The Guinness Partnership Limited (202225901)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225901

Guinness Housing Association Limited

7 November 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs related to damp and mould reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to an external wall and gates.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a five-bed semi-detached house. The tenancy started on 1 November 2019. The landlord has said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for anybody at the property. However, within the information provided to this Service, the landlord had acknowledged that the resident’s daughter is disabled.
In January 2020, the resident raised concerns around damp and mould. She said that the windows required replacement and the landlord raised a works order to replace the windows on 13 January 2020. This work was not carried out and the resident raised a complaint in September 2020. The landlord closed the complaint in October 2020 and said it would manage the outstanding repairs that formed the basis of the complaint “from a spreadsheet”.
During the next two years, the landlord carried out several works at the property to try and identify the cause of the damp and mould. The resident remained in contact during this time to chase these works. Some of these works remained outstanding almost two years later and the landlord provided its final response in September 2022, indicating that it would complete the required works.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord published the first version of its damp and mould policy on 5 May 2022. Prior to this, it’s policy around damp and mould was included in its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repair policy uses two categories of repairs, as follows:
1. Emergency – The landlord should attend and make the repair safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported.
2. Routine – The landlord should compete the repair within 28 calendar days.
Within the landlord’s repair policy, it says that residents are required to clean mould spots when they appear. If it continues after four weeks, the landlord should attend and identify the underlying cause.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaint process at the time of the initial complaint, this was as follows:
1. Stage one – The landlord should provide its position within 10 working days with confirmation of what is proposed to address it. If it cannot be provided in this time, it would explain it to the resident and would not exceed a further 10 working days. Any further extensions would need to be agreed with the resident.
2. Stage two – The landlord should provide its position within 20 working days. If longer is needed, the resident would be advised and it would not exceed 10 working days.
The complaint policy said that it would not close a complaint “until the complaint investigation has been completed, the decision communicated to the resident and, if an action plan is necessary, this has been agreed with the resident”. It also said “we will ensure that the action plan is tracked, and updates provided to the customer”.

