The Riverside Group Limited (202307291)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307291

The Riverside Group Limited

31 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The repair and replacement of the resident’s boiler and gas fire.
   2. The resident’s reports of mould and damp.
   3. The resident’s complaints about the conduct of their staff.
   4. The rent arrears on the resident’s account.
   5. The resident’s reports about the landlord’s unannounced visits to the property.
   6. The associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
4. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2023 about its handling of the rent arrears on her account. The evidence shows that the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. Neither party provided evidence that the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident also confirmed to this Service on 1 July 2024, that although she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint, she had not escalated this complaint to stage 2.
5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has raised concerns with this Service about the landlord making unannounced visits to her property. On 1 July 2024, she confirmed to us that she had not made a formal complaint to the landlord about this.
6. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside our jurisdiction.
   1. The landlord’s handling of the rent arrears on the resident’s rental account.
   2. The resident’s reports about the landlord’s unannounced visits to the property.
7. The Ombudsman encourages the resident to discuss the above elements of her complaint with the landlord. If she decides to make a formal complaint about the above issues, through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and she is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaint to this Service.

Background

8. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, having succeeded the tenancy in March 2010. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
9. The landlord has no current vulnerabilities on record for the resident.
10. The estate management board (EMB) provides housing services to the residents living on the estate. The board is made up of residents who delegate housing management duties to staff. Some of the services managed by EMB are day to day repairs and gas servicing. The landlord retains the overall responsibilities for the housing stock on the estate and provides services such as the planned work programme and housing management. For the purpose of clarity, the report will refer to both as ‘the landlord’.
11. During the timescales considered within this report, the resident has made a number of separate complaints to the landlord and this Service. Some of these matters have already been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, however some have not exhausted its complaints process. The table below provides further clarity.

