Uttlesford District Council (202209854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209854

Uttlesford District Council

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:
1. Repairs to the property, including damp and mould;
2. Alterations made to the property by the resident;
3. The resident’s reports of neighbour issues;
4. The resident’s concerns about the conduct and communication of individual staff members;
5. Overcrowding in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident had been a secure tenant of the landlord for over 30 years. She and her family had lived in the property, a 2-bedroom semi-detached house, since 2014. The resident told the landlord that she considered herself to have a disability in 2019, and in 2020 she informed it that she had arthritis, fibromyalgia and depression.
The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the tenant and landlord. The tenant’s obligations include: not behaving in a way which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to neighbours (including dog barking and fouling); not committing or threatening any form of harassment (including abusive or insulting words or behaviour); not keeping more than 2 domestic pets in their home (ie a dog, cat, small caged animal, bird, small amphibian and fish); taking steps to ensure any pets do not cause a health hazard, nuisance, injury or damage; allowing the landlord access to carry out inspections and repairs; and obtaining the landlord’s permission before keeping an animal, erecting any structures such as sheds, carrying out any alterations to the property, or running a business from the property. The landlord’s obligations include repairing and maintaining the structural exterior of the property and installations for the supply of utilities, heating and waste disposal, and carrying out such repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable period of time.
The repairs section of the landlord’s website, to which it directed this Service when asked to provide a copy of its repairs policy, divides repairs into 2 categories: ‘emergency’, which may be internal or external, and ‘routine’. The landlord will attend emergency repairs within 3 hours, and aims to respond to routine repairs within 10 working days. Emergency repairs include leaks causing major damage, toilet blockages, broken windows, and dangerous structures. Routine repairs include minor leaks, serious gutter leaks, and non-urgent issues with windows and doors (such as if they are loose or in need of easing).
The landlord’s (undated) tenant handbook provides different timescales, and states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, urgent jobs within 3 days, and routine jobs within 21 days. It states that the landlord is committed to maintaining its properties in line with the government’s ‘decent homes standard’, which includes being “in a reasonable state of repair”. The handbook notes the landlord’s duty to arrange gas safety checks every 12 months, and also gives advice to tenants on preventing condensation.
The landlord’s website sets out its 3-stage approach to dealing with damp and mould. At stage 1, it will carry out a mould wash to clean away the mould. At stage 2, it will investigate to establish the reason for the mould. At stage 3, it will carry out any repairs that have been identified as the cause of damp and mould. The website states that the process “will be carried out over [a] period of time and will be started as soon as possible”. It asks tenants to let the landlord know if anyone in a household affected by damp and mould has any health vulnerabilities or disabilities. It also refers to the importance of leaving extractor fans switched on and checking all radiators are working.
The landlord requires its tenants to complete a form titled “tenant’s request for improvements/alterations” when seeking its permission to carry out alterations and/or improvements to their property. The accompanying notes state that the type of work requiring consent includes installations such as electric showers, replacement kitchens and bathrooms, and removal of larders. The landlord will generally agree to alterations being carried out, subject to these being technically sound, properly executed, and not likely to reduce the value of the property. The landlord’s website provides more information regarding the improvements that tenants do and do not need to seek permission for. It states that permission is required for electrical sockets and fittings, heating fittings, bathroom fixtures, kitchen units and vents. On a separate page, it states that permission is required for installing or replacing a shed. This is also confirmed in the tenant handbook.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that residents are entitled to live in a quiet and peaceful environment, and that the landlord will act quickly and efficiently to tackle ASB in a fair but firm manner. Since the landlord is a local authority, the policy distinguishes between its roles as a landlord, a member of the local community safety partnership, and a council with environmental protection responsibilities. The landlord’s approach to ASB is founded on 5 objectives: that no one should have to experience ASB; that reports of ASB will be treated seriously and dealt with professionally; that ASB will be dealt with firmly, fairly and proportionately; that it will work with partners to deliver an effective, value for money ASB service across the community; and that it will provide a high quality service which meets people’s identified needs.
The tenant handbook states that if a tenant appears to have breached the conditions of their tenancy, the landlord will write to them outlining the alleged breach(es). It will also write to the reporting party and provide diary sheets, before reviewing the situation in 2 weeks’ time to see if it has been resolved. If there has been no further reported breach, it will close its case. The handbook states that the landlord is prepared to mediate between parties in the event of neighbour nuisance, and will take action to deal with harassment and ASB which could result in an alleged perpetrator losing their tenancy. The handbook also provides information about responsible dog ownership and notes that the animal warden can be contacted for advice.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its website states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days at both stages, with complainants being informed in advance of any extensions required.