Summary of events

On 13 January 2020, a works order was raised to “measure/replace all failed window units and seals in the property causing major condensation and damp”.
The repair logs show a further 8 works orders were raised on 21 January 2020. These included an order to “repair the brickwork to the side elevation on top floor that is causing a damp problem in the bedroom” and another to “renew the pair of gates to the rear of the property”. These were marked as being completed on 18 February 2020 and 10 February 2020 respectively.
On 13 July 2020, a works order was raised to “raise scaffolding and repoint gable” and “investigate damp”. This order was marked as completed on 19 October 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 August 2020 to ask for an update on the works order raised on 13 January 2020 for replacement windows. She said the contractor attended in January or February 2020 and measured up but she had not heard anything since. She also asked about a replacement front door which had been proposed, as she had also not heard anything about this. The landlord noted that it called the resident back and raised a works order for the door replacement. A works order was raised on 2 September 2020 but was recorded as “Repair wooden front door frame and report back if beyond economical repair”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 September 2020 to request a call back regarding the outstanding repairs. She said scaffolding for the repointing works had been set up for three weeks but then taken down without any repairs being carried out. The resident said that there was still damp and mould in the property and newly painted walls were peeling. The resident also requested any update on the window replacement.
The landlord’s notes show that in response to the resident’s request for window replacement, it issued a letter explaining that the windows formed part of a future planned programme. It said at that time the review, as to whether these works would be carried out, was scheduled for 2022.
The resident raised a complaint on 23 September 2020 due to outstanding repairs at her property, some of which she considered were causing damp and mould. The resident said the landlord had either failed to attend or not completed the repairs. The landlord noted the complaint to say that it acknowledged the complaint on the day and said it should take 10 working days to “resolve”. Within the complaint, the following works were said to be outstanding:
1. The windows were leaking and the contractor had said all double glazing units had “blown”.
2. Works to exterior brickwork were required with scaffolding having been put up and taken down without any work being done.
3. Kitchen units needed replacing.
4. Garden walls, fences and gates required repairs.
Between 23 September 2020 and 16 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions, chasing a date for the installation of scaffolding as part of the works to address the damp. The resident explained during her contacts that the damp and mould was getting worse. On each occasion, a call back request was raised but this Service has seen no record of these call backs being made.
A works order was raised on 27 November 2020 to “identify source of water ingress and rectify”. This works order was noted as “not completed”.
Internal landlord notes on 10 December 2020 explained that the resident was “chasing outstanding repairs” and a call back request was raised. A similar note and call back request was recorded on 8 January 2021 as the resident had posted their dissatisfaction on social media. This Service has seen no record of these call backs being completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2021 and was told the complaint had previously been closed. The resident said she had not received previously requested call backs. She asked for a call back from the complaints team, as the repairs were still outstanding. The resident said that scaffolding had gone up at the property that day but she wanted to know when the repairs would begin. She expressed concerns over the current level of damp and mould in the property.
The repairs team attended the property on 5 February 2021, to discuss outstanding repairs with the resident. An internal landlord email, dated 11 February 2021, said that the resident was told during the visit that the landlord “wont allow for new windows and doors”. In the same email, the complaint agent asked “surely if there is a fault with the door and the windows are blown, we would fix these?”. This Service has not had any sight of any records that show an answer being offered to this question.
A works order was raised on 10 February 2021 to “repoint the gable wall to the property” it was noted that “scaffolding will be required”. This works order is recorded as having been completed on 15 February 2021.
Internal landlord emails between 11 February 2021 and 17 February 2021 show the complaints team looking to ascertain which works were outstanding. Within the emails, it said that the initial complaint was “added to the closed with future actions spreadsheet a few months back”. Within these emails, the repairs team said the following:
1. The windows did not need replacing as they “aren’t all blown at all”. It said “there are a couple of double glazing units to be replaced”.
2. The front door “there isn’t much wrong with apart from the frame outside” but “until the landlord agrees to replace the door, I can’t”.
3. External walls in each bedroom needed thermal boarding.
4. Floorboards needing replacing.
5. The external wall needed loose bricks replacing.
6. Cladding required sealing.
7. Front and back gates needed replacing but the fence did not.
8. None of the works were essential or an emergency.
A works order was raised as part of the complaint on 17 February 2021. This was noted as “thermal board to the external walls in bedrooms” and said it needed “plaster/render work”.
The resident chased an update on the thermal board work on 25 February 2021. The landlord identified that no appointment had been made, as it had been booked incorrectly, as it would take longer than it had planned. It said the earliest it could complete the work was 31 March 2021. The resident expressed concern over the delay as “mould had got all over her daughters clothes”. A call back was requested from the complaint team.
An internal landlord email on 3 March 2021 said that the resident had advised that the walls were “full of damp and mould”. She had requested the boarding work be brought forward and asked for a date for the start of the cladding work, as the scaffolding had “been up for about 6 weeks”. The complaints team commented that a job for the sealing of the cladding was not showing on the system.
On 22 March 2021, the resident raised another call back request regarding the outstanding repairs. She said the scaffolding was setup but she had not been given a date for the related works.
Internal emails between 3 March 2021 and 25 March 2021 show the landlord requested the boarding work be brought forward. However, this was not achieved as it was marked as completed until 31 March 2021.
Between 29 March 2021 and 23 April 2021, internal landlord emails show that the complaints team requested updates on the outstanding works from the initial complaint. In the email dated 23 April 2021, the repairs team advise that it had spoken to the resident and said it would arrange for a survey of the wall insulation. It said it may need to “take out the wall insulation and reinstate it” but “this wont be done for some time, roughly a month”. It also said “the cladding was being done this week” and it was waiting on permission to change some of the double glazing units.
An update was requested by the complaints team on 18 May 2021. An internal landlord email showed that it asked whether there was an update on the survey, the cladding and the double glazing units. It received a response around the survey which said that a number of properties were to be surveyed “very shortly”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2021 due to “not receiving any call backs”. The resident said she was awaiting a response regarding “windows filled with water”, “front door that leaks water” and “back/front gate”.
Following the resident’s contact, the complaint team chased updates on the outstanding works. Internal emails between 16 June 2022 and 23 June 2022 explain that the survey had been completed and identified that the gable wall had no cavity wall insulation. The landlord said it would arrange to install it but that “it will be a while before they are done” as it wanted to complete other surveys of other properties before starting any works programmes.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and made her aware of the proposed cavity wall insulation works. The resident questioned when the other outstanding works would be completed. Internal landlord emails show that the complaints team chased updates from the repairs team.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 July 2021 and said it was “awaiting a date for an inspection” and it would be in contact once it had one. This Service has not had sight of any record of this being arranged. An internal landlord email on the same day said that it was “doing a business case to renew the windows” but “it got rejected last year so is unlikely to be accepted”. It said “if it doesn’t, we will look at other alternatives”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2021 to chase an inspection of her kitchen as she said it was “in disrepair”. She said this had been agreed on 9 June 2021 and she “had an email in July but she had not heard anything since”. The resident also said that there was mould in the property.