12. The landlord said it had planned to replace the resident’s boiler as part of its cyclical maintenance programme. It first attempted to carry out this work in August 2021 and attended the property after informing the resident of its intention by letter. It made a second attempt in April 2022, it confirmed the appointment by letter prior to attending the property. The landlord said it was unable to gain access to the property on either date. It left calling cards at the property to inform the resident of its visits and what to do next.
13. The landlord noted that, while completing the annual gas safety check at the property on 4 May 2022, it capped the gas fire because it was unsafe.
14. The resident reported an issue with the boiler on 30 December 2022, she said she had no central heating or hot water. The landlord attended the following day and noted that it could not fixed the boiler, it recommended to replace it. It also noted that it left 2 small electric heaters at the property. The landlord also noted that the resident asked whether it could replace her capped gas fire with an electric fire. There is no evidence of further contacts between the landlord and the resident about this issue, until she made a formal complaint on 2 March 2023. The resident later informed this Service that she told the landlord when it attended to the boiler in December 2022, that she did not believe the 2 small heaters would be suitable to heat the property. She later informed this Service that she reported her concerns of damp and mould in the property to the operative on the same day.
15. The resident made a stage 1 complaintto the landlord on 2 March 2023. Her complaint was about the landlord failing to replace her boiler and her gas fire. She said the landlord attended the property in December 2022, and recommended to replace her boiler after it diagnosed that it could not fix it. She said it also agreed to replace her gas fire with an electric fire but had not contacted her since to organise the replacement of the fire.
16. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 3 March 2023.It said that it made several attempts to contact the resident about scheduling a service and replace her boiler once it became aware it was outstanding. It said it had been unable to reach the resident to discuss the issues. It asked the resident to contact them to confirm access for the annual gas service and to carry out a survey to replace the boiler. The landlord did not make clear whether the complaint was upheld or not.
17. The resident remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s response to her complaint. On 8 March 2023, she requested to escalate her complaint about the boiler and gas fire to stage 2. She reiterated her request on 13 March 2023, during a conversation with the landlord because it had not replied to her initial request. The landlord said it “needed an opportunity to resolve her issue first”.
18. Between 3 March 2023 and 17 March 2023, the landlord attempted to contact the resident several times to instal her new boiler and a new electric fire. The landlord used a range of methods to contact the resident such as telephone calls, texts, hand delivered letters and visits.The resident disputed this and pointed out that the landlord had an incorrect phone number for her. The landlord attended the property on 13 March 2023, to complete the annual gas safety check and service. It noted that the resident said she had been without heating or hot water since December 2022. The new boiler and the new electric fire were both installed on 17 March 2023.
19. On 17 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that, as she had a functioning boiler and fire, it was closing her complaint. It apologised for the delays in resolving the issues and reiterated that the difficulties in gaining access to the property had contributed to the delays. It explained that it would not usually attend a property to carry out repairs unless the resident had confirmed the appointment was convenient.
20. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2023. The complaint was about its communication and notifications of repairs appointments. The resident also advised that issues with booking repairs caused the delays in repairing her central heating and addressing the damp and mould issue. She explained that the landlord told her it would attend her property in the morning of 30 May 2023, to complete some follow up works. She said she contacted the landlord when no one arrived and it told her that there were no appointments on the system for that day. On 2 June 2023, she advised the landlord that operatives attended in the afternoon of the 30 May 2023, but she was not at home. She asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 without a stage 1 response.
21. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 June 2023. The complaint was about staff conduct. She said when the landlord’s staff attended to carry out a gas safety check on 4 May 2022, the staff member was aggressive and disrespectful towards her. The resident said this caused her some distress.
22. On 2 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. The landlord said when it spoke with the resident about her complaint, she clarified that the staff had not been aggressive as such, but his tone had caused her some distress. The landlord said it spoke to the staff member and his manager. It explained that while the staff member could not remember the conversation, both he and his manager said that he would “never” act in an aggressive manner. The landlord apologised if that was the resident’s perception at the time and said it was satisfied with the staff’s member’s response and closed the complaint.
23. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2023. The complaint was about how it ended a call with her on the previous day.
24. On the 9 June 2023, the landlord noted that the resident informed them that she considered the central heating issue resolved and did not want the landlord to include it in its complaint response. The resident later informed this Service that she had left the voice mail and discussed the issue with the landlord over the phone. She disputed the landlord’s recollection of the event. She said that she explained to the landlord that she did not want it to address the issue with the central heating in its response to her complaint about notifications of repairs and delays addressing the central heating and damp and mould. She said one of its staff memberswas dealing with it as part of another complaint.
25. On 16 June 2023, in an internal email, the landlord requested an update on the status of a repair for damp and mould issue which the resident reported on 30 May 2023.
26. On 19 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about appointments, delays addressing damp and mould and her central heating repairs. It was as follows:
    1. It explained that it replaced the boiler as part of its planned work programme and would have arranged a date for the outstanding work with the resident. It added that the boxing in of the pipes around the boiler was part of the overall replacement of the boiler. As such, it would not have logged this on its day to day repairs log. It clarified that staff who spoke to the resident on 30 May 2023, would not have seen the appointment on their system. It recognised that it did not effectively communicate to the resident who was responsible for completing the repairs or who to contact about the repairs.
