the events the resident had complained about. However, given the issues persisted and the report encompasses the good practice the landlord should follow, it has been referred to here. The report states that landlords 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 condensation, 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 spotlight report also recommends that landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage, and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and for effective resolution of the issue. Landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out an inspection of the property following her initial stage 1 complaint, or her subsequent complaint a year later. It is noted that there are no records to show the resident had chased or prompted the landlord to a response during this time. However, as the landlord has provided very limited records of its correspondence with the resident, it is unclear whether or not the resident had chased the landlord, or whether the landlord had made any contact with her about her complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord had been made aware of the resident’s concerns and the evidence does not demonstrate that it took appropriate action in response to her initial reports. It was only after receiving the disrepair claim letter from the resident’s solicitor, over a year later, that the records indicate the landlord undertook a survey and subsequent action to address the outstanding repairs.
It is noted that both surveys carried out as part of the pre-action protocol did not identify significant issues with damp and mould apart from in the bathroom, which was as a result of poor ventilation. However, due to its poor record keeping, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it took any action in response to the resident’s complaint, or that it communicated with the resident regularly and in a timely manner.
Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord had considered undertaking a risk assessment. Given the history of water ingress and damp in the property, and vulnerabilities within the household, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have assessed the risk to both the family and property. That the landlord failed to carry out any kind of risk assessment meant it was unable to establish the full extent of the work that was required, at an earlier stage.
The landlord decanted the family on 14 January 2023, 2 years after she made her initial complaint on 20 January 2021, and a year after she complained again on 12 January 2022 about damp and mould in her property. There is internal correspondence from 27 January 2023 that states, “the general impression is that we are dealing with building fabric degradation and a lack of repairs over the years”. Furthermore, following a full structural survey that took place around April 2023, internal correspondence from 12 April 2023 states that the property had been deemed “uninhabitable”. Although the surveys completed as part of the claim did not find any significant issues to most of the property, she and her family were subject to avoidable distress for over a year when an earlier survey may have identified any necessary works at an earlier stage.
It is suggested from the landlord’s stage 2 response and internal communications that the landlord had completed some repairs. For example, internal correspondence following a post inspection on 7 December 2022 states that the landlord had repaired the external kitchen wall. It had also repaired a ceiling that was damaged due to leaking water tank. However, it is not disputed that, a number of works remained outstanding on completion of the complaints process, and others were delayed. For example, the repair logs show that the resident had, on numerous occasions, reported a large gap under her back door that was letting in water. Despite first reporting this in January 2019, and repeated reports about the same issue, the landlord’s repair log indicates that the repair was not completed until April 2021, nearly 2 years later. Given the door let water into the property when it rained, the delay in completing the repair was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part. The evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable. The excessively protracted delay in completing what was raised as a responsive repair was a failure.
Similarly, the landlord’s survey of 20 March 2022, following the disrepair claim, recommended replacement of the extractor fan in the bathroom in order to improve ventilation. The subsequent survey of 18 June 2022 also included this in its schedule of works. However, the landlord had still not replaced at the point the resident was decanted on 14 January 2023, around 9 months after the initial survey.
The landlord’s repair log shows a number of attempts by the landlord to complete some repairs, including the front door and replacement of the extractor fan. The records show there were instances where the landlord was unable to gain access to the property. The Ombudsman accepts that there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to completing an outstanding repair because of issues with gaining access to the property is beyond the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner.
However, the landlord has provided very few contemporaneous records to evidence that it had given the resident prior notice of appointments. Its poor record keeping means it has not been able to demonstrate efforts it had made to contact the resident or keep her updated. The resident reported that the landlord had not made her aware of some of the appointments, which would explain why the resident may not have been at home when operatives arrived. Furthermore, she had also reported missed visits. For example, on 1 February 2022, the resident called the landlord to say she had “waited in all day” but that the contractor had not turned up. It is evident that delays in completing repairs could not be wholly attributed to the landlord’s difficulty in gaining access to the property.
Following reports by the resident of damage to belongings in her garage due to water ingress, the evidence shows the landlord carried out an inspection. It is not clear from the records when this took place. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the inspection report. However, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of water damage by passing her case onto its insurer.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld some elements of the resident’s complaint and apologised for delays in completing repairs. It also offered £500 compensation, although it did not explain what the compensation covered and no breakdown of how the figure was calculated was provided. Its response stated that it was offering the compensation “to resolve this matter”. Although the landlord made some attempt to address its failings, it did not go far enough to recognise the extent of delays to completing outstanding repairs, and the delay in responding to initial complaints about damp and mould, and the condition of her property The landlord’s cumulative failings amount to maladministration, and it will be ordered to make further redress to put things right.

