The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202212477)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212477

The Guinness Partnership Limited

22 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 regarding:
    1. Repairs required to her property following a water leak.
    2. Damp and mould at her property.
    3. Its complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house. She lives at the property with her young child and they previously lived there with her late mother, who had vulnerabilities. The resident reports that outstanding repairs and damp and mould at the property have made her and her child constantly ill and distressed, which has worsened in colder weather. She states that this has resulted in her child having to attend multiple hospital visits for a viral infection from black mould and poor air quality at the property. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
  2. The resident reported an uncontrollable leak through the property’s ceiling from the water tank in the loft to the landlord on 1 February 2021. She stated that this was affecting the vulnerable members of her household and it attended this on 2 February 2021. The landlord’s plumber repaired the leak and its electrician checked to make sure that the property’s electrics were safe on that date. It then responded to her report of the resulting holes in the bathroom ceiling on 8 February 2021 by repairing and redecorating the property’s ceilings and walls on 8 March 2021.
  3. However, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 8 June 2021 about its delays in completing repairs at the property, as well as its related poor customer service and treatment of her. This included unresolved ongoing damp and mould at the property that it had inspected twice in recent years. The landlord therefore arranged surveyor’s inspections of the property in July and August 2021. These recommended works including the installation of a positive input ventilation unit (‘PIV’) to provide an anti-condensation system for the whole property. The landlord also arranged an inspection and works by its contractor in July 2021, which laid new loft insulation, cleaned mould, repaired door frames, and replaced window handles.
  4. The resident nevertheless reported to the landlord that the property’s walls and ceilings needed to be redecorated, that the back door needed to be replaced, and that other jobs were outstanding. Its contractor then re-attended the property in September 2021 to fit the PIV in the loft and replace window mechanisms. However, both the contractor and the resident informed the landlord that the property could not be redecorated yet because part of this was saturated with moisture. The property therefore needed external repointing and internal replastering to be completed first.
  5. The resident then informed the landlord that damp patches were coming through the property’s walls in October 2021. Its contractor’s subsequent damp inspection in that month found that the property’s windows needed to be sealed for this from the outside and that insulated plasterboard needed to be installed there from the inside. However, the landlord then cancelled the property’s external repointing in December 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and issues with labour and materials. The resident also chased the landlord to complete repairs 3 times in December 2021. This was to complete the PIV installation, fill in the hole for this left in the property’s ceiling, replace the back door, and address cold, damp and mould affecting her and her child.
  6. The resident also asked to escalate her complaint, which the landlord agreed to do on 10 December 2021 before it responded to her stage 1 complaint on 20 December 2021. It stated that it had logged an emergency plumber and electrician for her on 1 February 2021, and that their respective leak repairs and electrical safety check on the next day complied with its policy. The landlord therefore found no errors with how this was handled or any record of its contractor refusing to attend this on the day. It also told the resident that it had not received any damp and mould or other repair reports from her in the 6 months prior to her stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord had arranged the above inspections and agreed to contact her about this in the coming days.
  7. The landlord additionally apologised to the resident for its poor service and for being unable to resolve her complaint, and it aimed to respond to her final stage complaint within 20 working days. She nevertheless chased it for an update on the final stage complaint in February 2022 and reported damp walls to it again in March 2022, when its contractor re-inspected the property. They found that bedroom walls and the bathroom ceiling needed damp treatment, and outstanding external repointing and PIV installation works. Although the landlord did not raise these works, as it was told that the property would be empty after the resident moved out following her mother passing away.
  8. After the landlord was informed that the resident would stay at the property in April 2022, it booked works for the above items, to replace the back door, and to inspect the loft in May 2022. The inspection found outstanding loft insulation issues, affecting airflow and causing sweating, and holes in the roof. The landlord also recorded that the repointing, mould treatment, and redecorating works were done. However, the resident told it in June 2022 that there was ongoing damp and that the PIV had still not been completed. The landlord noted that it then repaired the insulation and the roof in July 2022. Its contractor’s inspection at that time nevertheless found that the property’s exterior and the bedroom wall needed coating and treatment for damp and mould.
  9. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 14 July 2022 then apologised to the resident for its delay in issuing this and repeated its stage 1 response findings about the leak on 1 February 2021. It stated that it had then inspected the property for repairs and damp and mould. The landlord said that it had subsequently completed PIV installation, loft insulation, mould treatment, replastering, and window repair works from July 2021 to July 2022. It explained that the property needed a final visit within 20 working days to treat the bedroom wall. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded the resident £200 for its unreasonable repair delays until March 2022, £200 for her stress and inconvenience, and £100 for its delayed complaint responses. It added that it completed an action plan, feedback, and training to prevent this in the future.