Summary of events

On 1 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report noise from dogs frequently barking at her next-door neighbour’s property. The landlord opened a case and spoke to the resident on the phone on 2 June 2021. The resident told it that her neighbour’s dogs were “barking persistently” and that she thought her neighbour (‘Neighbour A’) may be offering a home boarding service. She also said Neighbour A was slamming internal doors to make the dogs bark. The same day, the landlord made enquiries to establish whether a home boarding licence had been issued for Neighbour A’s address, and found that no licence was in force at the time. It then wrote to Neighbour A and to the resident. It enclosed diary sheets for the resident to complete in the event of any further incidents.
On 3 June 2021 the landlord conducted further enquiries in relation to the resident’s reports of Neighbour A slamming doors and operating a home boarding service.
On 1 July 2021 the landlord received completed diary sheets from the resident, which described some long periods of alleged dog barking. The landlord subsequently carried out observations in the area on 7, 22, 28 and 29 July 2021, but did not hear any barking. It wrote to the resident on 5 August 2021 and carried out further observations the same day, again with no barking heard. The resident requested contact details for a manager on 5 August 2021, and requested installation of noise monitoring equipment during a phone call on 6 August 2021.
The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property on 9 August 2021. However, later that day, a power cut occurred which appeared to disable the equipment. The resident informed the landlord of this on 10 August 2021, and it collected the equipment on 13 August 2021. On 3 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord to reinstall the equipment, and the landlord replied asking whether she was available the following week for the equipment to be reinstalled. It did not receive a response.
On 23 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that the window in her child’s bedroom had a broken handle or lock and would not open. She said she had reported this twice before and understood there had been delays in fixing the issue due to COVID-19. She described previous contacts, including her original report in 2020 which was not followed up, and a call on 16 August 2021 during which the landlord said it had no record of the repair being reported. She noted that at one point when the hot weather was “unbearable”, she had to use several fans and her child ended up sleeping in the kitchen. She said she now wished to make a formal complaint as “this is beyond a joke”. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord logged or responded to a complaint at this time.
The landlord sought an internal update regarding the window repair on 12 November 2021. On 14 December 2021 it asked for an appointment to be arranged with the resident, noting that she had made a complaint and that she had cancelled the last appointment due to COVID-19. A further internal email on 30 December 2021 stated that the landlord had attended on 13 December 2021 and repaired the window. The email noted that 1 sealed unit needed replacing and that this was ordered on the day.
On 13 January 2022 an internal email by the landlord referred to the resident’s “long term complaint about mould”. It said repairs were needed to the ceiling of the property following a leak, and asked for photos to be taken. Further internal correspondence on 13, 14 and 17 January 2022 indicated some confusion regarding the repairs required, and mentioned an issue with the locks to the front and back doors. The landlord subsequently arranged an inspection for 24 January 2022. However, this was cancelled by the resident who had contracted COVID-19.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord liaised with the resident over email and she confirmed that there was an issue with her back door which was fitted around 3 years earlier. She said she had tried using WD40 but the door would not unlock. The landlord suggested combining the back door repair with a gas safety check that was due. The resident agreed to this, but said she would need to move an appointment booked for 2 February 2022 as she was not available on Wednesdays.
There was then further email correspondence between the resident and landlord on 31 January 2022 and 1 February 2022. The resident said she had been asked to make an appointment with a mould specialist, and also requested to be contacted about a surveyor’s appointment as she had not heard back following a previous contact. The landlord said it would speak to the mould specialist as they had been due to deal with other issues at the same appointment. The resident agreed that was also her understanding, but noted that the mould specialist “seems so confused” and that “the conversation was really strange as it took [them] a while to understand why I was calling”. When she asked about other repairs, they said she needed a surveyor, but also confirmed that they were a surveyor. On 2 February 2022 the landlord arranged a damp inspection, and the following day it asked the surveyor to “make a note of any other issues outstanding while you are there and take some photos”.
The damp inspection took place on 7 February 2022. The surveyor identified a number of internal and external defects to the property. Their resulting report, received by the landlord on 8 February 2022, stated that:
1. There was evidence of condensation, damp and mould on the external walls and window frames within the 2 bedrooms and bathroom, and there was also mould on the external wall and window in the lounge (used as a third bedroom).
2. Protimeter readings indicated ‘satisfactory’ levels of moisture in the front bedroom, and a combination of ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ levels in the rear bedroom and lounge.
3. Hygrometer readings indicated a ‘moist occupancy’ generation rate in both bedrooms and the lounge. There was also a high risk of condensation due to the wall surface temperature in these rooms.
4. There were cracks on the rear bedroom ceiling.
5. There was no visible evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen.
6. “Lifestyle factors” were of relevance in relation to the bedrooms, bathroom, lounge and kitchen.