    2. Following the resident’s call, it logged the repair on its system and attended, but the resident declined to allow access as she expected a different team to attend. It also recognised that it told the resident the appointment was in the morning when it had booked an afternoon appointment.
    3. It acknowledged that it provided incorrect information to the resident in relation to the appointment made on 30 May 2023. It apologised to her for its poor communication.
    4. The resident reported an issue with damp and mould on 30 May 2023. She contacted the landlord on 9 June 2023, enquiring about her report. It explained that it logged her report incorrectly and failed to act on it. It confirmed that it had passed the report to the relevant team, who would contact the resident to organise an inspection. It assured the resident the inspection would take place before 17 July 2023.
    5. It acknowledged that the resident left a voicemail message on 9 June 2023, and said that she considered the central heating complaint dealt with and did not want the landlord to include it in its complaint response.
    6. The landlord upheld the complaint and shared the failings identified during its investigation with the relevant teams to prevent those from reoccurring.
    7. It also agreed to complete the boxing in around the boiler.
27. On 19 June 2023, the landlord requested a damp and mould survey from a specialist surveyor.
28. The resident informed this Service on 19 June 2023, that she wished to add to her complaint about her landlord. She said it had not escalated her complaint about the boiler, and specifically that she did not have hot water or heating for several months. She added that the landlord closed her complaint on 9 June 2023, without giving her the option of escalating this element of her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process.
29. On 27 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint about staff conduct. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It explained that after speaking to the resident and the staff member, both remembered the event differently and believed the other party ended the call. It concluded that it could not determine what happened during and at the end of the call. The landlord also explained that it could not agree to the resident’s request not to have further contact with the staff. It explained this was because of her role in the team. It also reminded the resident who she could contact to report repairs in the future.
30. On 4 July 2023, this Service requested for the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints. We said the complaints were about:
    1. The landlords handling of reports of no heating and hot water for a number of months.
    2. The landlords handling of reports of mould and damp.
    3. The landlords handling of the complaint handling.
31. On 5 July 2023, the landlord informed this Service that it did not have an open stage 2 complaint for the resident and asked us to confirm which complaints the resident had requested to escalate to stage 2.
32. On the 10July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate some of her complaints to stage 2. In the acknowledgement letter, the landlord noted that the resident disagreed with the outcomes of the complaints about appointments, staff conduct delays to address central heating and damp and mould repairs.
33. On 11 July 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey at the property. The surveyor noted that the resident had washed some the mould off the walls. It also noted that the levels of humidity in the home were below the threshold at which it would recommend the installation of a remedial damp proof course. The surveyor concluded that the root cause for the damp and mould was condensation and recommended some remedial work. He recommended for the landlord to inspect the positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the loft and to install extractors fans in the bathroom and the kitchen. The survey also provided some advice on how to manage condensation, including keeping the home heated and ventilated.
34. In an internal email on 11 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged that when the resident reported the issue of damp and mould, it incorrectly logged the repair and because of this, it did not act on the report. It said it only became aware of the issue once the resident made a complaint and it then requested a damp and mould survey. It also noted that the resident did not mention the issue when it visited the property to install the boiler in March 2023.
35. This Service wrote the landlord on 13 July and asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response by 17 August 2023. We reiterated the details of the resident’s complaints.
36. At the resident’s request, this Service contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023. We explained that the primary point of the resident’s complaint was about the lack of hot water and heating in her home for approximately 3 months.
37. The landlord’s repair logs noted that it completed the inspection to the PIV unit on 4 August 2023 and attended to install new extractors fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 17 August 2023. It informed this Service that while it installed the bathroom fan on that day, the resident refused the kitchen fan. The landlord also informed this Service that it was unable to repair the PIV unit and planned to replace it. It did not show whether it completed this job.
38. On the 18 August 2023, this Service contacted the landlord as it had not provided the stage 2 response on the agreed date. We requested that the landlord provide the resident with its stage 2 response to her complaints by 25 August 2023.
39. The landlord issued the stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints on 23 August 2023. Its response was as follows:
    1. Communication and notification of appointments: It reiterated the timeline of the events of 30 May 2023. It also noted that the resident disputed that she did not allow access to the operative on the day. The landlord confirmed that when one of the operatives attended, the resident explained that the landlord had said a different team would carry out the repair. The operative left without completing any work. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did allow access and its reference, in its stage 1 response, that she did not allow access was incorrect. It upheld this element of her complaint.
    2. Staff conduct: It reiterated that during the investigation, the resident clarified that the staff had not done or said anything aggressive, but his manner and tone had caused her some distress. The landlord also explained that the staff was known for his customer friendly approach and due to the length of time since the event, the staff could not recall the details of the conversation. It apologised for any misunderstanding that may have occurred at the time of the visit to her home in May 2022. It did not uphold the complaint as it could not prove that service failure occurred.
    3. Staff conduct: It reiterated that the staff member believed the resident ended the call and acknowledged that the resident disputed this.  It concluded that without evidence or witnesses, it could not identify a service failure and therefore did not uphold this element of her complaint.
    4. It ensured the resident that it would review the internal communications process to ensure that the teams shared information to prevent confusion and miscommunication in the future.
40. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident is seeking an apology and acknowledgement of the failings by the landlord. She is also seeking £8000 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