Between 10 September 2021 and 12 October 2021, internal landlord emails show that the complaints team chased updates for both the surveyor and the cavity wall insulation works. On 22 September 2021, the resident was informed that the insulation appointment would likely be in mid-October 2021. The notes from that call said that the “resident was more concerned with the surveyor visit” due to the number of outstanding works. The landlord also said it would consider making a payment towards clothes that had been damaged by mould.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord carried out a survey at the property and raised twelve works orders to do the following works:
1. Replace front door and frame.
2. Renew damaged kickboards in the kitchen and fit end panels.
3. Checking soil pipe, vent pipe and water mains in the kitchen for leaks.
4. Replace damaged flooring in the bathroom.
5. Repair a hole in the ceiling caused by a leak.
6. Check roof for leaks or slipped tiles.
7. Repair rear wall.
8. Renew rear gates and front gate.
The resident requested a call back on three occasions between 28 October 2021 and 17 November 2021, relating to the order for her replacement front door. This Service has not had sight of any records of the calls being returned.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021 to request a call back. She said she had not had any response regarding an inspection of the windows, following the reports of damp. The resident also questioned compensation that she said had been agreed to cover damages caused by mould. This Service has not had sight of any record of the call back being made.
On 2 December 2021, the resident reported that plaster work around the door had started cracking, she also reported a reoccurrence of damp that had previously been treated. A call back was requested to discuss these issues and to chase the front door replacement.
The landlord raised works orders on 7 December 2021 for “extraction and reinstallation of cavity wall insulation” and works for repairs to damaged window frames. It noted on the day that the “window frame is rotten, warped or damaged”. The landlord also requested follow on works to install double gates, as its contractor had attended previously but not completed the work.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2021 as an operative had left that morning and not returned, despite assuring the resident he “would be back in an hour”. No detail was provided around which works were being attended.
The resident called the landlord on 20 December 2021 to chase an update on work to the flooring in the bathroom. They were assured the job remained open and the repairs team would be in contact to arrange it. The resident also requested a further call back to discuss the front door order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2021. She said that the damp issues were still apparent in her children’s bedroom and it was causing further damage. The resident said that when she contacted the landlord, she was told the complaint was closed.
On 5 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase a follow up inspection regarding damp and mould. The resident said they had been told another inspection would be carried out, as there was still damp and mould in the property. The landlord noted that the complaint team and service managers were aware of this and requested the resident be called back within 48 hours.
On the same day, the complaints team requested updates on the works raised in October 2021 with the repairs team. The landlord emailed the resident and advised it had been passed to the repairs team to identify the next steps it could take. It also apologised for the delay in addressing the payment for the damaged clothes and asked for bank details to make the payment. It made a bank transfer payment of £87.50 on 6 January 2022.
The landlord attended the property on 14 January 2022 to assess the problem with damp in the bedrooms. During the visit, the resident explained that none of the works raised in October 2021 had been completed and the cavity wall insulation works had also not been completed. Following this visit, further damp related works orders were raised on 17 January 2022. These were to “clean and treat mould” in bedrooms and fit vents in a cupboard to assist with airflow.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord received confirmation that the cavity wall insulation works had been completed.
The resident called the landlord on 11 February 2022 as she had been told during the inspection in January 2022 that she needed new windows and a front door. The landlord’s note said there were no works orders raised for either replacement. On the same day, works orders were raised for repairs to the back gates, the notes said “should have been replaced but no follow on work”.
Internal landlord emails from between 17 January 2022 and 22 February 2022 show the complaint team chasing updates on the works raised in October 2021. It also asked “when the windows would be looked at”. On 22 February 2022, the repairs team advised that all external works to gates, wall and concrete were booked for the next day. It said the vent installation would be completed on 18 March 2022, it had raised a further works order to treat the mould and it said the order for the replacement front door had been chased.
On 3 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord chasing up the replacement of the windows and front door as there had been leaks when it rained. The landlord said that this was with the contractor. On the same day, the landlord raised works orders to “fit a new extractor fan” and repairs to “gutters or downpipes are broken or loose”.
The landlord failed to attend on 9 March 2022 to fit the extractor fan, despite having confirmed the appointment with the resident earlier in the day.
On 16 March 2022, internal landlord emails show that it confirmed the external works as having been completed. It said the mould treatment work had not gone ahead and the order for the replacement door had been sent to the contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2022 as it had been due to attend to repair the guttering that day. OHowever, it had text the resident that day to advise the appointment had been rescheduled until 5 May 2022. The resident advised that she was still awaiting a call back from 30 March 2022, as she had asked for an update on the outstanding repair works related to her complaint.
Internal landlord notes from the same day show it gathering information on the works that had been raised and agreed to during the complaint period. The resident was told that it would look into the current situation around these repairs and call the resident back within a few days. The resident missed the call on 28 April 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 May 2022, in which it said the following:
1. It had failed to complete required works to the windows and rear gate that were first recorded on 23 September 2020.
2. Further repairs raised by its surveyor in October 2021, including works to the bathroom floor, front door, fence and an uneven back garden, had also not been completed.
3. It acknowledged “numerous service failures” and failed or late call backs.
4. It offered a payment of £500 to address these issues and delays.
5. It said that contractors would contact her on 3 May 2022 and 10 May 2022 to “measure up” some of the repairs and arrange an appointment for the windows, respectively.
Scheduled works on 5 May 2022 did not go ahead as nobody from the landlord attended. Its notes said that the job had been marked as completed with follow on works added, despite no work taking place.
On 16 May 2022, the resident called the landlord and accepted the £500 gesture of goodwill. She said the contractors had turned up but didn’t look to address all of the jobs, only part of them.
The resident called on 31 May 2022 to ask about an update on the works and was told she would be called back. The landlord called back the next day and advised that one of the contractors would attend the following week to assess the remaining works. It advised that the door and window works had been quoted and it was awaiting authorisation for the works to go ahead.
On both 10 June 2022 and 28 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the contractor had still not attended. A call back request was raised for the complaints team on each occasion. The landlord also raised a works order on 28 July 2022 as “kitchen wall is leaking and plaster is wet and breaking”.
The resident called the landlord on 5 August 2022, as she was awaiting updates on her complaint and the outstanding works. She was told it would be raised with a complaints manager for investigation, as the previous agent dealing with it had left.
The landlord provided a response on 16 August 2022, within the email it acknowledged that the actions proposed at stage one had yet to be completed. It said that it would escalate the complaint to stage two and seek further answers around the outstanding works.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 14 September 2022, within this it said the following:
1. Since the stage one complaint, no further repairs had been completed.
2. Following a call with the resident on 22 August 2022, it identified that the remaining outstanding works were the bathroom floor, front door, windows, back garden and back gate.
3. The works to the window and front door were with a subcontractor who had attended in May 2022. It said the condition of the windows had been assessed but the front door had not, due to “poor communication” from the landlord.
4. The subcontractor had failed to send a quote for the windows until August 2022. However, this would be authorised that day and the manufacture of the windows should take between 6 and 8 weeks.
5. Works to the bathroom floor and the garden had been allocated to a different subcontractor. It said the subcontractor attended the property without arranging it and as it did not gain access, no further action was taken. It said it would reattend and confirm the required works.
6. It upheld the complaint and said that although £500 payment was paid at stage one, it would consider a further payment once it had completed the outstanding works.

