Stonewater Limited (202115757)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115757

Stonewater Limited

18 December 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. a defective heater.
    2. a defective rear door and door frame.
    3.  defective windows throughout the property.
    4. damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-storey house with 2 bedrooms. He shares the house with his 4-year-old daughter who suffered breathing difficulties.
  2. The landlord provided the resident with temporary heaters on the 5 December 2021, while it completed a heating repair. Between 4 January 2021 and 11 January 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that the property was freezing and there was a problem with the temporary heaters it provided. He also complained that despite several repairs to his door, water continued to leak through it, window hinges were defective, and the gutters were blocked.
  3. The landlord acknowledged a complaint on 8 February 2021 about his request for a new back door and gutters.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 25 February 2021. It offered £295 in line with its policy for providing temporary heating between 5 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. It also offered £150 for its delay in completing the repair and a further £100 for its delay in raising a complaint. This complaint response did not address the issue raised about the door or the windows.
  5. On 9 March 2021 the resident accepted the compensation. However, he felt the landlord should have paid compensation since 11 September 2020, when the heater first failed until 3 December 2020, when it provided the temporary heaters. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the landlord’s work when installing the heater and it did not address the gutters at the back of his house. He complained that the landlord missed an appointment to inspect damp and mould and he had difficulty reporting emergency repairs. He also complained that the landlord damaged his carpet and his car the previous year.
  6. The landlord advised that because the resident complained of new issues, it would raise a new complaint. On 12 April 2021 it provided a further stage 1 complaint response. As a resolution to the complaint, it raised an order to replace the back door and offered £50 compensation for the stress caused by its poor communication. The resident replied on 15 April 2021 and said he was unhappy with the complaint response and rejected the compensation offer.
  7. The resident complained to the Ombudsman and the landlord on 11 October 2021 that it had damaged his carpet, there was damp and mould in the property, and it had not escalated his complaint through its complaints process. He believed that the damp was because of the poor condition of the property, including the windows and doors. He advised that the landlord promised to survey the windows in the property, there was mould around the frames and within the glass, and clogged gutters caused damp in his daughter’s bedroom. He had carried out mould cleans and felt that the damp conditions had caused his 3-year-old daughter to be ill over the previous 2 years.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2021 and 18 October 2021 and advised it would provide its stage 2 complaint response by 1 November 2021. It surveyed the property on 28 October 2021 and requested an extension for its stage 2 complaint response until 5 November 2021. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2021. It apologised for the ongoing delay in repairs. It estimated that it would repair the door before 3 December 2021.
  9. As a result of the survey and as a resolution to the complaint, it raised work orders including renewing hinges on windows, installing insulation in the loft, treating the mould, overhauling the ventilation system, and installing heaters in the bedrooms. It signposted the resident to make a claim from its insurance company for the damaged carpet and offered compensation of £945 for ongoing delays in the repairs, delay in raising the complaint, poor communication, and its inability to provide an explanation for a snipped cable.
  10. After the complaint exhausted its internal complaints process, the landlord sourced a new contractor to complete the works. In February 2022, the resident complained about the quality of the works and staff conduct. He also complained that there was ongoing damp and mould in the property. The new contractor advised the landlord that because of this complaint, it would not complete any further works.
  11. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he advised that he accepted the compensation offer on the basis that the landlord would complete the repairs. However, the landlord had not completed some of the works, the work was of poor quality, there was damp and mould in the property, communication from the landlord was poor, heating was insufficient, and the compensation offered was not enough. As a resolution, the resident wanted the outstanding repairs completed and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. For completeness, and fairness to the resident, the Ombudsman has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s final complaint response until August 2023. This is because repairs that the landlord agreed to as part of its complaint resolution, extended to timescales beyond the landlord’s repair policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective heater