7. Externally, the front guttering had a defective joint which allowed rainwater penetration onto the roof and brick walls. There was also a distorted overflow pipe on the front wall which allowed rainwater to flow onto the wall. Areas of missing mortar in the brickwork at the rear and side of the property could allow internal rainwater penetration. The chimney had been affected by dampness from rainwater and needed to be overhauled.
8. There were no obvious leaks to the heating system or plumbing in the property.
9. In conclusion, the cause of the damp and mould inside the property was condensation. This was discussed with the resident during the inspection and she was provided with guidance to help resolve the issues. Defects to external sections of the property needed to be resolved to prevent any penetration of water into the property.
10. The works required were:
  1. Repair or renewal of most of the double glazed window handles;
  2. Repair of the cracks on the rear bedroom ceiling;
  3. Repair of the defective guttering joints at the front of the property;
  4. Overhaul of the overflow pipe at the front of the property;
  5. Repair of the brickwork at the front, side and rear of the property;
  6. Repair of the distorted chimney brickwork and pot/flaunching;
  7. Inspection of the loft insulation to confirm it was fully sealed to the correct level of 270mm.
The same day (8 February 2022), the landlord enquired internally when the repairs to the resident’s window handles would be completed. The response stated that a blown window unit was awaiting replacement, but the resident had not mentioned any other issues with the windows during the appointment on 13 December 2021. The landlord said it would replace any faulty window handles if a new order was raised, but it would need to know which handles required replacement “to avoid this keep happening”.
On 14 February 2022, an internal email by the landlord referred to the window and back door handle defects listed in the surveyor’s report. It asked if someone could attend the property, check all the window and door handles and locks, and repair or replace any that were defective. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident on 28 February 2022 to arrange an appointment on 2 March 2022, but she said she was not available on Wednesdays as she had hospital appointments. The resident later agreed to an appointment on 8 March 2022, but cancelled this on 7 March 2022 as she said she and her family had again contracted COVID-19. The landlord contacted her to rebook the appointment on 11 March 2022, but she said she was still testing positive and asked it to wait “at least a week”. On 22 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had not received any follow-up contact about the outstanding repairs.
On 25 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report nuisance from dog barking between 1am and 5am on 23 April 2022. She said she had to sleep in her daughter’s car as a result. The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 26 April 2022. During the call, the resident pointed out that her tenancy agreement said tenants were allowed 2 small animals, but that Neighbour A had 4 dogs as well as (allegedly) home boarding. The landlord discussed the resident’s report internally the same day and sent a letter to Neighbour A. It also sent a letter and diary sheets to the resident.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord replied to the resident regarding the repairs and said it had been waiting to hear from her in order to rebook a visit. The resident agreed to an appointment on 5 May 2022. However, she then asked to move this as she was needed to babysit her grandchildren. A rearranged appointment on 3 May 2022 was also moved at the resident’s request as her grandchild was unwell. She asked for an appointment during week commencing 17 May 2022, and the landlord booked the visit for 19 May 2022.
On 17 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that dogs were being dropped off at Neighbour A’s property and “continuously barking”. She also said she did not feel able to complete diary sheets.
On 18 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that she would again need to reschedule the appointment on 19 May 2022 as her child had tested positive for COVID-19. She said she would let it know when she was in a position to rebook. An internal email by the landlord on 30 May 2022 stated that “we have not been able to get into the property for months as [the resident] keeps cancelling” and “if she cancels the next appointment I will have to look at closing [the job]”. It sought advice regarding this. On 9 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that her house was clear of COVID-19.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord asked the resident for an update regarding her neighbour issues. When she did not reply, it informed her that it had closed its case on 24 June 2022. The same day, the resident requested details for the relevant manager and head of service in order to “formally complain”. The landlord provided the manager’s contact details but advised that the head of service was currently on leave. It explained that it had carried out a number of visits to investigate the noise issue the previous year, and reiterated the need for recent evidence in the form of diary sheets. It also advised that there was no evidence of dog boarding. The resident said that the landlord had done nothing with her last diary sheet evidence and had not re-offered noise monitoring equipment. The landlord responded by forwarding a copy of its email dated 3 September 2021 where it requested the resident’s availability for a second installation of noise equipment.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord asked the resident when she was available for the repair visit originally due to take place in March 2022. The resident said she was available after 11.30am on 7 July 2022, and she landlord confirmed the appointment for 1.30pm that day. However, on 7 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was “really not happy” as it had not arrived by 2.10pm when she had to go out for a doctor’s appointment. She said: “I can’t believe you can moan that I have been difficult yet rock up at my house 55 minutes late.” She asked who she could make a complaint to. The landlord’s reply the same day stated that a meeting it attended before the resident’s appointment had run over, and so it did not arrive at her property until after 2pm. It noted that “your email stated you would be available all day from 11.30am, and as our visit would have taken up to an hour we had not anticipated that you would have made other arrangements”. The landlord requested the resident’s availability for a visit by her housing officer and a manager the following week.