Events after internal complaint process

Between 29 November 2022 and 7 July 2023, four different works orders were raised for repairs related to the back gates with each being recorded as being completed.
On 27 February 2023, a surveyor visited the property and identified damp and mould in two bedrooms and the bathroom. Following this visit, works orders were raised to “treat the damp and mould” and to replace the windows.
On 27 April 2023, works to replace the windows and the front door were completed at the property.
On 7 July 2023, a works order was raised to repair damaged lino flooring.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs related to damp and mould reports.

At the time of the initial reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property, the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy. It’s repair policy indicated that residents should clean mould spots that appear and report it to the landlord if it continues for more than four weeks. The landlord should then investigate further to identify the cause of the damp and mould. Despite the lack of a dedicated policy around damp and mould at the time of the initial reports, the landlord should still have been completing works linked to such reports in a timely and effective manner.
The landlord first acknowledged reports of damp and mould at the property on 13 January 2020 when it raised a works order which noted “major condensation and damp”. This works order was not noted as being completed but 8 days later it raised several works orders. One of these was for repairs to brickwork on the side elevation that was “causing a damp problem in the bedroom”. This works order was raised on 21 January 2020 and marked as completed on 18 February 2020.
There were several repairs that were linked to the damp and mould reports. The were external brickwork repairs, windows and the front door. These will be assessed in turn below.

