The Guinness Partnership Limited (202233414)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233414

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the extractor fan vent and roof.
2. Repairs to the patio doors.
3. Damp and mould and associated repairs to the bathroom ceiling and walls.
4. The formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. He lives with his wife and 4 children, 2 of which are very young. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to this Service, but this did not include the terms. However, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a clause is implied into all tenancies that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Under its repairs policy it categorises repairs as either emergency (attend and make safe within 24 hours) or routine (repair within 28 days). It says it is responsible for repairing the roof, external doors and walls, internal walls and ceilings excluding decoration. It lists examples of emergency repairs including a flood or uncontrollable leak.
From 5 May 2022 the landlord had a damp and mould policy. This says it will “take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way” and communicate its plan to resolve this with residents. It will inspect reports of damp and seek to resolve it. It will inform residents about inspections, diagnosis, and timetabling of repairs it will complete.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations to this Service.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
Under its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes it will contact the resident to request a further 10 working days extension, or longer by agreement in exceptional circumstances.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. A landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident and should respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 3 February 2020 the landlord inspected the property and produced a report. The report identified that the bathroom extractor fan ducting was not fitted properly through the roof vent, which had caused water damage to the ceiling. It raised the repairs needed to the ducting and to the ceiling on 13 February 2020, however, both were not completed.
The resident called the landlord to chase repairs on 18 March 2020 and 26 June 2020, when it re-raised the repairs. The repairs were marked as completed on 2 and 31 July 2020 but this was not correct. The landlord inspected on 14 and 19 October 2020 and produced reports. These said that there was a leak from pipework into the downstairs WC and there was mould on the bathroom ceiling with the extractor fan not working.
On 17 and 18 December 2020 the resident called the landlord and made a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint), which was about the repairs reported in January 2020 for the bathroom not having been completed, and not having had any contact from the landlord. It called him on 23 December 2020 to acknowledge his complaint. In an internal email on 8 January 2021 it listed the outstanding repairs to the bathroom ceiling, ducting, a bath panel, a leaking pipe into the WC and for the mould caused to the WC ceiling. It also called the resident and confirmed the repairs had not been completed, having been put on hold due to COVID-19 and then marked as completed by mistake. The resident said the bathroom was black with mould.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the first complaint on 13 January 2021 in which it said:
1. It had not completed the repairs. It said it had failed in its communication and service and apologised for this.
2. Its contractor would complete the repairs but did not give a date.
3. It would consider offering compensation once it had completed the repairs.
4. How to escalate the complaint if the resident was dissatisfied.
The landlord chased the works and on 10 February 2021 the contractor said these had been put on hold due to COVID-19. The resident emailed the landlord to chase the repairs on 15 February 2021 and said no-one had contacted him. He emailed it again on 19 February 2021 and asked to escalate his complaint. He said its communication had been poor, the repairs had not been completed and should have been deemed essential, and he was concerned for his family’s health due to the damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged escalation the same day.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the first complaint in which it:
1. Accepted that it had still not completed the repairs.
2. Said there had been “several occasions where contact has been promised by different departments, [or] contractors, which has either been late or has not happened at all.”
3. Admitted it had previously marked completed repairs it had not done.
4. Said it was “expecting” the repairs to be booked in by the end of the week.
5. Apologised and offered £200 compensation.
On an unknown date, as the landlord has not provided evidence, it completed works to the bathroom ceiling. It inspected on 20 May 2021 and said the work had been poorly completed and needed to be recalled.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 20 October 2021 and it raised an emergency repair, which it marked as a no access. Its records say it tried to call him on 10 November 2021 and that it would attend on 15 November 2021 to try to gain access, however there are no records of this.
On 24 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint (the second complaint). He said after the first complaint the landlord had repaired the bathroom ceiling poorly and it had confirmed this during an inspection. However, he had not heard from the landlord since, and the repair was outstanding with the damp and mould getting worse. He also said the seals on his patio doors were broken, letting in water and causing damp and mould.