Also on 7 July 2022, the landlord asked the resident whether she would like it to open a formal complaint. Her reply on 8 July 2022 stated that she was waiting for contact details for the relevant head of service. The landlord provided these to her.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord visited the resident. Although the purpose of the visit was to address issues the resident had raised, including damp and mould in the property, the landlord identified some possible unrelated issues during the visit and raised these with the resident. These concerned the resident’s sheds, kitchen island, oven, bathroom light, and towel rail.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord carried out a heat loss calculation and concluded that there were no issues with the resident’s radiators. On 28 July 2022 it emailed the resident to arrange an electrical test. The resident replied on 29 July 2022, advising that she was not available on the proposed date and that she did not understand why the test was necessary. She also said that, following some consideration, she did not feel that her complaint had been addressed, despite this being the reason for the landlord’s visit on 12 July 2022. She felt “under a personal attack” which was causing her “considerable stress”. She said she had visited her doctor that morning for advice regarding the stress and the impact of the mould in the property on her health. She told the landlord she would send it a letter regarding her concerns.
On 8 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, stating that:
1. Since moving to the area 7 years ago she had experienced several issues with her property and neighbours. She had tried to resolve these issues at her own expense where possible, and prided herself on keeping a clean, tidy and presentable home. Where she had not been able to resolve issues herself, she had raised them with the landlord, which had a responsibility to keep the structure of her property in good condition and to investigate any statutory nuisance. However, her issues remained unresolved.
2. After raising concerns recently, she had received a visit from 2 members of the landlord’s staff. She understood that the visit was in relation to the issues she had raised and that the staff were there to resolve them. However, she was “shocked, disappointed and appalled” at the way she was treated during the visit, which led her to seek medical and legal advice.
3. Her concerns were not addressed during the visit. Instead, the landlord’s staff “picked at several things in her home” and shifted the focus away from the issues she had raised, making her feel “like the victim of an attack”. She described one of the staff members’ behaviour as “rude, nasty and bullying”. She suffered from depression, anxiety and other health issues, which had been exacerbated by the landlord’s actions.
4. During the landlord’s visit, its staff commented on the following matters:
  1. A neighbour had complained about the resident’s sheds. The landlord asked if she had planning permission for them. She did, and could prove this. However, she felt that the details should be available on the landlord’s system, and she asked it to locate these rather than requiring her to do it. She did not feel it was appropriate that this was raised.
  2. The resident had a moveable, flat-packed piece of furniture in her kitchen. The landlord asked if she had planning permission for this. She did not, and was not aware that she required such permission for a non-permanent piece of furniture inside her property. This questioning made her feel uncomfortable and anxious.
  3. The resident was told she was not allowed a double oven in her kitchen. She had had several house inspections and electrical tests over the years and had never been told this. She believed the staff member who made this comment retracted it later in the visit, but she wanted to know why it was made at all.
  4. The resident was also told she was not allowed a particular light fitting in her bathroom. The landlord said she would need an electrical test as it was not considered a ‘bathroom light’. She believed it was a bathroom light and it was fitted by a qualified electrician. The landlord had since told her that while it knew she had had the required checks, it could not find the records and required her to have the checks completed again. She did not believe this was true and felt she was being penalised for the landlord failing to keep accurate and up-to-date records.
  5. The resident was told she would need to remove the towel rail in her bathroom as it was too small for the size of the room. The landlord later sent an operative who confirmed the towel rail was the correct size and did not need to be removed.
5. She felt the above were “unjustified, unnecessary and false statements” which contradicted what she had been told by other professionals.
6. She also wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of the following ongoing issues:
  1. She had made several reports of her next-door neighbour, Neighbour A, running a dog boarding business. Most days she experienced noise nuisance from dogs barking and crying from morning till night, as well as noise from doors slamming and vacuuming at midnight.
  2. Neighbour A’s cat had recently begun coming into her property when she had her back door open. She had chronic asthma and was severely allergic to cats. This was making her feel on edge and anxious, and she felt unable to leave her back door open even on the hottest of days.
  3. She had completed a diary more than once at the landlord’s request, and had noise equipment installed in her property which faulted due to a power cut and was not reinstalled. Her requests for updates had been ignored. Her tenancy agreement said she was allowed 2 small pets only, but she was made to live next door to someone with several dogs, cats, chickens and other animals. It was “unfair and unjust” and made her feel “frustrated and saddened”.