41. The Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.
42. As mentioned above, our Service cannot consider complaints made prior to the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, as it needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident. On 31 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident about compensation for her damaged belongings. The landlord’s complaint team issued its response, which included a complaint reference number. Based on the evidence provided, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about her request of compensation for her damaged belongings.
43. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint about her request of compensation for her damaged belongings. However, there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint about the issue has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot consider this matter as part of our investigation. The resident may wish to discuss the issue with the landlord and raise a further complaint if she remains dissatisfied with its response.

The repair and replacement of the resident’s boiler and gas fire.

44. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of space heating and heating water.
45. The landlord said it was planning to replace the resident’s boiler as part of its cyclical maintenance. It attended the property in August 2021 and April 2022, to instal the new boiler but was unable to gain access to the property. This was appropriate from the landlord, it shows that it was taking steps to replace items which it had identified as coming towards the end of their lifespan. By being proactive and replacing items at the end of their life span, it prevents items such as boilers to break down and cause inconvenience to residents.
46. Additionally, the landlord left a calling card asking the resident to contact it to arrange a new appointment. The evidence does not show whether the resident saw or acted on the calling cards. Nevertheless, this was a reasonable steps from the landlord to make the resident aware of its visit and what the next step should be. It is also understandable that the landlord would have expected the resident to contact them once she saw the cards. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that the boiler was in disrepair at those times, which would have warranted for the landlord to urgently follow up.
47. In May 2022, the landlord capped the resident’s gas fire because it was faulty. There is no evidence of contacts between the resident and the landlord on the issue until December 2022, when the resident mentioned the matter to them. It is unclear from the policy whether the landlord considered the fire replacement as a routine repair or cyclical maintenance. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took actions about the gas fire until March 2023, when it installed an electric fire. The evidence shows that the landlord took approximately 10 months to address the issue, which is an unreasonable timeframe.
48. Additionally, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated with the resident about the fire or explained the reasons for the delay in replacing it. It is unclear how this impacted the resident between May 2022 and December 2022. However, it is reasonable to conclude that if the resident had a working fire when her boiler broke down, it would have mitigated the impact of having no central heating for 2 and half months. Therefore, the landlord’s failings to replace her gas fire within a reasonable timeframe caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
49. The resident reported an issue with her boiler on 30 December 2022, the landlord attended the following day. The evidence does not show the time of the report, therefore the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord attended in keeping with its repairs policy to deal with emergency repairs within 12 hours of the report.
50. The landlord noted that it could not fix the boiler and recommended to replace it. Whilst the resident said she had no hot water or heating, she also confirmed that she had access to an electric shower. The evidence shows that the landlord provided 2 electric heaters to the resident to heat her home. Those were actions we would expect a landlord to take in such circumstances. We recognise that this is not an ideal situation and it would have caused some inconvenience to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that the resident had the means to heat her home and had access to washing facilities.
51. The resident said that on 31 December 2022, she informed the landlord that the heaters would not provide enough heat to heat her home. We would expect landlords to respond to such concerns. However, in this case, we did not see evidence that the resident raised her concerns with the landlord. We also recognise that this does not mean that the conversation between the resident and landlord about the issue did not take place. However, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was a service failure by the landlord in responding to the resident’s concerns due to a lack of evidence.
52. However, while the landlord took reasonable measures to mitigate the boiler breaking down, we would expect those measures to be temporary solutions and the landlord to act promptly to resolve the issue. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete urgent gas repairs within 24 hours during the winter months. In this case, the resident had no heating until the landlord replaced her boiler approximately 2 and half months after she reported the issue. This was a long time for the resident to be without a functioning boiler and only 2 electric heaters to heat her home. We would expect landlords to resolve such issues as a matter of urgency and act in accordance with their repair policy. In this case the landlord failed to act promptly to resolve the issue and failed to act in accordance with its policy, which was unreasonable and  caused her significant inconvenience.
