The Riverside Group Limited (202304703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304703

One Housing Group

28 February 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak and the associated damp and mould.
2. A carbon monoxide leak.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which began on 23 June 2008. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the third floor and is directly underneath the roof garden.
The resident lives in the property with her partner and 4 children, 1 of whom has vulnerabilities. The landlord was made aware of these vulnerabilities when the resident submitted a medical assessment form on 8 October 2021.

Summary of events

On 14 January 2022 the landlord cleared the roof garden. This was to expose the roof deck area for future repairs and estate improvement works.
On 15 September 2022 the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm went off. She contacted an emergency out of hours service who disconnected her boiler stating it was unsafe.
On 20 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said there was a potential carbon monoxide leak in her home. The landlord’s records state the resident was not at home and therefore she could not check the batteries were working in the detector.
The landlord’s contractor conducted the annual gas safety check in the resident’s property on 22 September 2022 and told the landlord the boiler had been isolated. When testing the boiler, the contractor detected small levels of carbon monoxide in the air intake of the flue, indicating a flue leak. No carbon monoxide was found in the room. Due to the age of the boiler the landlord decided to replace the boiler. A new boiler was fitted on 23 September 2022.
On 29 September 2022 the resident reported a water leak in the boiler cupboard. She told the landlord she thought it was coming from the roof above.
On 14 October 2022 the resident submitted a liability claim against the landlord stating her partner suffered carbon monoxide poisoning on 15 September 2022.
On 4 November 2022 the resident reported mould in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling. The resident said it started after the landlord carried out the works on the roof. On the 1 December 2022 the landlord washed, applied mould treatment and repainted the ceilings.
On 4 January 2023 the resident reported that there were signs of a leak and stains on her ceilings. On 19 January 2023 the landlord applied a second wash and mould treatment and repainted the ceilings.
On 26 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord when the works to the roof would be completed. It responded on 6 February 2023 and said she would need to call for an update.
On 6 February 2023 the resident reported an issue with her electrics to the landlord. The landlord records state “exposed electrical wires, tenant is experiencing a leak which is quite dangerous, could an electric make safe be booked in”.
The resident chased an update on 10 and 17 February 2023 and asked for a surveyor to inspect her home. She said her home was unsafe due to the leaks, cold, damp and mould. She said it was affecting her and her household’s health.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord asked its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property.
On 28 February 2023 the mayor contacted the landlord and asked for an update on the damp and mould, and the carbon monoxide leak.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 13 March 2023. Black mould was found on the walls and ceilings in every room. The open plan living room/kitchen showed signs of a leak from the roof. The surveyor said urgent works were needed, including treatment to address the mould. The landlord asked its contractor to investigate the leaks that day as an emergency. The contractor found standing water on the roof. It said due to the absence of insulation on the roof there was cold bridging and condensation.
On the same day the landlord sent internal emails stating it needed to arrange an urgent wash down and treatment of the walls and ceilings due to the severity of the mould in the property. It also arranged for scaffolding to be erected and notified all residents that this would be put up on the 22 March 2023.
On 14 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said it was unacceptable for the roof to be left with no insulation. She had suffered for more than a year and when she contacted the landlord no one knew what was happening. She said due to the landlord’s negligence there was a carbon monoxide leak in September 2022 and her family were hospitalised. She said the worker carrying out the roof works told her the boiler flue had been damaged, she asked the landlord to investigate this. The resident asked the landlord to resolve these issues or rehouse her as it was unsafe.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 March 2023. It confirmed this in writing and contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. On this call she told the landlord that water was leaking into her flat from the roof and tripping her electrics.
The contractor attended the property on 22 March 2023 to inspect the ongoing leak. It said the standing water on the roof was unable to drain away until the inverted insulation was installed.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint. It said:
1. The planned works were undertaken to the roof garden area, regrettably its failure to reinstate the insulation had caused the property to be cold and suffer from severe condensation that had resulted in mould and damp.
2. Due to the lack of insulation, there was also standing water on the roof which was not able to drain away and had caused leaks into the flats below.
3. It had instructed its contractor to investigate the leaks and replace the insulation.
4. A surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 13 March 2023 and advised all rooms were affected by black mould. The open plan living room/kitchen ceiling showed signs of a leak.