  10. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not attended the water leak at the property of 1 February 2021 on the same day. This was because she had reported this to it as an emergency out of hours repair for her health and safety concerns for her vulnerable household members. These were from water leaking through the electrics and ceiling, and from fire alarms going off, which caused them anxiety and distress about sleeping while the electrics had not been isolated. The resident also complained about the length of time that the cold, damp and mould, PIV and other works had been outstanding at the property, which the landlord had incorrectly told her had been completed. She requested the completion of the repairs and further compensation to resolve her complaint. The landlord subsequently told the Ombudsman that it had ended its repairs contractor’s contract due to resident feedback and complaints about the standard of service.
  11. The landlord recorded that it treated the property’s exterior walls to protect and waterproof these in July and September 2022. However, the resident subsequently chased it 3 more times until January 2023 for outstanding PIV installation, repointing, loft insulation, and mould treatment works. She then declined to engage with or give the landlord access to the property for these, and her solicitors issued it with a letter of claim for disrepair under the pre action protocol for housing conditions claims (‘the protocol’). This was for the above works, as well as for a defective extractor fan, guttering, and brickwork. The landlord’s and the resident’s solicitors went on to instruct surveys that agreed a scope of works, which are due to be completed in December 2023 and January 2024. It also offered her further repair delay and complaint handling delay compensation of £400 and £100, respectively.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the landlord inspected damp and mould at the property twice in the years before her stage 1 complaint to it about this in June 2021, which remained unresolved. This is very concerning, particularly given her reports that this affected her and her vulnerable household members’ health and caused them distress. In accordance with the Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the events in the resident’s case from February 2021 onwards. This is because there is no evidence that any events before that date were reported to the landlord within 6 months of her stage 1 complaint to it.
  2. It is of concern that the resident has reported that there are additional outstanding works to the property’s extractor fan, guttering and brickwork. Nevertheless, in line with the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation will therefore not consider the landlord’s handling of these repairs because there is no evidence that a complaint about them from the resident has exhausted its complaints procedure yet. This is due to the fact that the further works were not included in her reports, stage 1, or final stage complaints to it before they were outlined in her solicitors’ subsequent letter of claim to it in January 2023.
  3. It is also very concerning that the letter of claim confirmed that the property’s PIV installation, repointing, loft insulation, and mould treatment works were still outstanding. This is especially because some of these repairs have been overdue since September 2021 and relate to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property affecting her and her child’s health. Under the Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident’s solicitors’ letter of claim and subsequent actions under the protocol for the above works from January 2023 onwards do not prevent the Ombudsman from considering the landlord’s handling of these works from that date. This is until any court proceedings are issued for this.
  4. The resident has nevertheless declined to engage with or give the landlord access for the above repairs since the letter of claim to it. She has instead progressed these under the protocol via her solicitors. Therefore, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy for the landlord’s handling of the above works from January 2023 onwards through that procedure. This is because the protocol has been the procedure that she has engaged with since then in relation to these repairs, and not its repairs procedure that the Ombudsman would have otherwise investigated. As a result, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the above works until December 2022.

Repairs required following a water leak

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the outside and structure of the property. This includes the roof, doors and frames, walls, windows, and ceilings. The landlord is also required to keep the installations for supplying water and electricity that it has provided at the property in repair and proper working order. Its responsive repairs policy obliges it to repair or make safe emergency repairs, including uncontainable leaks causing a risk of electric shock, within 24 hours. The landlord is required to aim to complete non-emergency routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord was obliged to repair or make safe the uncontrollable leak through the property’s ceiling from the water tank in the loft, and the property’s electrics, within 24 hours of 1 February 2021. This is because the resident’s tenancy agreement required it to repair such installations for supplying water and electricity, and its responsive repairs policy obliged it to do so within that timescale. This was due to the resident reporting to the landlord on the above date that the leak was an uncontainable emergency causing a risk of electric shock, and keeping in mind the vulnerable members of her household.
  3. It is of concern that the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor told her that they refused to attend the property’s leak and electrics sooner on 1 February 2021. This is particularly because of her health and safety concerns for her household from water leaking through the electrics and ceiling, and from fire alarms going off, while the electrics had not been isolated. However, the responsive repairs policy did not require the landlord to attend this sooner than 2 February 2021, and there is no evidence that its contractor refused to do so before then. Although it was suitable that its stage 1 complaint response attempted to resolve this by apologising to the resident.