The landlord acknowledged the second complaint the following day. In an internal email on 4 March 2022 it said it had not raised a recall or new repair for the bathroom ceiling after it inspected, and had also not repaired the leaking roof, and decided to reinspect. It inspected on 29 March 2022 and produced a report. It identified “severe mould” on the bathroom ceiling, condensation mould in the bedroom and that the patio door seals were faulty. It raised repairs of the bathroom ceiling and patio doors on 1 April 2022.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint, (which was its final response as the resident did not ask to escalate the complaint). In it, the landlord:
1. Admitted it had not recalled or reattended to the bathroom ceiling repair since its inspection in May 2021 or contacted him about the repair.
2. Apologised for the poor service, stress and inconvenience caused.
3. Said it had inspected and raised repairs and would update him with dates for the works.
4. Offered £270 compensation being £200 for delay to repairs, £50 for poor communication, and £20 for responding late to his complaint.
5. Said how he could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s repairs records say it repaired the bathroom ceiling on 28 April 2022, the patio doors on 5 May 2022, and the roof leak on 18 May 2022. Its records also say it completed work to the bathroom ceiling on 28 June 2022, but it is not clear from the records whether this was a follow-on repair, or the original repair date marked as completed was incorrect. The records also say it completed a mould treatment for the bedroom and wall around the patio doors on 1 December 2022, but no detail was provided.
On 19 December 2022 the resident reported a roof leak causing damp. The landlord attended as an emergency the following day and marked the repair as completed, but no detail was provided.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails between 17 and 18 January 2023. The resident said he had called it on 11 January 2023, was expecting a call back, and had asked to make a complaint. He said he still had damp and mould, and a draft from the patio doors. It said it did not have a complaint logged but would open one for him (the third complaint). It acknowledged the third complaint on 19 January 2023, said it had completed a mould wash on 1 December 2022, and offered to arrange another one.
Between 23 and 26 January 2023 the landlord discussed the complaint in internal emails. It said it had spoken to the resident prior to raising a complaint, and he had not asked to raise a complaint during that call but had said he still had damp and mould. It said it had called on 23 January 2023 and offered a mould wash, but the resident had declined as he was due an inspection the following day. It also said its contractor said it did the mould wash on 1 December 2022, and its roofing contractor had attended but was concerned about a false chimney on the roof and it had requested a quote for works.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the third complaint in which it:
1. Defined the complaint as about damp and mould, a roof leak into the bathroom, and draft from patio doors which had not been fixed, and poor communication.
2. Accepted it did not attend following the resident’s report of damp in April 2022 but said it did complete a mould wash on 1 December 2022 which the resident disputes.
3. Said it had attended on 5 May 2022 for the patio doors but could not say what works it did. It would book a new repair appointment.
4. Said its roofing contractor had attended week of 23 January 2023 and would complete the repairs by the end of February 2023.
5. Apologised and offered £250 compensation, being £200 for delay, stress and inconvenience, and £50 for poor communication.
6. Confirmed it would monitor the repairs until completion.
7. Gave information on how to escalate the complaint if he wished to.
The resident called the landlord on 6 February 2023 to escalate the complaint. He said it was lying about having done a mould wash on 1 December 2022 and he felt the compensation offered was not enough to reflect the failures.
On 21 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase his stage 2 response. He said he had not been contacted about the repairs, and the damp was making his family ill. He called it the following day and it said it would contact him about the repairs. It sent an internal email on 27 February 2023 asking for any update on the repairs and said on 6 March 2023 that it was waiting for the roofing contractor to have scaffolding erected. It said it would complete the internal works once the roof had been repaired and the delay was due to its previous contractor’s fault.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the third complaint on 6 March 2023 in which it:
1. Set out a timeline of the complaint.
2. Said it had attended his damp and mould report as an emergency on 1 December 2023 but did not have any evidence to confirm what it did. In any event it did not resolve the issue.