  4. In addition to the issues with her next-door neighbour, she and her family had been subjected to abuse from their neighbour across the road (‘Neighbour B’). This was reported to the police, who issued a warning to the neighbour. She had decided to take no further action at the time in the hope that the warning would resolve the issue, but the police advised her to report the behaviour to the landlord. She did this and nothing was done. Her neighbour continued to behave in an intimidating way and cause her distress.
  5. There had been severe mould in the property since she moved in. She had treated the mould herself and redecorated the property several times. When she reported the issue to the landlord, it sent a mould expert, but there was no report or follow-up. When the landlord’s staff visited recently, they tried to blame the resident by saying the mould was caused by a dehumidifier she had purchased earlier that year.
  6. Over the past year she had experienced recurring chest infections and asthma attacks. She had sought medical advice and was told it was likely the infections and attacks were likely caused, or made worse, by the conditions in her property. Her daughter had also experienced health conditions over the past 1-2 years which were attributed to mould exposure, including a sore throat, cough, chest pain and headaches.
  7. She had obtained independent advice and had been informed that there were structural issues with the property. There was no insulation in the roof above the main bedroom, the windows were old and not fit for purpose, and there was a lack of ventilation.
  8. Other repairs to the property were also required. She had experienced issues over the years with broken windows, broken doors and leaks, and each time she had had to chase up repairs and wait unreasonable amounts of time for repairs to be completed. Outstanding repairs that she had reported included leak damage to her kitchen and bedroom ceilings, and broken guttering at the front of the property.
  9. Her family of 3 adults lived in a 2-bedroom property. As a result of this, she was using the front room as a third bedroom and had nowhere in the property where she could sit and relax. She was unable to entertain friends and family as she did not have the space. The lack of space in the property also made it difficult for her to spend time with her grandchildren.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 August 2022 and said it would respond within 10 working days. It noted that, if it found it would take longer than 10 working days to respond, it would contact her again to advise of this and provide a revised response date. On 22 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it would need longer to investigate and respond to her complaint, as the relevant housing officer had been on leave. It apologised for the delay and said it now aimed to respond by 24 August 2022. The resident replied that she considered this to be reasonable.

The landlord then issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2022. This stated that:
1. It was sorry the resident was not satisfied with the service she received from its staff. It had spoken to both staff members involved and asked for their input as part of its investigation.
2. In relation to the staff members’ comments during the visit on 12 July 2022, it responded as follows:
  1. It had checked its records and could see the resident previously requested permission for a summerhouse, but it did not have any other requests on file. If she had permission letters for her sheds, it asked her to forward them. Alternatively, she would need to apply for retrospective permission. It attached the relevant form. It noted that, when officers visited a property and spotted something that needed addressing, they would raise it at the time; this was not intended to make the resident feel as if she had done something wrong, and it was sorry she felt that way.
  2. It had not been clear that the kitchen island was moveable. Since it was not a permanent alteration to the kitchen, no permission was required.
  3. Its officer had pointed out that the positioning of the oven did not conform to regulations as it was directly next to a wall. The resident could have a double oven, but there should be a unit and worktop either side for safety reasons.
  4. It had a duty to make sure the electrics in its properties were safe. If it had any doubt regarding the safety of electrical works – particularly if there had been alterations to a property – it must carry out another electrical test.
  5. It had advised that to help prevent mould, an ambient temperature should be maintained throughout the property. Its officer had been concerned that the towel rail did not give off enough heat, which is why they arranged an inspection. This was an important point to address as one of the reasons for the visit was to investigate damp and mould.
3. In relation to its handling of the other matters raised by the resident in her complaint, it advised:
  1. It was investigating the resident’s claims that her next-door neighbour was running a dog boarding business and had more pets than allowed in the tenancy agreement. Once these investigations were complete, it would update her with its findings.
  2. Cats were seen as free agents and were able to roam without the same constraints imposed on dogs. It would speak to the neighbour about their cat but there was nothing it could enforce. It appreciated this must be distressing for the resident, and suggested she took steps to deter the cat from coming into her property. It signposted her to some information on the RSPCA’s website about keeping cats out of gardens.
  3. Abuse from the resident’s neighbour across the road had been reported to it, but when it asked the resident whether she wanted to report the matter formally, she said no and asked for the information to be noted on file. It had done this. If she now wished to make a formal report, it asked her to contact her housing officer in order to start the process.
  4. Following its recent visit, it concluded that there were no building faults and that the mould in the resident’s property was caused by lifestyle issues. This would be partly due to the fact that she was overcrowded. It had also explained that dehumidifiers were not meant for long-term use and would be ineffective if the window was open. This was not intended to place the blame on the resident, but to clarify that the dehumidifier would not be working as she expected it to.