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for heating within the property. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend an emergency appointment within 24 hours, non-emergency repairs within 28 days, and major repairs within 42 days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay £5 per day when it provides residents with alternative sources of heating but does not complete the repair within its timescales. It calculates compensation from the day after its target date, up until it completes the repair.
  3. The landlord provided temporary heaters to the resident for 58 days between the 5 December 2020 and 1 February 2021, while it carried out a repair to the heating. The resident complained about the cost of heating the property while using the temporary heaters. He also complained that the landlord’s operative had disconnected the storage heater by snipping a wire.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in repair and offered compensation of £295 for the increased costs in line with its compensation policy, it also offered £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delay, and £100 as it could not explain why the operative had snipped the wire. The resident accepted this compensation offer. The Ombudsman finds that this was a reasonable response by the landlord. This is because it offered compensation in line with its policy and considered the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to reports of a defective heater. This is because it apologised when it became aware of its failure and offered compensation in line with its policy which also aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective rear door and frame.

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the external doors including hinges and handles. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend an emergency appointment within 24 hours, it will attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 42 days.
  2. The landlord repaired the resident’s rear door on 7 January 2020 and again on 7 December 2020. The landlord’s repair notes refer to water ingress and it carried out remedial works to address the issue. Between 4 January 2021 and 11 January 2021, the resident complained 3 times, that despite several repairs the leak was still present, and the gap between the door and frame allowed a draught into the property. He believed the door and frame needed to be replaced. In response, the landlord raised a work order to survey and repair the door. This was a reasonable initial response by the landlord in line with its repairs policy.
  3. On 12 and 13 January 2021, the landlord’s contractor carried out a remedial repair. It resealed the back door frame, adjusted the door locks and pulled in the door frame in the middle as it was not straight. On 14 January 2021, the landlord’s contractor advised that it was in the process of getting a new door. This was a good initial response within the landlord’s repair policy timeframes.
  4. After its initial response, internal correspondence showed that the landlord was not clear if the door could be repaired or required replacement. This caused a delay of almost 3 months before it ordered the door. This is evidence of poor record keeping and contributed to a delay in the repairs.
  5. The landlord identified 3 months later that the supplier did not receive the order. Based on the evidence, it is unclear why the supplier did not receive the order, however, the landlord should have systems in place to ensure errors like this are identified at an earlier stage. The landlord only identified this error because the resident repeatedly requested an update. This demonstrates poor record keeping and caused further delay, time, and trouble to the resident in chasing up the repair.
  6. When the landlord identified the error, it placed a new order for the door and advised the resident that the door would be available in mid-September 2021. On 11 October 2021, as part of a complaint escalation, the resident complained about the delay. The landlord was due to replace the door on 21 October 2021 but called the resident on the morning to cancel as it did not have the door. This was unfair to the resident as it would have known before the morning of the appointment that it did not have the door. This missed appointment caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
  7. On 8 November 2021, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the door. It advised there was a delay of supply in the construction industry and estimated that it would replace the door by 3 December 2021. While there may have been a delay in supply, there were 6 months delay attributable to the landlord’s failures. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its complaint response. This was unfair to the resident, as it should be open and transparent in its communication.
  8. On 3 December 2021, the resident refused access to replace the door. There are no notes as to why the resident refused access, however, he had raised concerns to the landlord on 4 November 2021 about replacing a door in winter, because his daughter was suffering from poor health. The records show that the landlord did not replace the door until 2 March 2023. This was 26 months after the resident first complained to the landlord about the rear door.
  9. When the resident reported concerns about his daughter’s health it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the risk to the resident and his household to identify potential hazards. Its failure to take any measures to assess the risk was unreasonable and unsympathetic in the circumstances.
  10. Based on the evidence, there was a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the landlord, particularly its contractors. This does not negate the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the structure of the building. The resident has a duty under its tenancy agreement to allow the landlord reasonable access to the property. The landlord did not take measures to ensure the door was replaced at an earlier stage, and it should have.
  11. The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective rear door. This is because it did not adhere to its repair timescales set out in its policy, and it should have. There was a delay of obtaining a replacement door of approximately 3 months due to supply issues. Based on the evidence, 23 months delay can be attributed to the landlord. It did not take sufficient action to ensure that it adhered to its responsibilities to the resident in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act and its tenancy agreement. This caused delay, time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress to the resident which has been considered below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defective windows throughout the property.