  4. It is nevertheless concerning that the landlord’s policy, unlike those of other similar landlords, does not provide for the most serious emergencies to be attended sooner than 24 hours. This is including for situations involving immediate fire and electrical health and safety risks affecting vulnerable people, such as the residents. This is because such risks might cause serious harm to residents if these are not attended sooner than 24 hours. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its responsive repairs policy’s emergency response timescale, in light of those of other similar landlords. This is in order to ensure that the most serious emergencies are attended within a timescale that appropriately reflects the risk of harm to residents.
  5. The landlord then responded to the resident’s report on 8 February 2021 of holes in the property’s bathroom ceiling by repairing and redecorating the property’s ceilings and walls on 8 March 2021. This was within the responsive repairs policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale for such non-emergency routine repairs, which was reasonable. The landlord went on to follow this timescale again after its surveyor’s inspection of the property on 22 June 2021 by carrying out door frame and window handle works 24 calendar days later on 16 July 2021, which was suitable. However, it is of concern that it subsequently delayed completing the resident’s reports of further repairs at the property.
  6. This is because the resident informed the landlord on 19 July 2021 that the property’s back door needed to be replaced and that window mechanism works were outstanding. While its surveyor appropriately raised a post-inspection for this within 26 calendar days on 14 August 2021, in line with its responsive repairs policy, it then delayed carrying out these works. The landlord’s contractor did not complete the window mechanism repairs until 49 calendar days after the resident reported these on 6 September 2021, when they also confirmed her report that the back door needed replacement. It was unreasonable that it took 21 calendar days longer than the policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale to carry out the window mechanism works, which it did not explain or update her on.
  7. It was nevertheless understandable that it would have taken the landlord longer than its policy’s timescale to replace the property’s back door. This is because it was suitable for it to wait for its contractor’s expert assessment to confirm that the door could no longer be repaired or adjusted, but had to be replaced, in the absence of any other expert evidence about this. It was also understandable that it would have taken longer than the policy’s 28 calendar days for the landlord to have arranged for a new back door if it had to rely on a third party, which it did not control, to manufacture this. However, it was inappropriate that it took a very excessive period of over 10 months from 19 July 2021 to replace the door by 23 May 2022. This is especially because the landlord did not explain this delay to the resident, or update her on its progress, and she instead had to chase this on 28 September and 2 December 2021 and 8 April 2022.
  8. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident for its poor service, unreasonable repair delays, the numerous appointments and inspections, and her overall experience and distress. Its final stage complaint response also subsequently offered her £200 compensation for its repair delays, and another £200 for her stress and inconvenience. The landlord went on to offer the resident a further £400 compensation for the repair delays after she complained to the Ombudsman. It additionally confirmed to her that it had completed an action plan, feedback, and training to prevent this in the future. The landlord also told us that it had ended its repairs contractor’s contract due to resident feedback and complaints about the standard of service.
  9. This meant that the landlord followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right by appropriately apologising to and compensating the resident after it had delayed completing the above repairs to the property. The £800 total compensation that it eventually offered her was also proportionate to recognise this, its lack of explanations or updates, and her distress and inconvenience. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy recommends awarding over £700 for such issues. This is where these have taken a long time to resolve, resulted in significant inconvenience having a significant impact, and are likely to have caused longer-term distress. This is also within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure that had a significant impact on the resident.
  10. Moreover, the landlord followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome of the resident’s repairs complaint. This is because it took reasonable steps to prevent its repair delays, and its lack of explanations or updates on them, from occurring again in the future. It did so by using an action plan, feedback, and training for its staff to avoid these failings in line with its responsive repairs policy, which was suitable. The landlord additionally addressed its repairs contractor’s failures by ending their contract. This was understandable in light of the feedback and complaints that it reported receiving about the standard of their service from its residents.
  11. However, it is noted that the above total compensation that the landlord offered the resident was also to recognise its handling of her damp and mould complaint, which is addressed below. Moreover, it delayed offering her half of this compensation until after she had complained to the Ombudsman following its response to her final stage complaint, which was inappropriate. The landlord should not have required or waited for the resident to do so before it fully compensated her for its failings in her repairs complaint. This is because this further delay would have caused her unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to seek the increased compensation that she requested from it. The delay in the landlord second compensation offer also suggested that the resident might not have received this if she had not complained to the Ombudsman, which was unreasonable.