  5. It agreed there was no insulation in the area above the main bedroom. It had tried to arrange for this to be rectified in the past, but had been unable to gain access to do the work. If she resident agreed to allow access, it would arrange this.
  6. It had raised a job for a new bathroom humidistat fan and an overhaul of all the windows in the property. The resident would receive appointments for these in due course. As agreed, she would receive a text message before the call to make the appointments.
  7. All the repairs the resident listed in her complaint had been logged and she would receive appointments.
  8. It was aware the resident was overcrowded, and it could appreciate the difficulties this must cause her when trying to see friends and family at home. She had a current transfer application and was Band B priority, which was the correct banding for her situation. There was high demand for 3-bedroom properties in the area. It advised her to continue to check the relevant website on a weekly basis and to express an interest in any suitable properties. She could consider housing association properties as well as council ones.
4. It had answered all the points the resident had raised. If she was dissatisfied with its response, she could escalate her complaint.
The same day (24 August 2022), the resident told the landlord she was “utterly disappointed with the response received”. She said that it had not addressed the way she was treated during its visit on 12 July 2022, and that its letter contained “a number of false statements”. She said she would provide a fuller response in due course.
On 5 September 2022 the resident sent the landlord a more detailed letter in reply to its stage 1 response. Her letter stated that:
1. She had hoped her complaint would be taken seriously and some of the issues would finally be resolved. Instead, the stage 1 response had caused her extreme distress and frustration as it contained “a number of lies” and left her with no resolution. It also did not contain an apology for the way she was treated during the landlord’s visit on 12 July 2022. She felt there was “clear bias”.
2. Regarding the issues raised during the visit:
  1. She could provide the correspondence relating to permission for her summerhouse. She was unable to provide a copy of the permission for her shed, which was granted over 8 years ago. She was unable to recall whether it was sent by letter or email. She did not have access to her previous email account, and could not locate any letters. However, the shed had not been questioned during previous visits by the landlord, and it was referred to in correspondence regarding the summerhouse. She did not consider it necessary to apply for retrospective permission for the shed, as permission had previously been granted, and in view of her complaint she did not feel it was a suitable time to do so.
  2. It was clear that the kitchen island was a moveable, non-permanent structure. The landlord’s officer’s comment about it was unnecessary and she felt it was part of an attack on her during the visit. She did not feel her treatment by this officer had been addressed satisfactorily.
  3. The oven was not positioned directly next to a wall on either side. If there was an issue, she was happy to resolve it. However, she felt the way this was addressed with her was poor.
  4. She appreciated the landlord had a duty to ensure her electrics were safe. However, she had had all the necessary electrical checks.
  5. There was no radiator or towel rail in the bathroom when she moved into the property, so she considered it odd that the landlord felt the towel rail that had since been installed was insufficient. The stage 1 response did not mention that, on inspection, the landlord found the towel rail to be more than adequate.
3. Regarding the other ongoing issues:
  1. She asked the landlord to provide an update regarding the investigation into her next-door neighbour.
  2. She did not consider it acceptable that nothing could be done about her neighbour’s cat. She felt she had been extremely tolerant over the years. She had already taken a number of steps to deter the cat and spent a significant amount of money in the process. She found it unreasonable that her neighbour could refuse to do anything about the issue.
  3. When discussing her other neighbour with the landlord previously, she advised its officer to be careful when visiting their property due to their aggressive and violent behaviour. She had therefore understood that the officer in question would visit her neighbour. Her most recent email to the officer was in August 2022, in which she described how the issue was affecting her mentally.
  4. As she had stated before, there was a clear mould issue when she moved into the property. Other properties on her street were also affected by mould. She therefore disputed the landlord’s statement that the mould was caused by lifestyle issues. She had done everything possible to try to eliminate it, to no avail.
  5. The landlord’s summary of its previous advice regarding dehumidifiers was inaccurate. She found it insulting that the landlord felt the need to explain these things to her. She had bought the dehumidifier to try to reduce the mould, as the landlord “had failed to do anything”.
  6. She was confused by the landlord’s finding that there were no building faults, as it had not inspected the building. She also felt that it was conflicting for it to agree that there was an issue with the insulation above the main bedroom, yet state there were no faults with the building. The landlord’s contractor had never tried to arrange for the issue to be rectified. In fact, the issue was only identified recently when she sought independent advice and had her property inspected. She had always allowed the landlord access unless she was not available, and would not refuse access given the health issues she was experiencing.