3. Confirmed it had attended the roof leak and arranged follow-on works. It had exceeded its 28-day timeframe and blamed this on the period over Christmas and New Year when it had less staff. It thought attending on 24 January 2023 was reasonable.
4. Accepted its communication about the patio door repairs had been poor.
5. Admitted it had not carried out the actions detailed in its stage 1 response and could not provide an explanation for the delays.
6. Admitted it had not called him back when it should have and that its communication had been poor.
7. Upheld the complaint, apologised, and increased its stage 1 offer to £325 being £250 for delay in repairs and £75 for poor communication.
8. Said it would inspect the property on 13 March 2023.
9. Gave details on how the resident could contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 7 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out his disagreement with its stage 2 response. In his email he set out a full chronology of events. He also said his wife, who had been heavily pregnant, was having to go into the loft to empty containers collecting water from the roof leak. He said the roofing contractor had inspected on 24 January 2023, but still no works had been done. He said when he calls the landlord “everyone seems to have very little knowledge on what should be taking place, when, how, why”. He asked for a timeframe for the repairs and said this had all caused health problems and anxiety for his family.
The landlord replied to the resident on 20 March 2023 and said he had exhausted its internal complaints process, and it did not have an update about the repairs. In an internal email on 28 March 2023 it said it had received a quote from its roofing contractors and was waiting on them to do the works. It said in a further internal email on 12 June 2023 that it had completed the repairs and closed the complaint.
On 21 November 2023 the landlord’s records show it attended a roof leak but there was a no access, with no further information. The resident called the landlord on 8 January 2024 and said no repairs had been completed. He said he had been told that scaffolding for the roof would be put up but that had not happened, and his patio doors had not been repaired. He also still had damp and mould in the bedrooms and now in the kitchen. He called it again the following day and said the roofing contractor had said they could attend that day, which was too short notice.
The landlord raised a repair to treat the damp and mould on 30 January 2024, but the resident cancelled this. He told it there was no point in treating until it had repaired the roof. It emailed its roofing contractor on 26 March 2024 and asked them to attend as soon as possible. The contractor replied the following day and said the resident had declined an appointment for the following day.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaints, as he had brought his complaint to this Service, and sent a letter to him in which it:
1. Said it had identified failings in its handling including:
  1. Providing responses outside of policy timeframes.
  2. Saying repairs would be completed without giving appointment dates.
  3. Failed to address all its failings in its stage 2 response to complaint 3.
2. Apologised for its failings and offered additional compensation of:
  1. £1,150 for inconvenience, time and trouble in resolving repairs.
  2. £75 for poor communication.
  3. £500 for delays in complaint handling.
3. Said this compensation was in addition to the £995 it had already offered.
4. Set out the changes it had made and was making to its complaint and repairs handling as learning from the complaint review.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 17 May 2024 and said the landlord had put up scaffolding. He emailed again on 1 June 2024 and said it had inspected the roof the previous day. The resident has told the Ombudsman that repairs have been booked in for 2 September 2024 but remain outstanding at the date of this report.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the extractor fan vent and the roof

From February 2020 the landlord was aware of a leak into the bathroom from the roof, initially identified as caused by the extractor fan ducting not being properly connected to a vent tile. It is not clear whether the leak was caused by water entering through the roof due to this, or whether this was condensation causing water in the ducting during extraction. The landlord delayed by 8 working days to raise the repair without explanation which was a failing. Had it raised this on the day of inspection and completed the repair within its 28-day policy timeframe, it would have done so before the COVID-19 lockdown which started on 23 March 2020. It put the initial repair on hold due to COVID-19 but failed to tell the resident.
When the landlord raised the repair again in June 2020 it marked it as completed when it had not been which was a further failing. Following its reinspection in October 2020 and in an internal email in January 2021 it accepted the repair was outstanding. After chasing the repair it was put on hold again in 2021 due to COVID-19, but again it failed to tell the resident. There is no evidence to show when, or if, it ever repaired the vent ducting.