External brickwork repairs

A works order was raised on 13 July 2020 for the landlord to repoint the gable on the property and investigate damp. As the gable on the resident’s property is on the side elevation, this indicates that any repairs to the brickwork carried out in February 2020, did not cover the entirety of the side elevation. With the landlord already having had mobile scaffolding in place for the work in February 2020, it would have been reasonable for it to inspect the entire wall at that time and identify the requirement for it to be repointed. Had it done so, the required work could have been completed sooner. The delay in completing this work delayed any identification of the cause of the damp and meant the resident had to live with the effects of it for longer than they should have.
Although the works order to repoint the gable was raised on 13 July 2020, the work itself was not completed despite the works being marked as completed on 19 October 2020. On 4 September 2020, the resident had reported that the scaffolding had been set up for three weeks but it was taken down without any work being carried out. Despite this report, the landlord failed to raise a further works order and no further action was taken prior to the works order being noted as completed. This demonstrates a lack of effective management of the repairs by the landlord. It is clear from the resident’s complaint and the contact notes recorded by the landlord, that this caused the resident uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
Following her complaint on 24 September 2020, the resident chased the outstanding works on numerous occasions. A works order was raised to “identify source of water ingress” on 27 November 2020, some two months later, but no completion date is recorded for this works order.
The scaffolding was put up on 14 January 2021 and another works order to “repoint the gable” is raised again on 10 February 2021, with the completion date recorded as 15 February 2021. This meant the landlord failed to complete the required works for over 7 months. Throughout the period between 13 July 2020 and the completion of the works on 15 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 8 occasions to chase completion of the works. During this time, the resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould in the property was getting worse. On each occasion, she requested a call back but this Service has not had sight of any records of these call backs being completed. It is the view of this Service that the overall delay in completing this work was excessive. The landlord failed to demonstrate effective repair management and given the resident’s concerns around the damp and mould, caused them avoidable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
After completing the pointing of the gable, further works to seal the cladding at the property were proposed. This was detailed within an internal landlord email from 11 February 2021 but this Service has seen no evidence of a works order being raised for the repair. The scaffolding was left in place following the previous repairs to allow completion of this work, however, the work itself was not completed until the last week of April 2021. As no works order was raised, there is no record of the actual completion date. This date was communicated to the complaints team in an email dated 23 April 2021. Given the nature of these works, it is the view of this Service that these should have been arranged to be completed quickly after one another. Both works needed to be completed to rule them out as the potential cause of the damp and mould. This was another excessive and unnecessary delay, which could have been avoided with better oversight and more effective management of these repairs. This meant the resident had scaffolding setup at the property for over four months between 14 January 2021 and completion of the works to the cladding in the last week of April 2021. Although it was there to assist with outstanding works, the delay between the works was excessive. This meant the resident had to live with the scaffolding at the property for an extended period, causing inconvenience in its presence at the property, along with security risks and the unsightly nature of it.
Following the repairs to the external walls, the landlord arranged a survey of the cavity wall insulation at the property. This was proposed after the cladding was sealed in April 2021 and the landlord confirmed receipt of the results of the survey on 23 June 2021. It identified that there was not enough cavity wall insulation at the property and said it would arrange for this to be installed. This work was not confirmed as being completed until 2 February 2022, almost nine months later. This delay was excessive and unacceptable. During this time, the landlord set the resident’s expectations incorrectly on several occasions when providing timeframes for the completion of this work. She had to continually contact the landlord asking for updates, which internal emails seem to show the landlord did request, however, it failed to ensure completion of those works, following each assurance from it. This would have added to the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience the resident was already feeling due to the ongoing delays and unreliable nature of the information provided.
The cavity wall insulation work was carried out by an external contractor and the landlord explained that some of this work was being carried out as an ongoing programme of works. Although this approach would usually be considered reasonable, completion of this work should have been prioritised. Any delay in carrying out this work meant a delay in identifying the cause of the damp and mould. During these nine months, the resident has continued to experience damp and mould in the property, as the investigation into this problem was stalled awaiting this work. The landlord could have prioritised the work for this property and had it carried out independent of the programme of works. This would have allowed a progression in its efforts to stop the damp and mould.

Windows

The resident first raised concerns around the windows in the property around January 2020. The works order was noted to “measure/replace all failed window units and seals” indicating an acknowledgement by the landlord that repairs of some kind were required. The contractor attended to measure the windows around the time of the works order being raised. However, this works order was never marked as completed and in September 2020, the landlord indicated that the windows would not be replaced at that time. It said they would be likely be reviewed as part of a planned programme in 2022. The landlord’s decision to refuse this work prior to a planned programme would be seen as reasonable, if it took steps to address the problems caused by those windows in the intervening period. As the resident was already experiencing issues with damp and mould, any sort of fault with the windows would likely contribute to this problem. If the decision to refuse the works at this stage was due to financial constraints, it could have taken more cost effective steps, such as repairing the seals, rather than replacing the window units in full. This can only be considered a failing on the part of the landlord, as it did not look to address a repair that it acknowledged as being required. The lack of action by the landlord led to the resident feeling that it did not care about addressing the issue.
The resident continued to request replacement of the window units and during an inspection on 5 February 2021, she was told again that the landlord would not replace them. Although it refused to replace the windows, it once again acknowledged that there were issues with the windows as it noted “a couple of double glazing units” needed replacing. Despite accepting that works were required, no further works orders were raised to carry out these repairs.
Emails in April 2021 indicated that it was awaiting authorisation for window units but no further works were raised. The landlord then noted internally that it was “putting a business case” together for window replacement in July 2021 but it said it “would likely be rejected”. This Service has not had sight of any records of progression with either of these requests. These demonstrate an inconsistent view by the landlord of the condition of the windows and the required repairs. The landlord had accepted that some of the units required replacement and then later showed a requirement for them being replaced. Once again, its notes at this stage suggest that the reason this did not progress was down to cost. This is not a valid reason to reject urgent works, to address a potential cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
During another inspection in October 2021, the landlord said it would review a previous report from the glazing contractor and make a decision. Despite a request from this Service, the landlord said it was unable to provide a copy of this report. This demonstrates a record keeping failure by the landlord as it should have retained a copy of this report.
A further inspection was carried out and works to repair the window frames were raised on 7 December 2021. These were marked as completed on 17 January 2022. However, internal emails from February 2022 cast doubt over whether these works were completed, as the landlord asks when the windows would be looked at. This is another record keeping failure by the landlord, as it has marked a works order as complete, when the work was not carried out.
The resident contacted the landlord again in March 2022, as the windows were reported as leaking following rain. The resident was told the issue was with the contractor but no further action is taken until the complaint response in May 2022. This Service has not had sight of any records that would indicate that a contractor was involved at this stage. Even if it was, the landlord should have taken steps to address the leaks on a temporary basis and any work with a contractor should have been chased. Instead, the resident was left with windows that were leaking, while an investigation into damp and mould at the property was being carried out.
Within both the stage one and stage two responses, the landlord acknowledges the delays in addressing the windows. It proposed actions to have the windows replaced and indicated that the windows would be ordered shortly after the stage two response was issued. This did not happen as the internal notes show that requests for the windows were rejected afterward. This shows a clear disconnect between departments within the landlord, as one was agreeing to replace the windows and the other then rejects it. These actions should have been agreed at each stage of the required internal process, to ensure that it was providing the resident with accurate information. Instead, once again, it does not manage the resident’s expectations correctly, leading to further disappointment and understandably, frustration, when they are told again that it has rejected the request.
It is clear that for over two years, the landlord acknowledged that repairs of some kind were required to the windows at the property. The resident was told on several occasions that these would be replaced or repaired. However, its records show no repairs were undertaken during a period of over two years while her complaint remained outstanding. It took a further seven months after the complaint process was exhausted before the windows were replaced.