  7. She had received no appointments regarding the humidistat fan and overhaul of the windows, or any other repairs. She requested an update and urgent action. Since she complained, further repair issues had arisen within the property, including a leak in her front bedroom which had caused damage to her ceiling, curtains and carpet. There were also structural concerns regarding her back bedroom ceiling.
4. She felt that, rather than addressing a number of issues that had been ongoing for a significant period of time, the landlord had bombarded her with questions and allegations.
5. She was escalating the complaint in the hope that its stage 2 responder could deal with it in a more suitable and satisfactory manner.
The same day (5 September 2022), the resident informed the landlord that she had received an auto-reply from its designated point of contact for escalated complaints. She asked who would be able to deal with her escalation request in the officer’s absence. The landlord forwarded the resident’s email internally on 6 September 2022 but did not immediately respond. On 11 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had not received a reply to her email of 5 September 2022, and that she did not consider it acceptable to wait until its officer returned from leave on 19 September 2022. She said “this is becoming increasingly urgent”. On 12 September 2022 the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s escalation request and advised that, in the absence of its usual point of contact, her complaint had been escalated to its interim deputy director. It said it was awaiting their response and would update her in due course.
This Service has seen no evidence that a further update followed. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2022, stating that:
1. It apologised for its slightly delayed response. There was lots of correspondence to review and conversations with colleagues to establish the current position in relation to the matters raised.
2. The resident had described its officer’s behaviour as “rude, nasty and bullying”. These were strong words which the landlord took very seriously. It was sorry this matter was not addressed within its stage 1 response. The other officer who attended the visit on 12 July 2022 confirmed that the officer in question acted very professionally throughout the visit, drawing the resident’s attention to changes that had been made to the property and advising accordingly. It did not intend to investigate this matter further.
3. The resident stated she had emails confirming it gave permission for her shed. It had no record of these, so asked her to forward them. It also had no record of permission being granted. It may have been aware of the shed at the time it considered giving permission for the summerhouse, but this “did not make things right”. It asked the resident to complete the form previously provided to apply for retrospective permission if she was unable to forward the emails.
4. It considered that the kitchen island issue had been covered both in its findings regarding its officer’s behaviour, and in its stage 1 response which confirmed that the resident did not require permission for the island.
5. It understood that permission may not have been obtained for the resident’s oven, and that its location could amount to a breach of regulations due to electrical sockets being in close proximity. The resident had offered to relocate the appliance, and it asked her to arrange this urgently.
6. It also urgently needed to undertake an electrical safety check of the resident’s property. This was a legal requirement. A recent letter from its chief executive had highlighted that a number of its properties did not have the necessary electrical safety certificates in place, and the resident’s property was one of these. It asked the resident to arrange the safety check with its contractor as a matter of urgency. It noted that the inspection may identify non-compliance in respect of the location of the oven and bathroom light. However, if the resident could demonstrate to the attending electrician that these were installed by a suitably qualified electrician and conformed to regulations, it would consider this.
7. It was fairly sure that there would have been a radiator in the bathroom when the property was first let to the resident. It was advantageous to have a bathroom radiator linked to the main heating system as this kept one of the wettest rooms warm. It did not have a record of permission being granted to remove the radiator and install a towel rail in its place. Its advice about control of damp in this area was therefore sound, and the issue may be highlighted by the electrical safety check.
8. It had investigated the resident’s report of her next-door neighbour running a dog boarding business. Its findings were inconclusive. Officers confirmed that at the time of their visits, there was no evidence that lots of dogs were being kept. It had been unable to visit the neighbour as yet. It asked the resident to provide any evidence of a business being run, or details of days or times of the week when there were consistently a lot of dogs present. It would then visit and attempt to “get to the bottom of the matter”.
9. Its previous advice regarding cat deterrents and advice from the RSPCA was sound. It proposed taking no further action in relation to this.
10. Its officer had confirmed that the last time it spoke to the resident about abuse from her other neighbour was in January 2022. At this time it asked her to complete diary sheets of any incidents, but none were returned. The resident did not mention this neighbour during the visit on 12 July 2022. As the resident’s understanding of what was agreed differed from its officer’s, it had asked the officer to contact the resident to clarify what she was experiencing, whether there had been any recent incidents, and the best course of action to take (in view of the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s reaction).
11. In relation to mould and other repair issues, it had commissioned a damp inspection which was carried out on 7 February 2022. The report concluded that there was no penetrating damp to the property. The surveyor also confirmed that there were no obvious heating or hot water system leaks. The report stated that the resident was given advice on the causes of condensation and what she could do to reduce the risk.
12. The report did identify a number of defects to the property. The necessary repairs had all been logged and were shown as outstanding on its system. It provided details of the 8 jobs that required completion, relating to cracked brickwork, defective mortar, a distorted overflow pipe, the chimney, defective window handles, a defective back door handle, and the loft insulation.