5. An urgent order has been raised for a washdown and treatment of the damp and mould. Once the leak was resolved and the insulation fitted a further wash down and treatment may be required. It would then redecorate the property and look at replacing any electrics.
6. Regarding the carbon monoxide leak it acknowledged that the boiler flue had been leaking. However, it said its gas team investigated and a carbon monoxide test confirmed there was no evidence of a carbon monoxide leak directly inside the property and therefore there was no danger to any residents.
7. It apologised for the impact the failure to reinstate the insulation had on the resident. It said it was a lesson learnt by all and it would consider this when understanding similar works in the future.
On 12 April 2023 the local authority environmental health team contacted the landlord and expressed concerns about the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 April 2023. She submitted photos of the damp and mould and of pests in the property. She said:
1. The landlord had not considered the severity of the health risks to her and her family from the mould spores. She felt her children’s lives were at risk, especially her youngest daughter who suffered from atopic eczema, multiple allergies and asthma. She said she had taken her youngest daughter to hospital multiple times due to asthma attacks and a very weak immune system.
2. The damp and mould had attracted pests. She said the family had stool samples done and bacteria was found.
3. She has had to replace possessions due to the mould.
4. She was told on 22 September 2022 that the flue had been damaged which caused the carbon monoxide leak. She and her family went to A&E and blood tests showed low level of carbon monoxide in all of them. The doctor advised them not to return to the property. They all suffered from symptoms of dizziness, fatigue, blurred vision, headaches, weakness, loss of muscle control, loss of consciousness, shortness of breath, vomiting and nausea. She said it left them with trauma as they had been exposed to carbon monoxide over time.
5. The leaks have affected the electrical wiring, and her lights flicker when switched on and the main fuse board trips. As a result they must stay in the dark.
6. Her heating bills had increased due to the property being so cold.
7. She would like to be rehoused.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of the complaint in writing. The landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the complaint but the resident could not speak at the time.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord asked the contractor for an update on the works to insulate and repair the roof. It stated it aimed to complete the works by the 24 April 2023.
The resident chased an update to the roof works on 20 April 2023.
On 24 April 2023 the contractor completed the repairs to the roof and installed the insulation.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and said it:
1. Wanted to award an interim compensation payment of £800. This was broken down as:
  1. £50 for the right to repair.
  2. £350 to cover an increase in electricity and heating costs.
  3. £400 for the impact the above has had on the resident and her family.
2. It would review its compensation offer after the completion of works to the property and an in person meeting with the resident had taken place. It would schedule a meeting with the resident within 10 working days to assess progress of works.
3. Apologised that the damp and mould wash promised in its stage 1 response was not completed. A new urgent order was raised and following this work it agreed to redecorate all rooms.
4. Addressed the carbon monoxide leak in its stage 1 response.
5. Instructed an electrician to check the electrics and replace fittings.
6. Referred the resident to its helping hands fund and the energy support team and asked the resident to provide evidence of an increase in her heating costs so it could investigate this further.
7. Recognised the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and her family’s physical and mental health and this is the reason for the interim compensation payment.
8. Recommended the resident has contents insurance to cover damage to possessions. Its helping hands fund may be able to help recovering costs she has incurred.
9. Could not arrange a move for the family. She would need to continue bidding through the council’s bidding system. It said other housing options included mutual exchange, moving outside the borough by registering with the home connection site, and moving into a market rent property or the private rented sector.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

On 18 May 2023 the contractor attended the property to complete the mould wash and treatment. The resident said the works could not be carried out until she was decanted due to the health concerns of her children.
On 24 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord what action it was taking to repair the boiler flue to ensure it was safe and clean the mould from the property.
The landlord’s assistant director visited the resident on 26 May 2023. It agreed it would carry out a damp and mould wash, inspect the ventilation fan, and provide dehumidifiers. It said further roof repairs were planned for early summer, following which, it would temporarily rehome the family to redecorate.
On 8 June 2023 the contractor told the resident they would begin the works on 12 June 2023. The resident said she would not agree to the works until the family was decanted.
On 20 June 2023 the resident’s legal adviser told the landlord when a previous mould treatment was applied the resident’s children had a reaction to the chemicals used and she had to take them to hospital, it therefore needed to decant the family before any works were completed.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier.