Front Door

After the resident chased a proposed replacement front door on 2 September 2020, the landlord attended to “repair the frame” with the works order noted as completed on 29 September 2020.
The resident chased numerous repairs in February 2020, the complaint team indicated that one of these was around the door that “leaked when it rained”. Following an inspection at the property, the landlord said it could not get authorisation for a replacement door but acknowledged there was an issue with the frame. If the door frame was beyond economical repair, the landlord should have arranged for a replacement. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as cost should not be considered a reasonable explanation for it failing to replace a door that it could not repair.
The resident had explained that this was allowing water ingress when it rained. As the landlord was trying to establish the cause of damp and mould, this repair should have been seen as a priority to assist with its investigation. The landlord’s lack of action could have only added to the frustration felt by the resident and added to their concerns around the continuation of the damp and mould problem.
The resident raised concerns around the door again in June 2021 and September 2021, one year after the landlord raised a works order to repair the door and frame. Following a further inspection around a number of outstanding repairs, the landlord raised an order to replace the door and frame on 13 October 2021. The resident was then asked by a contractor to choose a door from options it provided. She requested a call back from the landlord when there appeared to be an issue with her choice. However, it failed to call her back, despite 5 requests between October 2021 and January 2022. This is another failing by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident.
Between 14 January 2022 and the stage two response being issued on 14 September 2022, the landlord attended the property on 3 occasions. On each occasion, the resident was left thinking that the door would be replaced. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations causing her further unnecessary disappointment and distress. During this same period, the resident and people within the landlord chased updates with positive updates being provided but nothing ever progressed. Measurements were taken again following the stage one complaint response with the resident being told the order was just awaiting authorisation. However, when it provided its stage two response, the landlord indicated it had never assessed the condition of the door. It said this was due to “poor communication” within the landlord. It is evident that during this period, and prior to it, the landlord has failed to demonstrate any real oversight of the required works around the door.
Over a period of two years, the resident was told the door needed repair and then replacement, with the landlord providing inconsistent information as to the actual status of this work. It is the view of this Service that this inconsistent information was also an issue within the landlord, as evidenced in its emails and notes. The landlord accepting that the condition of the door had not been assessed within its stage two response calls into question the landlord’s actions over those previous two years. It was understandable for the resident to have little confidence in the landlord’s updates given this failing by it to manage the repair over such a significant period when she was managing multiple repairs with the landlord. This could only have added to the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
The front door was replaced at the property on 27 April 2023, meaning it took over 18 months after it raised a works order to do so, and 27 months after it acknowledged that the frame needed to be replaced. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to carry out the repair within a timely, efficient or professional manner.
Ultimately, after being made aware of damp and mould at the property in 2020, the landlord was still receiving reports of it at the property in 2023. The steps that were taken by the landlord to identify and treat the problem might be considered reasonable, if they were carried out in a structured and efficient manner. Instead, there were significant delays caused by a lack of management of the overall process. The resident was left to chase repairs that did not go ahead with her call back requests going unanswered in the majority of cases. Although the complaints team showed some management of the repairs, this was hampered by inconsistent information and incorrect assurances and timescales. The sheer number of incomplete repairs led to some of them being investigated or progressed, while others were seemingly forgotten about until they were chased again.

Summary of findings on works linked to damp and mould reports.