53. The Ombudsman recognises that the boiler was due to be replaced and it can take time to source such items, which may have prevented the landlord to complete the repairs within its published timeframe. However, in such cases, we would expect to see a high level of communication from the landlord until it resolved the issue. For example, we would expect the landlord to provide a timescale to the resident and discuss any delays in resolving the matter. While the landlord said it made several attempts to contact the resident about the boiler replacement, there is no evidence it did so between December 2022 and March 2023. This was unreasonable from the landlord. As a result of its poor  communication with the resident, she had no heating for a considerable time with no indication of a resolution. This impacted on the resident and landlord relationship and caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident.
54. The evidence shows that once the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the issues in March 2023, the landlord took prompt actions to resolve the problems. It installed a new boiler and a new fire days later. The landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to contact the resident, discuss the installation of the new boiler and the fire and to keep her updated. The evidence shows that once it became aware that the issues with the boiler and the fire remained outstanding, the landlord took reasonable and prompt actions to resolve the issues within a reasonable timeframe. By doing so, it met its obligations as a landlord and showed that it was committed to promptly resolve the matters.
55. The evidence shows that on 30 May 2023, the landlord had planned to complete the boxing of the pipes after installing the boiler. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint the landlord recognised its failing in the management of the appointment. It acknowledged that it had provided incorrect information to the resident about the time of the appointment and failed to communicate clearly who was responsible for the repairs. The landlord apologised for the confusion and poor communication, which was the right thing to do.
56. However, it is important for landlords to ensure that their systems enable staffs to have access to the information they need to deliver an effective service. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord’s systems contributed to the failings and confusion about the appointment. The evidence shows that it took measures to prevent this from reoccurring. While this was reasonable, its failings caused further inconvenience for the resident who had to spend time and effort to raise a complaint about it
57. In summary, the landlord failed to replace the fire within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, it made an error when it failed to act on the operative’s note that he could not fix the boiler and the resident had no heating or hot water. As a result of the landlord’s mistakes, the resident had no working fire for over 10 months and no heating or hot water for 2 and half months during the winter, which was unreasonable. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to communicate effectively about an appointment for the follow up repairs. Overall, the Ombudsman concluded that the landlord failed to meet its obligations and work in accordance with its policies. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that the landlord’s failings caused the resident significant inconvenience and distress.Furthermore, the events occurred during the winter, which exacerbated the impact of its failings on the resident.
58. Whilst considering the evidence of a case, we must consider whether there were mitigating factors when we determine the level of service failure and compensation awarded. In this case, we identified several mitigating factors. For example, the landlord provided the resident with electric heaters as a temporary solution and she had access to an electric shower. We also recognise that it would have taken both parties’ engagement to resolve the issues promptly. The evidence shows that neither party communicated about the boiler for 2 and half months. There was also no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the gas fire replacement for approximately 8 months. We acknowledge that once the landlord realised what happened, it took prompt actions to resolve the matter.
59. In conclusion and after considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repair and the replacement of the boiler and gas fire.
60. At this point, it might be useful to explain that when the Ombudsman considers awarding compensation, this is not to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might or reimburse all the resident’s cost in the way an insurance claim might. The purpose of compensation is to award an amount that proportionately recognises the likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident due to any identified failures on the landlord’s part. Therefore, any amount awarded is unlikely to meet the amount sought by the resident. If the resident wishes to seek the recovery of any costs or damages she has incurred, she may wish to seek independent legal advice on making an insurance claim or pursuing the matter through the courts.
61. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £1125 compensation to the resident. It reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and is equivalent to:
    1. £700 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in relation to act promptly to resolve the issues with the boiler, which caused the resident to have no heating for 2 and half months.
    2. £350 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings to replace the gas fire within a reasonable timeframe.
    3. £75 to reflect the inconvenience and the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor communication about the handling of the follow up repairs.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

62. Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home, especially if they have certain health conditions. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents andlandlords must take it seriously.The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
63. The resident said she reported an issue with damp and mould when the landlord attended her property on 31 December 2022. The landlord noted that the resident reported the issue on 30 May 2023, when she made a complaint  about it. In this case, we cannot conclude that the landlord was aware of the issue prior to May 2023. This is because of the absence of evidence that the resident reported the matter in December 2022. However, this should not be interpretated as saying that the resident did not make the report at that time. As mentioned above, where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord.
64. In May 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord, one element of the complaint was about damp and mould. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that as a result of an administrative error, it had failed to act on her report. The landlord recognised that its failings caused delays in addressing the issue and apologised for their error. While those were reasonable actions by the landlord, its error in logging the report delayed addressing the issue. This caused some frustration to the resident who said to the landlord that delays had previously happened when it dealt with other repairs.
65. The Ombudsman recognises that things do not always go to plan and mistakes can happen. In such circumstances, it is essential for a landlord to respond promptly, communicate with residents and take reasonable steps to put things right. In this case, the landlord requested a survey of the damp and mould as soon as it became aware of its error in logging the resident’s report. Whilst this was a positive response from the landlord, this was 20 days after receiving the resident’s report in May 2023. The surveyor completed the survey 22 days later, which was 42 days after the resident’s report and therefore not in keeping with its repair policy to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord’s error in logging the report would have likely prevented them from completing the survey within its published timeframe. However, the evidence shows that the landlord’s failingspossibly delayed the survey by approximately 3 weeks. While this was frustrating for the resident, the evidence shows that it did not significantly affect the resident’s overall outcome.
66. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould recommends landlords should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves, they are taking all reasonable steps to address the issue of damp and mould.Additionally, the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will complete any repairs relating to damp and mould in line with its repairs policy.
67. On completion of the survey, the surveyor recommended some remedial work. It recommended for the landlord to install extractors fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It also recommended for the landlord to inspect the PIV unit in the loft. The evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly to complete the repairs recommended. It installed the kitchen fan within 14 days of the survey and inspected the PIV within 24 days, which was in keeping with its policy’s timeframe for routine repairs. Additionally, those actions were also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to act promptly and take reasonable steps to support residents managing non-structural damp and mould in their properties. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the issue seriously and acted promptly once it knew about the problem, which was reasonable.
68. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident initially declined the installation of the kitchen fan as she was concerned about the potential damage to her kitchen. However, she has since informed this Service that she had changed her mind. The landlord confirmed to us on 4 July 2024, that its offer to install the kitchen fan and decorate the affected area remains. The Ombudsman will make an order to reflect this.
69. Additionally, the landlord informed this Service that on completion of the PIV inspection, it concluded that it could not fix it and requested a replacement. The landlord did not confirm when it replaced the unit, but informed this Service in July 2024, that the only outstanding repairs was the kitchen fan. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it has replaced the PIV unit, however the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to confirm this.
70. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould says that it is important that the landlord clearly communicates with the resident about the outcomes of surveys and the next steps. In this case, the survey concluded that the property did not suffer from structural damp problem and provided guidance on managing the humidity level in the property. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to discuss the outcome of the survey with the resident, however, it did not show that it took this step. There is also no evidence that the landlord discussed with the resident how to manage the humidity within her home or explain how the remedial work would help with this. This would have enabled the resident to gain a deeper understanding of what she could do to manage the damp and mould in her home. Those were missed opportunities for the landlord to rebuild trust with the resident and improve its relationship with her.
71. In summary, the evidence seen shows that the landlord took prompt actions once it knew about the issue of damp and mould in the property. It carried out a specialist survey, which recommended some remedial work. The landlord promptly carried out the recommended repairs. Those were positive actions from the landlord which shows it is aware of its obligations and committed to take swift actions when it identifies issues with damp and mould in its properties. The landlord recognised during the complaint process, it made mistakes and those caused delays in completing the survey. We recognise that while this caused some frustration to the resident, the delay was short and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for her. The landlord explained what happened and took actions to resolve the matter and appropriately apologised to the resident. It also demonstrated that it had learnt from its failings and put measures in place to prevent those from reoccurring.
72. However, effective communication with residents is essential to maintain trust and nurture a good resident landlord and relationship. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord did not discuss the damp and mould survey with the resident or explain its findings. It also failed to show that it provided guidance to the resident to help her manage the humidity levels in her home. After considering the evidence provided, the Ombudsman has determined that there was service failure by the landlord with its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
73. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £75 compensation to the resident. It reflects the inconvenience and frustration caused to her.