  12. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £800 compensation that it previously offered her in recognition of its above failings in her repairs complaint only, if she has not received this already. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, including via the dispute resolution e-learning module for landlords on our website. This is in order to prevent the failures in the handling of the landlord’s compensation offers to the resident from occurring again in the future.

Damp and mould

  1. As outlined above, the landlord is obliged by the resident’s tenancy agreement to maintain the property’s outside, structure, roof, walls, and ceilings. It is also required to aim to complete such non-emergency routine repairs within 28 calendar days by its responsive repairs policy. The landlord’s damp and mould policy effective since May 2022 obliges it to protect its properties’ fabric from deterioration and damage from damp. It is also required to diagnose and resolve repairs for this in a timely and effective way, and clearly and regularly communicate its actions for this to its residents. For particularly severe or recurring damp and mould, the landlord will carry out a comprehensive risk assessment for actions such as to install a PIV and treat walls or coverings.
  2. The Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould (‘the spotlight report’) recommends that landlords consider their record keeping to ensure that this is sufficiently accurate, robust, and supports a risk-based approach to damp and mould. The landlord’s self-assessment against this for 2022 to 2023 states that it records detailed accounts of all actions and required next steps for such cases, which it regularly reviews.
  3. The spotlight report also recommends that landlords ensure that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s self-assessment against this says that all such repairs are triaged by severity and individual need, with urgent or emergency repairs fast tracked with increased resources. The spotlight report additionally recommends effective internal communication between landlords’ teams and departments to ensure sole responsibility for resolution. The landlord’s self-assessment against this states that its complaints service will ensure this to complete all actions.
  4. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property within 28 calendar days of her reporting this from 8 June 2021. This is because her tenancy agreement obliged it carry out external and structural works for this, and such works were due within the above timescale under its responsive repairs policy. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property within this timescale on 22 June 2021. As they recommended that a PIV be installed to provide an anti-condensation system for the whole property, together with other works, it was reasonable that its contractor then attended to survey for this, as well as to lay new loft insulation and clean mould.
  5. However, it is of concern that the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out the above survey and works at the property on 16 July 2021, which was 38 calendar days after the resident reported damp and mould there. The property’s damp and mould works subsequently exceeded its responsive repairs policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale again when she reported issues with the effect of the works and these being incomplete to it on 19 July 2021. This is because the contractor only re-attended to partially install the PIV on 6 September 2021, which was 90 calendar days after the resident’s original report. Although it is understandable that such specialist equipment might take longer than 28 days to fit, as this could take more time to obtain and carry out a non-standard installation.
  6. The landlord nevertheless also failed to explain the delay in fitting the PIV at the property to the resident, provide her with updates on this, or complete the installation, either during the 18-month scope of this investigation or subsequently. This is extremely concerning, especially because its surveyor had recommended this to address her original report of damp and mould, which she described as affecting her and her young child’s health. Moreover, the landlord’s failure to complete the PIV installation or otherwise address the causes of the property’s damp and mould were followed by further reports of this, which was unreasonable.
  7. Both the landlord’s contractor and the resident reported to it on 28 September 2021 that the property’s window reveals were saturated with moisture and needed replastering, as well as external repointing to the property. She then informed it on 4 October 2021 that there were damp patches coming through the property’s walls again. The contractor’s subsequent inspection of 11 October 2021 added that the damp plasterboard in the window reveals needed to be replaced with insulated plasterboard, and that the windows needed to be sealed from the outside. However, the landlord failed to arrange any works for this at that time, which was inappropriate, and it instead cancelled the repointing on 1 December 2021. The cancellation was due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and issues with labour and materials.
  8. It is understandable if the landlord was unable to complete some of the above works at the time because of reasons beyond its control. However, it again failed to either explain this to the resident or provide her with any updates on its progress, which was unsuitable. There is also no evidence that the landlord’s works other than the repointing were affected by factors outside of its control, which it should have either recorded if these were an influence or completed the works if not. However, it neither recorded such factors nor carried out any works at the time, which was unreasonable. Moreover, despite the landlord recording that the repointing was subsequently done on 30 May 2022, the resident has continued to report that this has not been done to date.