Some of the works required during a damp and mould investigation can take some time and potentially fall outside of repair policy timeframes. However, this this was taken to the extreme with works taking several months to complete due to a series of significant service failures. Finding the cause of the damp and mould would have been aided by these repairs being completed within a reasonable amount of time. However, it took over three years for one of the more likely causes of the issue to be addressed. The time taken by the landlord to carry out these repairs was significantly outside its repair policy and could not be considered timely or reasonable. There was a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and her family during this time as they experienced the effects of the damp and mould in their home for a period of over three years. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

As part of the resident’s initial complaint, other works outside of those forming part of the damp and mould investigation were noted as being outstanding. These were external works to the walls and the front and back gates to the property.
The resident reported these repairs as part of the initial complaint on 23 September 2020 but the landlord took no action to address these issues at the time of the complaint. It acknowledged within internal emails in February 2021 that the external wall needed bricks replacing and both the front and back gates needed replacing. This was acknowledged again on 13 October 2021, following another inspection at the property. The brickwork was marked as completed on 21 December 2021. A routine repair should be completed within 28 calendar days in line with the landlord’s repair policy, however, this took 15 months after it was raised as part of the complaint. This is significantly outside of its repair policy and must be considered a failing on the part of the landlord. Although the brickwork repairs would not be considered urgent, over time it could lead to it becoming more of a safety risk, especially when the resident had children in the property. Although a minor work when considering the other works that were outstanding, this would still have caused the resident further unnecessary concern.
Following the inspection in October 2021, the landlord requested a further works order for replacement of the gates in December 2021 but it failed to raise the order. It then raised another order on 11 February 2022 and advised in an email on 22 February 2022 that the work was due to be completed the next day. However, this did not go ahead. In both the stage one and stage two responses, the landlord acknowledged that the works to the gates were outstanding and said it would arrange the required works. Following the stage two response, four works orders were raised and marked as completed but the work was not completed until 7 July 2023, meaning it took 42 months for this repair to be completed. This is a significant failing by the landlord which is well in excess of its 28 calendar day timeframe for a routine repair. The number of works orders raised during this time with some being marked as complete is excessive and demonstrates a lack of oversight of these works. The resident had to continually chase these works, amongst others, while the landlord provided inconsistent and unreliable information about when it would complete this work. The time and trouble incurred by the resident during this period was significant and could only have led to her feeling that nobody was showing any desire to help get these works completed.
Overall, as with all of the works that were required, the landlord failed to demonstrate any ownership or oversight of them. Works orders failed, no follow on work was scheduled and the resident was left to chase updates throughout. The landlord failed by a significant margin to complete works, that it acknowledged were required, in line with its own repair policy. Given the number of times these works were inspected and then requested, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure they were managed with some form of urgency and effective oversight through to a satisfactory conclusion. Instead, they took several years to complete, with the resident having to pursue them throughout. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord closed the initial complaint from 23 September 2020, without providing a full response to it. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it would provide its decision within 10 working days, however, no response was issued on 7 October 2020 when it closed the complaint. It’s note said that the resident was made aware of the closure and its decision but nothing was issued in writing and the resident’s contacts over the next few months were not consistent with them being aware of it being closed.
The landlord’s complaint policy said that it would not close a complaint until the decision had been communicated to the resident and any action plan agreed with them. There is no evidence of an action plan having been agreed or a decision being communicated in writing to the resident. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to follow its own complaint policy. Its failure to follow its own process meant that the resident was unaware of the complaint being closed and no action plan being agreed around the outstanding works. This meant that as of 7 October 2020, the resident was no better off for having raised the complaint. The aim of any complaint process is to resolve the substantive issue, which had not been achieved in this instance. Instead, the resident was left to chase the outstanding works on numerous occasions between October 2020 and the first works being completed following the complaint in February 2021. It is clear from the landlord’s notes that the resident felt frustrated at the time and trouble she experienced in chasing these works during this period.
When the resident explained to the landlord in January 2021 that she was not aware of the complaint being closed, the landlord failed to reopen, restart or escalate the complaint. The resident had made it clear that she was unhappy with these actions but the landlord failed to record this as a new complaint. This is a failing by the landlord, as the resident had expressed dissatisfaction in the service provided. When they did so, the landlord should have either escalated the original complaint, or given the time since it closed the previous complaint, recorded it as a new complaint. Its failure to do so meant that the resident was denied access to a fair complaint investigation. Instead, the resident had to continue chasing works through the complaints team with no agreed action plan or final decision from the landlord that would allow her to request a review through this Service. This could only have added to the frustration the resident felt around the management of her concerns given the time and trouble she experienced in dealing with the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 3 May 2022, some 409 working days after it was raised. This is significantly in excess of its own complaint policy. The delay was not explained within its response but it is possible that changes in the landlord’s complaint policy during this time led to the response being issued. Regardless of the reason for the delay, it could not be considered warranted as most of the repairs reported in September 2020, remained outstanding.