On 20 October 2021, when the resident reported a roof leak again into his bathroom the landlord raised an emergency, in line with its repairs policy for an uncontrollable leak, but said it was a no access. The records do not provide any information as to why which it would have been helpful to have had. It then delayed until 10 November 2021 to try to contact the resident without explanation and failed to provide any record of whether it attended on 15 November 2021 as it said it would. The landlord failed to take any further action until the resident made his second complaint in February 2022, and it accepted in March 2022 that it had not repaired the roof which was a substantial failing. By this point 134 days had passed against its standard repair policy timeframe of 28 days.
Although the landlord’s records say it repaired the roof leak in May 2022, it failed to provide any information. It is not clear if this was caused by the previous vent ducting issue or something different. There is no completion report, description of work completed or before and after photographs, all of which would have been helpful for the Ombudsman. Whether the leak had been ongoing since February 2020, or October 2021, this was still an unreasonable delay in repair well outside of its policy timeframe.
After the resident reported a roof leak again in December 2022 the landlord correctly attended as an emergency repair following its policy. It marked this as completed but failed to record any details such as the cause of the leak or any works it had done. Because of this, it is again not possible to say whether this was a new roof leak or continuation of the previous one. However, it did pass the repair to its roofing contractor which attended in January 2023. It explained the delay in its stage 2 complaint response (to the third complaint) as due to the Christmas period. This was not a reasonable excuse for exceeding its policy timeframe. Landlords should ensure they have sufficient staffing over holiday periods to facilitate necessary repairs.
Within its stage 1 response (to the third complaint) on 2 February 2023 it said it would complete the roofing works by the end of that month however it failed to do this. It did not communicate with the resident about delays or explain these which was a further failing. It said it had completed all repairs by 12 June 2023 but there is no evidence of its roof repair having been done. No notes, records, reports or photos have been provided.
The resident reported a further roof leak in November 2023, after he had come to the end of the landlord’s complaints process. Once again there is no evidence to say whether this was a new and different leak, or continuation of the previous one. At the date of this report the roof has yet to be repaired which is an unreasonable delay, long over its policy timeframe, and unacceptable.
Within its responses to all 3 complaints it apologised and offered compensation for its collective repairs handling failings and poor communication. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There was severe maladministration. The landlord consistently exceeded its policy timeframe for standard repairs and its delays were unreasonable. While it did attend, or attempt to attend, within its emergency timeframes, it did no or no effective repairs when it did attend. It seems to have allowed the problem to be ignored until it was chased by the resident. It did not effectively manage its roofing contractor or request or record relevant and necessary information about the repairs. It left the resident and his family to suffer from leaks for substantial periods of time.
To reflect the significant distress, frustration, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, and order has been made that the landlord pay £2,000 compensation to the resident. This sum is inclusive of the £775 offered within its complaint responses which it offered for delay in completing repairs and poor communications but does not include its offer made after the end of its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the patio doors

The resident raised the issue with his patio doors letting in a draft and water from underneath as part of the second complaint in February 2022. The landlord unreasonably delayed until the end of March 2022 to inspect, when it should have raised a repair under its policy as soon as the resident raised the issue. Its records say it repaired the patio doors on 5 May 2022, which was outside of its 28-day standard repair timeframe and was a failing.
When the resident raised this issue again as part of the third complaint, the landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that it could not say what repairs it did on 5 May 2022, which was a failing in its repairs record keeping. It correctly agreed to raise a new repair. However, it accepted in its stage 2 response that it had not done this. It had not carried out the repairs by 8 January 2024 when the resident chased it again. There is no evidence to suggest that it had carried out a repair by the date of this report.