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the windows. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend an emergency appointment within 24 hours, it will attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 42 days.
  2. On 4 January 2021, the resident complained that the property was freezing and that window hinges had come loose and were causing a draft. The landlord attended the property on 13 January 2021 and noted that all window hinges except for the bathroom required replacement. It also noted that there was water penetration inside a bedroom window. It raised an order to complete the works. This was a good initial response by the landlord in line with its repair timeframes.
  3. After this initial attendance there is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord several times about the window repairs, advising that he had carried out temporary measures by using sealant and tape, but the water continued to penetrate the windows. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address the repairs until after the resident escalated his complaint on 11 October 2021. This was unreasonable and caused time, trouble, and distress to the resident. The landlord failed to adhere to its repair policy, and it should have.
  4. On 28 October 2021, the landlord surveyed the property and noted that the windows were in good condition apart from a sliding hinge on the main kitchen window and a bedroom window hinge. This contradicted its contractor’s findings on 13 January 2021. As a resolution to the complaint, it advised it would carry out the repairs noted in its survey. On 10 February 2022 the contractor for the landlord confirmed that it had completed the repair however, the contractor felt that the windows required replacement. It is not for the Ombudsman to assess the condition of the windows, but rather how the landlord responded to reports of the condition of the windows.
  5. In May 2022 the landlord agreed to inspect the property on 1 June 2022, however, the resident cancelled on that morning as his daughter was ill. There is no evidence of a further appointment to inspect the property until it replaced the door on 2 March 2023. On this date it noted that repairs were required for the windows. The windows were replaced on 24 August 2023, 31 months after the resident first complained. This was unreasonable and the landlord did not adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy or ensure that it complied with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defective windows throughout the property. This caused delay, time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress to the resident which has been considered below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises from a previous complaint investigation that in September 2022, (reference 202206809) that the landlord has redesigned its national repairs service. An order has been made below for the landlord to identify potential improvements to its repairs service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord handled the reports of damp and mould in accordance with its policies and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. In August 2021, the landlord introduced a 4-stage procedure to support its residents when it received reports of damp and mould. At stage 1, it will attend the property and attempt to fix the cause. If the issue continues, at stage 2 it will investigate and monitor the property for 4 weeks and it will share the findings of its investigation with the resident and decide on what it will do to fix the issue. At stage 3, if the resident still experiences issues with damp and mould, the landlord will investigate to see what else it can do. At stage 4, if its measures have not resolved the damp and mould, it will look beyond the structure of the property to provide more support to the resident.
  3. On 18 January 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that the door repair it carried out the previous day did not address the issue and that mould had already started to appear. On 20 August 2020, the landlords repair notes state that there was water ingress through the front door and mould on the walls. The landlord should have followed up on these reports of damp and mould, and there is no evidence that it did until the resident raised a formal complaint. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident. The landlord should have systems in place so that it can respond to reports of damp and mould, however received.
  4. On 12 February 2021, the resident reported that the property was damp and there was mould on the windows. The landlord noted on 22 February 2021 that the resident reported mould because of the damaged windows, damaged doors, and a lack of heating in the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord focussed on its delay in carrying out a heating repair, but it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint about damp and mould, nor did it take any action to address the issue.
  5. On 9 March 2021 the resident complained that he had reported damp and mould in the property last year, and a surveyor was due to inspect the property on 25 February 2021, but did not show up. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 March 2021. In its complaint response, it advised that it had raised a work order to replace the rear door. It did not address the issue of damp and mould. This was unreasonable, and the landlord did not consider the condition of the property, or the circumstances as reported by the resident.
  6. The landlord surveyed the property on 28 October 2021. Based on the evidence, this is the first time the landlord surveyed the property for damp and mould since it received the report of damp and mould on 12 February 2021. This is a delay of 8 months since it first received the report of damp and mould. The landlord failed to adhere to its repair timescales or consider the conditions that the resident was living in.
  7. The survey noted black mould on the kitchen window, the rear door, the window of the living room, the windows of both bedrooms, and a patch of black mould on the ceiling of a bedroom. It noted that the resident had recently completed a mould treatment of the bathroom. Its recommendations included, a mould treatment, overhauling the ventilation unit, and providing insulation in the loft. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it would complete all recommended works in the survey on 16 November 2021. This was a reasonable response by the landlord when it became aware of damp and mould in the property, in line with its damp and mould procedure.
  8. The records show that it only carried out some of these works on 16 November 2021, which did not include the mould treatment. The resident called the landlord on 6 December 2021 and reported ongoing issues with damp and mould. He advised that his daughter had recently been admitted to hospital with a severe chest infection and he believed the damp and mould in the property contributed to her health.
  9. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to this report. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the mould treatment at this stage. It could have considered escalating the issues to stage 2 of its damp and mould process. It should have considered temporary measures it could put in place to accommodate the resident. Its failure to take any action in response to this report was unreasonable, and it did not treat the resident fairly in very distressing circumstances.