Within its stage one response, the landlord does acknowledge the delays of almost two years, numerous service failures and its failings around communication with the resident. However, despite its acknowledgment of these issues, the landlord then failed to undertake adequate oversight of the works it proposed in the response. The resident reported that contractors missed appointments and didn’t complete the required works on others. The resident then had to chase the landlord again, there were more failed call backs and ultimately the works remained incomplete. Ultimately, despite accepting its failings and acknowledging the delays in the completion of the works, the landlord acted in the same manner following its complaint response. This failing shows that the landlord has not learned from the outcome of the complaint, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s stage two response again acknowledged the outstanding works and the landlord’s failings around oversight of those works. It said that the order for new windows would be authorised that day and it provided a timeframe for the manufacture, along with assurances around the other works. However, despite its response, the landlord failed to take the actions outlined in the response in a timely manner. The doors and windows were not installed until 27 April 2023, a delay of over six months, during which time it had also refused the works again. This shows a lack of joined up working by the landlord as one team is making assurances of works, without others having agreed to those works. The external works and the works to the bathroom flooring were not completed until July 2023 and September 2023 respectively, nine months and one year after they were proposed. This demonstrates a further lack of adequate oversight of works but also a failure to ensure that it took the actions proposed as a resolution to the complaint. The landlord has not shown any learnings from the stage one complaint, as the delays and failings in the implementation show the same failings as before. Given the further delays over these works, this could only have added to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble that the resident had experienced while trying to get those works completed.
It is the view of this Service that during the investigation of this complaint, its complaint team’s effectiveness was hindered by a lack of cooperation from other landlord services. There was a lack of responsiveness from those services, which was a significant factor in compromising the effectiveness of the landlord’s complaint management and its attempts to bring about a satisfactory resolution. Had there been more joined up working between the complaint team and those services, it could have provided more accurate information throughout and delivered on its commitments more effectively.
Overall, the landlord’s management of the complaint showed a disregard for its own policy and the guidelines set out in the Complaint Handling Code operated at the time. It incorrectly closed the complaint, failed to take the actions it should have initially and then failed to reopen or restart a new complaint when the resident raised it. Instead, the resident was left chasing the complaints team for updates on the proposed works for over 18 months. This had a detrimental impact on the relationship between the landlord and the resident, due to the series of service failures when it came to managing her correspondence and the overall complaint.
Despite acknowledging its failings, it repeated them again following both stages of the complaint. During this time, the resident had to spend unnecessary amounts of time requesting call backs and waiting on, in some cases, essential works that she considered to be having a detrimental impact on her family’s health. The landlord’s management of her complaint caused significant distress and inconvenience, time and trouble along with the frustration caused by the excessive delays and failure to complete the works. Further to this, the landlord’s failure to provide a response to the complaint has unfairly delayed the resident’s opportunity to seek an independent review by this Service. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs related to damp and mould reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to manage the repairs associated with its attempts to identify the cause of damp and mould within the property with any real oversight. The repairs were carried out individually, with a lack of effective scheduling to minimise the time between each repair and with significant delays throughout. Without the resident chasing the repairs at each stage, it is likely that the works would have remained incomplete, as no follow-on works were arranged due to a lack of overall management of the process. A lack of joined up working between departments led to inconsistent information being provided throughout these works which contributed to the overall delays. During this process, the resident and her family were left living with the damp and mould and the health concerns that came with that. Without any overall and consistent ownership of the process from the landlord, this meant she had to invest unnecessary amounts of her own time to chase the landlord, for several years, before it carried out the actions it had proposed when she initially raised her concerns.
Similar to the damp and mould related repairs, the landlord failed to provide any real ownership or management of these repairs. It acknowledged that it was required to carry out repairs on several occasions but those repairs fell outside of its normal timeframes and took years to be completed, rather than the 30 calendar days in its policy. Without the resident’s involvement and persistence, it is likely that these jobs would not have progressed to completion.
The landlord closed the initial complaint in October 2020, without providing a response or a reasonable plan of action to address the cause of the complaint. When the resident raised her concerns over its closure, it failed to reopen the complaint or open a new complaint. In May 2022, it provided a response to the previously closed complaint and proposed actions to complete the outstanding repairs but failed to meet its commitment to do so. A further response was issued at stage two, proposing similar actions as they were still outstanding. It failed to ensure that it completed these actions until seven months after the complaint response was issued. The resident’s complaint took just under two years to be responded to correctly. This is significantly in excess of its own complaint policy and has unfairly denied the resident access to an independent review through this Service.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £3,600 to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report. This payment is made up of the following elements:
1. £2,400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the handling of the repairs related to damp and mould reports.
2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. £800 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Chief Executive of the landlord must apologise in person to the resident for its failings in this case within 28 days of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must undertake a strategic review of the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within six weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensuring it have adequate oversight measures in place to meet timeframes set out in its repair policy in respect of damp and mould.
2. Ensure adequacy of records when repairs and inspections are taking place and detailing the outcomes and retaining relevant reports.
3. Ensure that residents are kept informed, with adequate records made, of progress throughout a damp and mould investigation and any related works.
4. There is middle management oversight within the repair service of complaints with outstanding repair actions when such actions are no greater than three months overdue.
If it has not done so in the past six months, the landlord to review its complaint management and oversight process within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. Understand the landlord’s damp and mould policy, complaint policy and this Service’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.
2. Provide complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the policy.
3. Ensure oversight of commitments made in complaint responses through to satisfactory completion or additional compensation award.
4. Do not prematurely close complaints.