Having considered the landlord’s failings, and whether compensation it offered within its responses to the second and third complaints could be reasonable redress, as set out above, there was maladministration. The landlord has failed to complete the repair, failed to record what attempts it made to repair in May 2022, and had left the resident with defective patio doors. To reflect the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 to the resident. This figure is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs to the bathroom ceiling and walls

The resident reported damp and mould to the bathroom ceiling (due to the leak) in February 2020 and the landlord inspected. It raised a repair for the ceiling, after a delay, but this was not completed. It failed to tell the resident why, that it had been cancelled due to COVID-19. It reraised the repair in June 2020 and marked it completed in July 2020, which it later accepted was incorrect as it had not done any repairs, which was a failing.
The landlord confirmed in October 2020 there was mould on the bathroom ceiling but failed to take any action. It said in its first response to the first complaint it would arrange repairs, but failed to give any dates in its response, and failed to follow up and arrange the repair. It accepted this in its stage 2 response in March 2021 and said it would book the repairs. Again, it would have been helpful if it had provided a date for the repairs within its response. By this point over a year had passed since the damp and mould was first reported. Even allowing for disruption due to the government enforced COVID-19 restrictions, this was an inexcusable delay. The landlord had managed to safely attend for multiple inspections and so could had done the work.
By February 2021 the resident questioned why the landlord had not considered the repairs essential even with COVID-19 restrictions in place. This was a reasonable question which the landlord failed to answer. The resident and his family, including young children, had been living with damp and mould for over a year and the landlord should have completed the repairs.
While the landlord completed repairs to the ceiling on a date between 11 March 2021 and 20 May 2021, it failed to record the appointment date or any information about the repairs completed. It also completed the works poorly, which it accepted when it inspected on 20 May 2021. It said it needed to recall the works, which was solution focused, but then failed to do so, which was a serious failing. It also failed to communicate with the resident until he raised the second complaint in February 2022.
It is positive that the landlord inspected again, but it delayed in doing this by over a month, which was unreasonable. The resident had explained that the damp and mould in the bathroom was getting worse, and that he now had additional mould due to his defective patio doors. The landlord should have prioritised its inspection. The landlord categorised the mould as severe when it did inspect. Its record say it completed repairs to the bathroom ceiling on 28 April 2022 and 28 June 2022, but it failed to record what it did on each date.
The landlord’s new damp and mould policy had come into effect on 5 May 2022, and under this it should have clearly communicated what it was going to do to resolve the damp and mould to the resident.
When the resident reported damp and mould again the landlord raised an emergency repair which it attended on 1 December 2022. This was a ‘timely’ attendance in line with its damp and mould policy. It told the resident that it had completed a mould wash or treatment, but the resident disputed this. It accepted in its stage 2 response to the third complaint that it did not have any evidence of the work it said it completed, which was a failing.
Following the end of the landlord’s complaint process there is no evidence it had resolved the damp and mould issues. Although it periodically offered to carry out mould washes the resident rejected these for understandable reasons. His logic that they would not resolve the issue, without the substantive repairs to the causes being completed, cannot be faulted. The landlord was missing the point, and a mould wash was not a cure for all damp and mould. There is no evidence, at the date of this report, that the damp and mould issues have been resolved which is a substantial and continuing failing.
The evidence shows that the outstanding repairs were the cause of, or significantly contributed to, the damp and mould. Repairing the roof and patio doors were the first important step, after which the mould could be treated. However, there appeared to be a lack of joined up thinking or planning by the landlord. The internal communications showed a lack of ownership, knowledge or understanding. The landlord appears to have passed the issues raised around several different departments and members of its staff, meaning no-one appeared to have the full picture at any given time. Further delays were caused by trying to find out information internally. Poor communication was also evidenced in examples of multiple members of its staff asking if anyone else had contacted the resident at various times, rather than doing this themselves.
There was severe maladministration. The landlord failed to act within a reasonable time, or its repairs policy timeframes, to resolve the damp and mould. Once its damp and mould policy was in use, it failed to follow this. It should have taken responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way and communicated its plan to resolve this with the resident. It did not do this, and the resident and his family have been left to live with a hazard under the HHSRS for 4 years.