  10. The landlord conducted further works in February 2022. Based on the landlord’s records, there is no evidence to confirm that it carried out the mould treatment. On 21 February 2022, the resident called the landlord and complained about the quality of repairs. He advised there was damp around the window frames and felt that they needed to be replaced.
  11. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action at this stage. As part of its damp and mould process, it should have escalated the resident’s issues to stage 2. It then would have investigated and monitored the property for 4 weeks to understand the causes of damp. If it had done so, it would have been able to address the resident’s concerns about damp ingress through the windows. Its failure to take any action was unreasonable and it failed to follow its own processes.
  12. When the resident brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service, he complained that there were ongoing issues with damp and mould around the windows. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to repair the windows. There is evidence that the landlord spoke with the resident in May 2022 and the resident cancelled an appointment to survey the property in June 2022. The landlord replaced the windows in August 2023.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because it unreasonably delayed in responding to the reports of damp and mould in the property. It failed to survey the property within its repair’s timescales. It is not clear based on the landlord’s records if it carried out the mould treatment. There was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the repairs to the rear door and windows which contributed to the causes of damp and mould. The landlord failed to escalate the issues appropriately through its own damp and mould process.
  14. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the resident’s daughter. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he feels her health has been affected by its actions or inactions. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord demonstrated a lack of empathy when he raised concerns about the health of his daughter, and its failure to take any action caused distress to the resident in challenging circumstances. The landlord is ordered to pay £1000 to the resident for this distress.
  15. Despite the landlord’s introduction of a damp and mould procedure, it failed to follow it. This failure had a direct impact on the resident. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review the systems it has in place to implement its procedure. In the first instance it should review this case to identify what went wrong and apply its learnings to improve its systems of responding to reports of damp and mould. When reviewing its systems, it is recommended that the landlord review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It sets out the importance of adopting a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At the outset of the complaint, it will advise the resident of its right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service at any point in the process. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. A manager will review the complaint and provide a formal written response within 10 working days.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it is committed to ensuring that its responsive repairs service is aligned with the Regulator of Social Housing’s expectations in relation to the Home Standard. When a resident complains about the quality of repairs, it would be reasonable for the landlord to investigate the concerns and take steps to address the issue, in line with its complaints policy.
  3. Throughout this investigation, there were several incidents when the resident raised concerns about the quality of repairs. This included complaints that the contractors damaged his carpet, damaged his car, carried out poor quality repairs to the rear door, and heating system. While there is evidence that the landlord asked the contractor to address the issues complained of, there is a lack of evidence that the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns. It failed to survey the property until after the resident escalated his complaint in October 2021. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns by surveying the work or have systems in place to ensure the quality of its repairs meets its standards.
  4. The landlord failed to identify and register complaints in line with its policy. The resident first complained about a problem with temporary heaters, the rear door, window hinges, and gutters. However, the stage 1 complaint response only focussed on the heating complaint and compensation. This failure to address each issue raised contributed to repair delays to the windows and rear door.
  5. The landlord did not appropriately escalate complaints through its complaint procedure which would have allowed the resident to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 within its timescales. On 15 April 2021 the resident remained unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. However, this complaint was not escalated to stage 2 until 11 October 2021, after intervention of the Ombudsman. If the resident’s complaint was brought to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage, an order to comply with its repair obligations and address damp and mould could have been made at an earlier stage.
  6. After the complaint went through its internal complaints process, the landlord sourced a new contractor to complete works. In February 2022, the resident complained about the quality of the works and advised that the property had damp and mould on the windows. The new contractor advised the landlord that, because of the complaint, it would not complete any further works. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to resolve the issue. The landlord failed to identify and register a new complaint and failed to investigate the issues raised by the resident. The landlord’s failure to take any action was unreasonable and unfair to the resident and contributed to further repair delays.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to identify and register complaints in line with its policy, it only addressed some of the issues raised, and it did not provide complaint responses within its timeframes. The landlord did not appropriately escalate complaints through its complaint procedure which would have allowed the resident to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage.
  8. The landlord failed to effectively use its complaint process to ensure the quality of its repairs met its own standards. It also negatively affected its relationship with the resident. These failures contributed to delays in repairing the property and addressing the damp and mould. These delays caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman has made orders and recommendations below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance considering the distress caused to the resident.