The resident’s complaints about the conduct of their staff.

74. The landlord did not provide a copy of its code of conduct for the investigation. However, its repair policy states that it expects contractors to treat residents with respect and be polite at all times. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord has the same expectations of its staff.
75. The resident made 2 complaints about staff conduct in June 2023. One complaint was about a staff member who was aggressive and disrespectful towards the resident when visiting her home. The other complaint was about how a staff member ended a call with the resident.
76. At this point, it may be useful to explain that the Ombudsman role is not to determine whether there was misconduct by the landlord’s staff. Instead, our role is to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations.
77. The landlord investigated the complaint about staff being disrespectful towards her, at both stages of its complaints procedure. It explained the steps it took to investigate the complaint, the recollection and perspectives of all parties involved and its findings. After speaking to both parties, it apologised for any misunderstanding which may have occurred and did not uphold the complaint. The Ombudsman understands that the staff member’s tone on the day of the conversation caused some distress to the resident. We also acknowledge that she disagrees with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation into her complaint. However, in this case, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the complaint and provided clear explanations for its conclusion, which was in keeping with its complaints policy.
78. The landlord also investigated the resident’s complaint about how staff ended a conversation with her. The landlord investigated the issue at both stages of its complaints procedure. It explained that because it did not record the telephone call and there were no witnesses, it could not prove either way what happened and did not uphold the complaint. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises this was upsetting for the resident, the actions taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns were reasonable and in accordance with its complaints policy.
79. Overall, the Ombudsman determines that there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints about staff conduct. We understand that the events were upsetting for the resident and she disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion. However, the landlord responded to her concerns in accordance with its complaints policy.