On 23 November 2023 the landlord attended the property to investigate the residents reports of issues with the kitchen lighting.
The resident was decanted on 12 January 2024 and the works were completed in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 12 hours. The policy states an emergency repair includes faulty carbon monoxide detectors, a leak that cannot be contained and damaged or failing electrical wiring, lighting or light fitting, and includes any issues with kitchen lights. Its target response time for urgent repairs is 5 calendar days, the policy states this includes severe, visible mould on internal plastered surfaces such as ceilings or walls. For routine repairs it will respond within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp including, managing, and controlling condensation. It will respond to all reports of damp and condensation and complete any repair works/measures in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will arrange a temporary decant where a property has unexpectedly become uninhabitable and make good works are required to restore it which does not involve significant alteration or demolition.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states discretionary compensation can be offered when proven financial loss has occurred as a result of service failure or mismanagement and/or there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact due to a service failure or mismanagement. Compensation payments for delay and distress will be based on the level of landlord’s responsibility for the loss or inconvenience and the impact on the household. The policy states this would be between £0 – £500.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp and mould

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress as she experienced leaks and damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions had on the health of her and her family. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issues or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident first reported a leak on 29 September 2022. The landlord’s records show it assigned a job to its contractor to investigate, however, no evidence was provided to this Service to show the contractor attended the property. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate effectively with the resident.
In September 2022 the resident told the landlord that she thought the leak was coming from the roof. Despite this there is no evidence the landlord investigated the cause of the leaks at this time. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. Instead, when the resident told the landlord the damp and mould had returned it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This is not resolution focused. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to ensure they understood the root cause of the matter.
The landlord instructed a surveyor to attend the property on 13 March 2023. It is noted this was after the resident repeatedly asked for a surveyor to attend the property. Although the landlord acted appropriately by instructing a surveyor to investigate the cause of the leaks and damp and mould, this was 6 months after the resident initially reported a leak. This was an inappropriate delay.
The surveyor told the landlord on 13 March 2023 that urgent works were needed. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractor to investigate the leaks that same day. The contractor told the landlord it thought the lack of insulation on the roof was causing leaks, cold bridging and condensation in all the properties directly below the roof. Once the landlord found the cause of the leaks and damp and mould it acted reasonably by carrying out the roof repairs and installing new roof insulation within a reasonable time.
Despite the surveyor telling the landlord in March 2023 that an urgent wash down and mould treatment was needed due to the severity of the damp and mould in all rooms of the property, the landlord did not instruct its contractor to carry out the works until the end of May 2023. This was over 2 months later. The landlord was fully aware of the severity of the damp and mould and the impact it was having on the resident and her family. This was an unreasonable delay which caused the resident and her family significant distress and inconvenience.
From February 2023 to April 2023 the resident reported that the water leaking through her ceiling in the open plan living room/kitchen was affecting the electrical wiring. She said her lights were flickering when they were switched on and the main fuse board was tripping. She said her and her family had to live in the dark. The landlord raised an emergency repair job on 6 February 2023, but its records show this job was cancelled. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said it would look at replacing any electrics once the leak was fixed and the property redecorated. In its stage 2 response it stated it would instruct an electrician to check the electrics and replace fittings. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that damaged or failing electrical wiring, lighting or light fitting, and any problems with kitchen lights are all deemed to be emergency repairs and will be responded to within 4 hours. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord inspected the electrics or lighting until November 2023, this was 9 months later. This was an inappropriate delay which placed the resident and her family at potential risk for a significant period.
The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her family health issues,and she was worried for her youngest daughters life as she had been admitted to hospital several times.No evidence was provided to this Service that showed the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, showing a lack of empathy towards the resident.