Record keeping

  1. Throughout this investigation there were several issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping. Based on its own repair records the landlord did not understand the condition of the property. This was evidenced when it took 3 months to order a replacement door because it did not understand if the door was repairable or required replacing. Furthermore, after it placed the order, it did not realise that the supplier never received the order until 3 months later. The landlord’s poor record keeping contributed significantly to the delay of the resident’s repairs as highlighted in this report.
  2. The landlord’s poor record keeping hampered this investigation. Based on the records, it is unclear if the landlord addressed all the repairs, particularly the mould treatment, it said it would in its stage 2 complaint response. When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, it did not hold repair records and subsequently contacted an external contractor to obtain the repair records. This was inappropriate and demonstrates that the landlord did not hold relevant information as to the condition of the property.
  3. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s complaint and repair record keeping directly impacted its repair service and the effectiveness of its complaint handling. This contributed to delay, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs. It also recommends that it review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of a defective heater.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of a defective rear door and door frame.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of defective windows throughout the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that a senior director for the landlord apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the resident pay compensation of £4606.72, compromising:
    1. £1190.30 for the loss of enjoyment of his home based on 15% of the rent charge for 95 weeks between 1 February 2021 (when the door repair should have been completed) until 2 March 2023 when the landlord completed the door repair. (A deduction of 13 weeks has been made in this calculation as there was a supply issue beyond the landlord’s control.)
    2. £1666.42 for the loss of enjoyment of his home based on 15% of the rent charge for 133 weeks, between 1 February 2021 (when the window repair should have been completed) until 24 August 2023 when the landlord completed the window repair.

* Based on average of £83.53 for social rents in East Devon for 2021/22: Live_Table_702_Jan_23.ods

 

  1. £1500 for the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to address the causes of damp and mould.
  2. £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and record keeping. This is further to the landlord’s previous offer.
  1. It is ordered that the landlord review the failings identified in this repair to identify if improvements can be applied to its repairs process and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of any learnings found and improvements made to its repairs process.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord review the systems it has in place to implement its damp and mould reporting procedure. In the first instance it should review this case to identify what went wrong and apply its learnings to its systems. It should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its review and any improvements it made to the implementation of its procedure. It should consider the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (attached) when carrying out its review.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf

  1. It is ordered that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs and complaint handling. When carrying out its review it is recommended that it review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (attached).

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf  

  1. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with its complaints policy to ensure that complaints are identified and escalated when appropriate.