Handling of the associated complaints

80. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It states that it will respond to a stage 1 within 5 working days and to a stage 2 within 10 working days. If this is not possible, it will provide an explanation to the resident and agree a new date to issue its response. In the event that the landlord declines to escalate a complaint to stage 2, it will provide the resident with clear reasons for its refusal and provide the contact details of this Service. It also states that it will address all the points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
81. As mentioned earlier in this report, the resident made 4 complaints to the landlord, which related to the complaint made to this Service. The resident made all of her complaints in 2023, therefore The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (the Code) published in July 2020 applied.
82. The Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code states that landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the landlord must ask the resident for clarification and agree the full complaint definition with the resident.It also states that the complaint handler must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position and comment on any adverse findings before the landlord makes a final decision.
83. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the gas fire and boiler replacement the day after it received it. It did not demonstrate that it attempted to discuss the complaint with the resident prior to issuing its response. It did not give the resident the opportunity to explain what happened and set out her position, which was not in keeping with the Code. If the landlord had taken time to contact the resident and discussed her concerns in more detail, it may have satisfied itself on what was the actual formal complaint and which (if any) were actually service requests. This approach could have sped up the resolution of the resident’s concerns.
84. Additionally, by discussing the resident’s complaint with her, the landlord would have had a better understanding of the issues, the impact on the resident and the resolution she was seeking. In this case, the resident informed this Service that the key issue she wanted the landlord to address was that she had no heating or hot water for several months. It is reasonable to conclude that if the landlord had discussed the resident’s complaint with her, she would have share this with them. Its failing to take reasonable steps to understand the complaint was not in keeping with the Code.
85. Furthermore, the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s lack of actions after her boiler broke down and its failing to replace her gas fire. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response to her complaint focused on its attempts in replacing the boiler. It did not address that the resident was without heating for over 2 months or its failings to replace her gas fire for approximately 10 months. This was not in keeping with its complaint’s policy to address all points raised by a resident’s complaint. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to request her complaint to escalate to stage 2. This further delayed her getting answer to her complaint. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to learn from its failings and prevent the issue from reoccurring.
86. On receipt of the landlord stage 1 response to her complaint about the gas fire and boiler replacements, the resident requested twice for her complaint to escalate to stage 2. Following those requests, the landlord informed the resident on 17 March 2023, that it was closing her first complaint because she had a functioning fire and boiler. The landlord did not demonstrate that it satisfied itself that the resident no longer wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of her right to approach the Ombudsman at that point, which was not in accordance with its complaint policy or the Code. This was unreasonable from the landlord and further delayed the resident in receiving an answer to her complaint. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, who then had to ask support from this Service to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
87. This Service made 2 requests to the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint. The Ombudsman understands that there was some confusion about what the resident said to the landlord on 9 June 2023. As a result of this, the landlord incorrectly concluded that the resident considered thiselement of her complaint closed. However, in July 2023, weconfirmed to the landlord that the stage 2 response to this complaint was outstanding and we requested that it responds. However, the landlord did not respond the resident stage 2 complaint and it remains outstanding. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Code or its complaint policy. This was also a missed opportunity to put things right, provide a thorough response to the resident’s complaint, learn from its mistakes and prevent those form reoccurring.
88. The evidence shows there is a pattern of the landlord failing to response to the resident’s complaints within its published timeframe, as follows:
    1. For the complaint about appointments and delays dealing with repairs for the central heating and damp and mould: it issued its stage 1 response 10 working days outside its published time frame.
    2. In relation to the staff conduct complaint, it issued its stage 1 response 12 working days outside its published timeframe.
    3. Stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints, it issued 22 days outside its published timeframe.
89. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy states that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident. The evidence did not show that the landlord informed the resident of the delays in responding to her complaints. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take that step and explained the reasons for the delays to the resident. It would also been reasonable for the landlord to agree new dates to issue its responses to her complaints. This would have also been in keeping with its policy. Whilst the delays in responding were mostly short, it is concerning that the landlord repeated the same failings several times, this raised concerns about its complaint handling.
90. In summary, the landlord consistently failed to handle the resident’s complaints in accordance with its policy and the Code. It failed to address several elements of the resident’s first complaint and to provide a stage 2 response to the same complaint, despite the requests from this Service. Additionally, the landlord consistently failed to meet its published timeframe when responding to the resident’s complaints. Its failings caused some inconvenience and frustration to the resident who had to contact this Service for support. It also caused the resident to lose trust and confidence in the landlord’s abilities and impacted their relationship.
91. After considering all the evidence of the case, The Ombudsman determines there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaints. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £300compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Determination

92. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repair and replacement of the resident’s boiler and gas fire.
93. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
94. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of their staff.
95. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the rent arrears on the residents rental account is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
96. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s unannounced visits to the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction .
97. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

98. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. The landlord is ordered to pay £1500 in compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to:
       1. £1125 to reflect the landlord’s failings in its handling of the repairs and replacement of the boiler and gas fire. This also reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
       2. £75 to reflect its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the impact this had on the resident.
       3. £300 to reflect its failings in its handlings of the resident’s complaints. This also reflect the inconvenience and time and effort this caused the resident.
    3. Contact the resident to offer installing the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen and to decorate the affected area. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service that it completed the repairs or made reasonable attempts to comply with this order.
    4. To confirm with this Service whether it has installed the new PIV unit in the loft. If the landlord has not yet completed the installation, it is to confirm with the resident and this Service when it is planning to install the new PIV unit.
    5. To provide evidence to this Service of the outcome of the review (which it said it would carry out in its final response to the resident’s complaints in August 2023) of its internal communications process to ensure that its teams share information to prevent confusion and miscommunication in the future. If the review is outstanding, the landlord is to complete the review and share its findings and actions plan with this service.
    6. To review the failings identified in this report in relation to its complaint handling and share its findings and action plan with this Service.