  9. This is particularly concerning given that the landlord’s contractor had also identified that the repointing was necessary to address the property’s damp and mould in September 2021. However, the resident continued to report that this was outstanding for the remaining 15-month scope of this investigation and subsequently. She therefore chased the landlord to complete this, the PIV, and other works to address the damp and mould affecting her and her child’s health. The resident did so on 2, 8 and 10 December 2021, on 2 March, 8 April, 23 June, 16 September and 25 November 2022, and subsequently. This was inappropriate and further demonstrated that the landlord had failed to explain its delays to her or provide her with updates.
  10. This was also contrary to the following recommendations made by the spotlight report in October 2021. The landlord was recommended to ensure timely damp and mould responses reflecting the urgency of the issue. It was additionally recommended to effectively communicate internally between its teams and departments to ensure sole responsibility for resolution. Moreover, the landlord was recommended to ensure that its record keeping was sufficiently accurate, robust, and supported a risk-based approach to damp and mould. However, its above delays and failures to address the resident’s damp and mould reports were neither timely nor reflected their urgency. These instead suggested ineffective internal communication between the landlord and its contractor, and a failure to take responsibility to resolve this, as did its ending of their contract.
  11. Moreover, the landlord’s delays and failures to carry out works such as the property’s PIV and repointing, and the fact that the resident continued to dispute the accuracy of its records for this, suggested further failure on its part. This is because sufficiently accurate, robust, and risk-based record keeping by it, as recommended by the spotlight report, would have identified that the works remained outstanding and were reported as a risk to her and her child’s health. This should have then highlighted to the landlord that these works needed to be resolved promptly, but there is no evidence that its records did so, which was unsuitable.
  12. It is also of concern that the landlord’s contractor’s inspection of the property on 3 March 2022 recommended mould treatment works, as well as repeating that the repointing was still outstanding, that it only later booked for 30 May 2022. This was 88 calendar days later than its responsive repairs policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale for it to do so. The landlord’s final stage complaint response explained to the resident that this delay was because it was informed on 10 March 2022 that she would be moving out of the property. It then raised the works on 7 April 2022 after it was told that she was staying. While it was reasonable that the landlord gave the resident an explanation, it was inappropriate that it did not do so at the time or explain why the works were delayed for almost another 2 months after being raised.
  13. The landlord’s contractor’s further inspection of the property on 18 May 2022 then found loft insulation issues preventing airflow and causing sweating, holes in the roof, and outstanding mould treatment. However, despite its damp and mould policy becoming effective in May 2022, it did not follow this to resolve the loft insulation or the holes in the roof in a timely and effective way. This is because the landlord did not do so within the responsive repairs policy’s above timescale. It instead recorded that it repaired these after 48 and 51 calendar days on 5 and 8 July 2022, respectively, which was unreasonable.
  14. Moreover, the landlord once more failed to explain or update the resident on these delays, which was inappropriate and was now also contrary to the damp and mould policy. This required it to clearly and regularly communicate its actions for damp and mould to her, but there is no evidence that it did so for the above works either. The resident additionally reported to the landlord on 16 September and 25 November 2022, and subsequently, that the loft insulation works had not been completed. She added that the bedroom wall mould treatment that it had agreed in its final stage complaint response of 14 July 2022 was still outstanding, and that mould had returned to the bathroom after treatment.
  15. It is therefore very concerning that the resident continued to report recurring damp and mould to the landlord after its damp and mould policy required it to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment for this. However, there is no evidence that it then carried out such a risk assessment, which was unsuitable and contrary to the policy, especially in light of her reports that her and her child’s health were being affected. The landlord’s delayed mould treatment and its failure to complete the PIV installation were also contrary to its policy’s requirement for it to carry out such actions as a result of a comprehensive risk assessment.
  16. The landlord additionally delayed the coating of the property’s exterior that its contractor identified on 8 July 2022 as necessary to protect and waterproof this until 11 September 2022. This was 65 calendar days later, exceeding its responsive repairs policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale for these works. Although it is noted that the landlord recorded on 14 August 2022 that not all of the property could be reached at that time with its equipment, and that there was only enough material to coat the side of and part of the front of the property. It is also noted that its subsequent self-assessment against the spotlight report for 2022 to 2023 sought to address its above failings in the resident’s damp and mould complaint.
  17. This is because the landlord’s self-assessment outlined that it now arranged timely damp and mould responses reflecting the urgency of the issue by triaging and fast tracking these by severity and individual need, with more resources. This further stated that its complaints service effectively communicated internally between its teams and departments to carry out all actions and had sole responsibility for resolution. The self-assessment added that the landlord kept detailed accounts of and regularly reviewed all actions and next steps required for damp and mould cases.