Complaint

Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 20 January 2021, and attempted to call her on the same day, there is no evidence it took any further action. It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond to the complaint, or make any successive attempts to contact the resident following its acknowledgement.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord properly acknowledged the subsequent complaint the resident had made a year later, on 12 January 2022. There is internal correspondence from 24 January 2022 that indicates the landlord was aware the resident had made the previous complaint about similar issues. Furthermore, the record states that this was “an old complaint”, and that the resident had opened “a new one for the same thing”. It is unclear at this point why the landlord had failed to acknowledge that it had not responded to the previous complaint, particularly given the resident had made it 12 months earlier.
This would suggest either a breakdown in the landlord’s system for tracking complaints or that it had inadequate complaint handling systems in place. Due to the limited records the landlord has provided, it is unclear whether or not the resident had chased her initial complaint at any time. However, the landlord cannot demonstrate it made any effort to investigate either of the complaints, or respond until after it had received the resident’s disrepair claim letter in March 2022.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords should continue to use the complaints procedure when the pre-action protocol has commenced, and until legal proceedings have been issued. This will maximise the opportunities to resolve disputes outside of court. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints states that, even when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from either the complaints process or the repair issue itself. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’.
Following receipt of the pre-action protocol letter, the landlord informed the resident it was closing her complaint and that the issues would be handled through the legal disrepair process. It is noted that there is no evidence it had acknowledged or apologised for its failure to respond to her complaints, or to provide any explanation of why it had not investigated them. This was a failure and would have added to the resident’s distress and frustration
Although the resident’s solicitor had instructed the landlord not to contact the resident directly, it could reasonably have sent a stage one response to the solicitor. It could have also discussed with the solicitor whether continuing to try and resolve the issue though the complaints process would be an agreeable way forward for both parties. This would have helped assure the resident the it was making efforts to resolve the outstanding repairs without the need for the resident to proceed with legal action.
Although the landlord did not provide the Service with a copy, the records show that the resident sent the landlord a further complaint on 22 October 2022. The landlord has not provided any records to evidence that it had acknowledged it, or that it had explained to the resident it had re-opened her complaint and would handle it under stage 2 of its process. There is internal correspondence that states, “this was initially a disrepair case, but the tenant’s solicitors have not been very helpful and we have managed to pull this one back into the complaints process”. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous telephone records to show that it had discussed the stage 2 complaint with the resident prior to issuing it.
There is internal correspondence indicating that the landlord had closed the disrepair claim on 19 December 2022, over a month after it issued its stage 2 response. It is unclear why the landlord had decided to provide a stage 2 response while the disrepair claim was still live while not dealing with the stage 1 complaint. This demonstrates inconsistency in the landlord’s approach to handling complaints while issues are subject to disrepair claims. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation for the landlord to review its complaint handling following disrepair claims in order to ensure it follows a consistent approach, taking note of the Ombudsman’s guidance.
That the landlord significantly departed from its complaints policy, failed to provide any kind of response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and failed to follow a consistent approach in its complaint handling. amounts to maladministration.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre– and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion date”’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
Apart from the disrepair survey reports, the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports. Furthermore, its repairs logs are confusing and do not always make clear whether certain repairs had been completed, and on which days. As a result, they do not appear accurate or reliable. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident between her stage 1 complaint and her disrepair claim were also very limited. In addition, the landlord provided no records of correspondence between the landlord and resident’s solicitor during the period of the disrepair claim. The evidence of poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s piecemeal repairs management and its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify and complete all the repairs that were required. It would have also contributed to the excessively protracted delays in carrying out inspections and completing some repairs. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case.

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 and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to undertake an inspection or take timely and appropriate action following complaints by the resident about the condition of her property. Furthermore, the time it took to complete some repairs was excessive and unreasonable.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It failed to acknowledge that it had not responded and later provided a stage 2 response. There is no evidence it had explained to the resident that it had re-opened her complaint or why it had re-opened it despite the fact the disrepair claim was still live.
The landlord did not provide copies of any inspection reports apart from those relating to the disrepair claim. There was also very limited contemporaneous records of correspondence with the resident or its contractors prior to the claim. The landlord’s failure demonstrate it communicated effectively with the resident and its contractors would have contributed to the excessive delays in completing repairs and addressing the residents complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a senior manager.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,600, calculated as follows:
  1. £500 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to repeated reports by the resident about the condition of her property, and the resulting distress and inconvenience;
  2. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the resident’s back door;
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to replace the resident’s extractor fan, as recommended by the its surveyor;
  4. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling;

This in addition to the £500 compensation the landlord paid the resident following completion of the complaints process.

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident the disturbance allowance payment of £2,500 in accordance with its decant policy.
The Service understands the landlord has advised the resident on how she can claim on its own insurance for loss and damage to her personal possessions due to its inaction in addressing the outstanding repairs. If this is not covered by its insurance, the landlord to consider paying an additional sum in recognition of any such losses, subject to the resident providing the appropriate evidence. Provide proof to the Ombudsman that this has been done within the abovementioned timescale.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within the timescales set out above.

In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to conduct a senior management review of the case. It should provide a report to its senior executives and to this Service. The review should consider:
1. Its complaint training to staff, with emphasis on ensuring all complaints are followed up correctly and properly tracked. This should include the importance of following the landlord’s complaints process, providing timely responses and communicating appropriately with residents whenever there are likely to be delays.
2. Its system for tracking complaints. This should include ensuring complaints are properly monitored to avoid the risk of failure in providing responses.
3. How it records specialist inspections, including surveyor reports.
4. The storage, retention and supply of information related to complaint responses.
5. Self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations, unless it can demonstrate it has done so within the last 12 months.

Recommendations

The landlord to review how it handles complaints after receiving disrepair pre-action protocol letters to ensure it takes a consistent approach, taking note of the Ombudsman’s recommendations.