This Service would have expected to see the landlord assess the level of risk at these clear escalations and evidence it had considered all options available to it to support the resident though this time. No evidence was seen that the landlord was proactive in its response, or that it made any attempt to mitigate the worry that the resident had in this regard. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord considered loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place whilst it carried out the roof repairs. This could have included dehumidifiers and a decant assessment. After its internal complaints procedure the landlord provided a dehumidifier on 19 July 2023, this was 5 months after the resident initially reported the damp and mould and 3 months after the leak was fixed. The resident repeatedly asked for alternative accommodation due to concerns for her and her family’s health. Although the landlord’s records state that a decant was initially refused by management, it failed to fully evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household and the level of risk they were exposed to. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident and her household living with damp and mould for a significant amount of time without any interim measures or appropriate support.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the damp and mould was going to be resolved. This led her to reporting the same issues several times and repeatedly chasing updates. She contacted her local mayor, the local authority’s environmental health team, she sought legal advice and contacted this Service for support in communicating with the landlord to resolve the leaks and damp and mould. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
No evidence was provided to this Service that anyone in the organisation took overall control of resolving the damp and mould. The landlord’s records show after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure there was a period between July and November 2023 where emails were sent between different departments, and between the contractor and the landlord, asking for information and updates on what was happening with this property. But no action was taken by any of the departments to resolve the damp and mould. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different teams, such as the complaints and repairs teams. This will ensure that all parties have access to accurate and current information which can be passed to and from the resident and will avoid unnecessary delays.
Overall there were significant failures in the landlord promptly addressing the leaks and the associated damp and mould in the property. It has shown poor communication and a lack of empathy to the resident’s concerns about her family. It failed to carry out risk assessments and consider the vulnerabilities in the household. It failed to offer the family effective support and there was a significant delay in any temporary measures being put in place. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings but failed to offer suitable redress. Its offer of £800 in compensation was not sufficient to put matters right for the resident, as it did not reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp, and mould.
The Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which considers the circumstances of the case, the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The resident’s current rent is £158.27 per week. The property compromises four rooms; two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a living room/kitchen. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s full enjoyment of her home has been curtailed and has ordered compensation as follows:
1. The landlord should pay the resident 20% of the current rental amount for the period following her report of the leak and damp and mould on 29 September 2022 to the date all works were completed on 12 January 2024.
2. This amounts to 67 weeks.
3. Therefore, compensation for the delayed repairs to fully resolve the leak and associated damp and mould totals £2120.

The landlord’s handling of the carbon monoxide leak

Landlords are responsible for carrying out annual gas safety checks. This is to ensure gas appliances are safe and prevent fires, explosions, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Whilst carbon monoxide is a naturally occurring gas, if levels are found to be higher than normal due to an unsafe gas appliance, this may cause poisoning. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish if a carbon monoxide leak took place. Our role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to the reports of such a leak at the property.
The resident reported a potential carbon monoxide leak on 20 September 2022. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states an emergency repair would include a faulty carbon monoxide detector. The landlord’s records show an emergency 12-hour job was raised, however, no evidence was provided to this Service to show it attended the property to investigate the residents reports or had any further communication with the resident. The landlord has a legal duty to inspect the property for any potential repairs and ensue there are no hazards. Although the boiler had been disconnected at this time, the landlord was not aware of this. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to investigate reports of a serious incident, this was a significant failing.
The landlord told this Service it found out that the boiler had been disconnected on 22 September 2022, when its contractor attended the property to carry out its annual gas safety check. The contractor told the landlord that the flue failed the test. The landlord acted appropriately by replacing the boiler the following day.
In a letter to the landlord dated 14 October 2022, the resident’s solicitor stated that the resident’s partner had been exposed to carbon monoxide and submitted a liability claim form. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the claim to its liability insurers. This service acknowledges that the landlord’s insurer has not made a decision on the claim. This service has no jurisdiction to assess the insurer’s actions or decisions. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider what is fair in all the circumstances in respect of the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord acted appropriately by relying on the findings of its contractor as per the stage 1 complaint response, but it did not acknowledge that the test was carried out 2 days after the boiler had been disconnected and did not consider whether this could have affected the test results. Its comments that the resident had not previously reported issues with the boiler and that it passed the last annual check would not have prevented a carbon monoxide leak from occurring, and resulted in the resident feeling as though the landlord was not taking the incident seriously.
When the resident escalated her complaint she told the landlord she and her family had suffered from symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning and they had attended hospital where their blood tests showed low level of carbon monoxide. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it failed to acknowledge or consider the resident’s concerns of the carbon monoxide leak on her and her household’s health. The landlord showed a lack of empathy and failed to consider the impact the leak had on the resident and her family. This was a significant failing.