  18. There is nevertheless no evidence that the landlord carried out the above actions in the resident’s damp and mould complaint. This is including after its final stage complaint response stated in July 2022 that it had completed an action plan, feedback, and training to prevent its above failings in her case from occurring again in the future. The landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports instead continued until the end of the scope of this investigation in December 2022. She has also reported that these have continued subsequently, which is extremely concerning. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to carry out a case review to identify exactly why its failings in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent them in the future. It shall provide her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
  19. The landlord’s complaint responses, and its subsequent compensation offer after the resident complained to the Ombudsman, also apologised for and offered her £800 total compensation for her damp and mould complaint. As outlined above, however, this was only proportionate to recognise her repairs complaint. In contrast, the landlord’s failings in the resident’s damp and mould complaint included further delays and failures to carry out works, such as for the PIV and the repointing, which continued after 18 and 15 months, respectively. She also reported that this affected her and her young child’s health, but it neither highlighted this as a particularly urgent risk nor took any specific action to address or remedy this, which was inappropriate.
  20. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise to her for the further failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports identified by this investigation. It has additionally been ordered below to pay her another £1,000 compensation in recognition of these significant failures for over 18 months, and the resulting impact on her and her child of having to continue to live with recurring damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from this amount to recognise such serious failings.
  21. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to complete any outstanding works that have been assessed as necessary to address the damp and mould at the property, including but not limited to the PIV and repointing. It has also been recommended below to seek to prevent its failures in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports from occurring again in the future by reviewing its staff’s training needs. This is in relation to their application of the landlord’s responsive repairs and damp and mould policies, the spotlight report, and its self-assessment against this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) oblige it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. It is required to explain to the resident if it needs to take longer to do so, but it is not permitted to extend its response timescales by more than 10 working days without a good reason and the resident’s agreement.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 8 June 2021 more than 6 months later on 20 December 2021. It also responded to her final stage complaint of 10 December 2021 more than 7 months later on 14 July 2022. The landlord additionally failed to explain the reasons for its delayed complaint responses to the resident, agree extensions to these with her, or update her on its progress. This far exceeded its above response timescales under its complaints policy and the Code, as well being contrary to the requirements that permitted it to extend these, which was unreasonable.
  3. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident for its delay. It was also suitable that its final stage complaint response sought to put this right by offering her £100 compensation for her resulting time and trouble, which it increased by a further £100 after she complained to the Ombudsman, in order to fully recognise this. The £200 total compensation that the landlord eventually offered the resident for its above complaint handling failings was proportionate to recognise these in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. This is because the policy and guidance recommend compensation within this range for such time, trouble, and delays.
  4. However, it was unsuitable that the landlord only fully recognised the resident’s time and trouble from its poor complaint handling after she complained to the Ombudsman. As outlined above, it should have been more proactive and self-reflective so as to avoid any unnecessary additional time and trouble. It was unreasonable that the resident had to complain to us in order to be fully compensated. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay her the £200 total compensation that it previously offered her for its above complaint handling failures, if she has not received this already. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in her case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports regarding repairs required to her property following a water leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould at her property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2,000 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £800 that it previously offered her for its repair delays and her stress and inconvenience, if she has not received this already.
      2. £1,000 further compensation in recognition of its significant failures in handling her damp and mould reports for over 18 months, and the resulting impact on her and her child of having to continue to live with recurring damp and mould.
      3. £200 that it previously offered her for her time and trouble from its complaint handling delays, if she has not received this already.
    2. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks to identify exactly why its failings in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent them in the future, providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome.
    3. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise to her for the further failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports identified by this investigation.
    4. Complete any outstanding works that have been assessed as necessary to address the damp and mould at the property within 6 weeks, including but not limited to the PIV and repointing.
    5. Contact the Ombudsman within 4, 6, and 8 weeks to confirm that the above orders have been complied with and whether the below recommendations will be followed.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its responsive repairs policy’s emergency response timescale, in light of those of other similar landlords, in order to ensure that the most serious emergencies are attended within a timescale that appropriately reflects the risk of harm to residents.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, including via the dispute resolution e-learning module for landlords on our website. This is in order to prevent the failures in the handling of the landlord’s compensation offers to the resident from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive repairs and damp and mould policies, the spotlight report, and its self-assessment against this. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports from occurring again in the future.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.