To reflect the significant distress, frustration, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £4,000 compensation, being £1,000 for each year, in line with our guidance on remedies. This amount is inclusive of the £1,150 it offered within its review letter for the inconvenience, time and trouble in resolving repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The resident raised the first complaint on 17 December 2020 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response 16 working days later, outside of its policy timeframe. It failed to acknowledge this in its response. Its response also failed to include dates for repairs it would do and so was incomplete. He escalated his complaint on 19 February 2021, and it provided its stage 2 response which was within its policy timeframe. It correctly accepted its failings, but again failed to include dates for repairs it would do and so its response was incomplete.
The resident raised the second complaint on 24 February 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this in line with its policy. It provided its stage 1 response 28 working days later, in breach of its policy and the Code. Within its response, again, it failed to include dates for repairs it would do and so its response was incomplete. It did acknowledge its delay in response and offered £20 compensation for this which was positive.
When the third complaint was raised, the resident said he had asked to do this previously and believed his complaint had been raised earlier. The landlord said it had spoken to him, but he had not asked to make a complaint. However, he had clearly expressed dissatisfaction at still having damp and mould and outstanding repairs. Under its definition of a complaint, taken from the Code, it should have raised his complaint earlier. When it did raise it, it acknowledged it in line with its policy and provided its stage 1 response within its policy timeframe.
On 6 February 2023 the resident escalated his complaint but there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this which was a failing. It did however provide its stage 2 response within time and in compliance with the Code.
Following the end of its complaints process, and after the complaint was brought to this Service, the landlord decided to review its handling of the complaints. It appropriately identified its failings, apologised and offered further compensation. It also detailed the improvements it had made to its processes to try to prevent similar failings. This review was positive and demonstrated the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. However, it was completed long after the third complaint completed its complaints process.
There was maladministration. The landlord’s failings delayed the complaints process and did not effectively resolve the resident’s concerns. This led to repeated complaints and additional time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this, an order has been made that the landlord pay £520 compensation, being the total it offered within its complaint responses and review letter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the extractor fan vent and the roof.
2. Damp and mould and associated repairs to the bathroom ceiling and walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the patio doors.
2. The associated complaints.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the extractor fan vent and the roof as it consistently exceeded its policy timeframe for repairs. It did not carry out effective repairs or make safe when it attended on emergency repairs. It took no actions until chased by the resident and did not effectively manage its roofing contractor. It left the resident and his family to suffer from leaks for substantial periods of time.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs as it failed to complete repairs within its policy timeframes or a reasonable time. It failed to recognise the causes and did not act to resolve these. Its communication with the resident was poor and he and his family have been left to live with damp and mould for over 4 years.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the patio doors as it delayed in raising and completing a repair. It did not record what repairs it completed and the resident had to raise the issue again. There is no evidence the repair has been completed.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints as it exceeded its policy timeframes, did not fully respond to the complaints with sufficient information, and accepted its failings long after the end of its complaints process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £6,920 made up of:
  1. £2,000 (inclusive of the £775 offered within its complaint responses) for the significant distress, frustration, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the roof.
  2. £400 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the patio doors.
  3. £4,000 (inclusive of the £1,150 it offered following its review) for the significant distress, frustration, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould and associated repairs.
  4. £520 (inclusive of its previous offers) for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Complete a full surveyor’s inspection, by a qualified in-house or external surveyor, of the property and produce a report which is to be provided to the resident and this Service. The report is to focus on, but not be restricted to, the roof, patio doors, and damp and mould throughout the property.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out repairs recommended within the surveyor’s report ordered above. The landlord is to provide job sheets or records, with before and after photographs, of the repairs completed.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the set deadlines.

Wider Orders

The Ombudsman made a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme regarding the landlord in case 202225901 in relation to adhering to its damp and mould policy and its oversight of works on 7 November 2023. As that order was made after the events of the current complaint, no further orders have been made here.