There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s claims that she was told on 22 September 2022 that the boiler flue had been damaged and that was the cause of the leak. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord spoke to its contractors and considered the possibility of the flue being damaged during the roof repair works. The landlord acted inappropriately by not carrying out a thorough investigation into the carbon monoxide leak. This exacerbated the resident’s concerns about how long she and her family were exposed to carbon monoxide and whether the issue had been resolved. This caused the resident distress, and frustration that the landlord was not taking the incident seriously.
In summary, the landlord failed to attend the property within its target timescales for a report of an emergency repair. Although it acted appropriately and replaced the boiler within a reasonable timescale, it failed to fully investigate the carbon monoxide leak. It also failed to acknowledge and consider the resident’s concerns about her and her household’s health and the inconvenience and distress the leak would have caused the resident and her household.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted a complaint on 14March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within the 5 day timescale set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) and contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. This is good practice and shows the landlord wanted to understand the complaint and try to resolve it at the earliest possible opportunity.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2023, which was within the landlord’s target response time of 10 working days. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged and apologised for its failure to reinstall the roof insulation and the impact this had on the resident and her family. The Code states that any remedy offered must reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The resident had made it clear to the landlord that the leaks, cold, damp and mould was affecting her and her family’s health and she did not think it was safe for them to stay in the property. This Service feels the landlord acted inappropriately by not fully addressing the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health. And although it recognised and apologised for its service failure, it failed to offer suitable redress.
In putting matters right for the resident, the Code explains that the landlord must carefully manage resident’s expectations and not promise anything that cannot be delivered. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to adhere to the commitments it promised in its stage 1 response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this and attempted to contact the resident to discuss the complaint within the Code’s target timescale of 5 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 May 2023, which was within its 20 working day target response time.
In its stage 2 response the landlord failed to review its decision on the carbon monoxide leak and stated it had already addressed the issue in its stage 1 response. When the resident escalated the complaint, she raised further issues about the cause of the carbon monoxide leak and the impact it had on her and her family’s health. The landlord acted inappropriately by not investigating this part of her complaint at stage 2, as this meant the resident did not get the opportunity to challenge the decision via an appeal process.
The landlord offered an interim compensation amount of £800 and said it would review its compensation once all issues had been resolved to the residents and its satisfaction. The redecoration works were completed in January 2024, this was 8 months later. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord reviewed its offer of compensation. Although it was positive for the landlord to say it wanted to reconsider its compensation offer, this left the resident waiting for suitable redress to her complaint for an unreasonable period.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to fully investigate all the issues raised, it did not provide suitable redress within a reasonable time, and it did not address the resident’s main concern which was the safety of her family. The landlord’s responses lacked empathy and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble she experienced in bringing her complaint.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were significant failures in the landlord promptly addressing the leaks and the associated damp and mould in the property. There was poor communication, it failed to carry out risk assessments and it did not consider the vulnerabilities in the household. It failed to offer the family effective support and there was a significant delay in temporary measures being put in place. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings, however, the redress offered was not sufficient to put matters right for the resident.
The landlord failed to attend the property within its emergency repair target timescales when the resident reported a carbon monoxide leak. Although it acted appropriately and replaced the boiler within a reasonable timescale, it failed to fully investigate the resident’s claims that the boiler flue was damaged. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her and her household’s health, it did not offer effective support and it lacked empathy for the distress the leak would have caused the resident and her household.
The landlord failed to fully investigate all the issues raised by the resident, it did not provide suitable redress within a reasonable time, and it did not address the resident’s main concern which was the safety of her family. The landlord’s responses lacked empathy and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble she experienced in bringing her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord’s chief executive should apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £4170 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
  1. £2120 to reflect the rent reduction figure noted in paragraph 62 of this report.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated damp and mould in the property.
  3. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the carbon monoxide leak.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord should write to this Service and the resident setting out the issues raised by the resident about the boiler flue. The landlord should either confirm that it has affected a lasting resolution to these issues, specifying what that resolution was and when it was affected, or set out how and when it will diagnose the issues and affect a solution.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures. The landlord must provide a copy of the case review to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Code.