13. Further repairs identified during its visit on 12 July 2022 were also included in the list above. It understood orders had been raised and sent to the resident, but contractors had been unable to gain access. The repairs history for the property showed a history of cancelled and rearranged appointments (including a complaint when a contractor arrived late). There needed to be a better arrangement for gaining access to undertake repairs. It had contacted the resident by text message according to her preference, but no responses had been received.
14. It was unable to resolve the complaint until the resident:
  1. Informed it of the best method of gaining access to complete repairs and the electrical safety inspection;
  2. Remedied the location of the oven and the fitting of the possibly non-compliant bathroom light and towel rail;
  3. Clarified what neighbour issues she was currently experiencing and what action she expected it to take in relation to the 2 neighbours;
  4. Provided evidence that the landlord gave permission for her shed, or applied for retrospective permission using the form supplied.
15. It planned to write to her again in 1 month’s time to check progress against the 4 actions above. It hoped it was able to work with her in moving these matters forward.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of any follow-up response in relation to the 4 actions.

Post complaint

On 22 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident regarding a leak repair, but said “I am not sure if this is to do with the old leak or if you have a current leak”. It asked if she needed a plumber. The resident replied on 23 September 2022 that she had had a leak for about 5 years, which she had reported several times. She said the first time, a plumber checked the loft and said nothing was wrong, blaming the windows for the reported issue. The second time, a plumber checked the loft and suggested the roof was faulty. They said they would report this back, but the resident had to report the issue again as water was coming into her bedroom. A plumber again visited and said the roof was leaking. A workman visited a few weeks later and completed repairs to the lead flashing. However, 6 months later the leak recurred in the same place. The resident reported this and the landlord’s plumber again blamed the roof, although there had been no recent rain. The plumber said they would report the issue but nothing had come of it.
The resident said she was unhappy that, a year on, the landlord had sent someone round to look at her towel rail, and they immediately identified an issue with the flat section of roof above her front bedroom. She shared the workman’s view that this was causing the leak and mould she had been reporting. Though they said they would make an urgent report to the landlord’s housing team, the resident found herself in the same position where the leak would happen “randomly every couple of weeks”. She said that over the years it had damaged the ceiling in both bedrooms badly and she was now “waiting for the ceiling to fall in”, which was making her ill.
On 22, 28 and 30 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident regarding the issues with Neighbour B, but she told it that “I think I’m way past talking to you guys … who I feel have mistreated me”. The landlord explained that it was trying to resolve the issues, and asked the resident to contact it if she required any further assistance with the matter. The resident repeated that she appreciated the offer but “unfortunately it is too late to resolve the problem”.
On 1 October 2022 the landlord completed an out-of-hours repair after the resident reported that the leak in her property had returned and caused the ceiling light in her child’s bedroom to trip. On 27 October 2022 the landlord tested the domestic electrical installations in the property. The resulting report, dated 3 November 2022, stated that the condition of the installations was satisfactory.
On 18 December 2022 the resident moved to a 3-bedroom property.
In September 2023 the landlord informed this Service (via its solicitor) that it was dealing with a disrepair claim made by the resident. It confirmed that no legal proceedings had been issued and that it was making progress towards a settlement. In October 2023 the landlord’s solicitor advised that the landlord proposed to pay the resident £3,849 on terms that she accepted the payment in full and final settlement of the relevant matters; that she waived any right to bring further claims in respect of the condition of the property; and that she withdrew any complaints to the Ombudsman against the landlord. The proposed payment consisted of a “settlement sum” of £849 and legal costs of £3,000. The settlement had not been finalised at the time of the latest update in February 2024. The resident has asked this Service to proceed with its investigation of her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42c and 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, or which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The current investigation therefore focuses on events that have occurred since 1 June 2021 (just over 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord), for which more detailed records have been provided. It should be noted that the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition, as such matters are best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Repairs to the property

The landlord’s website states that its maximum timeframe for non-emergency repairs is 10 working days. Its tenant handbook provides an alternative maximum timeframe of 21 working days. However, it is generally accepted that complex repairs involving diagnostic works, inspections and periods of monitoring may take longer than this. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see that a landlord has taken a proactive approach, maintained effective communication, and considered the impact of the situation on the resident. Landlords should also be mindful of their legal responsibilities in relation to providing safe and non-hazardous accommodation and carry out risk assessments where appropriate, particularly where a resident is identified as being vulnerable.

Damp and mould

The resident told the landlord in 2022 that she had experienced an intermittent leak in the property for around 5 years (since 2017). She also said there had been mould in the property when she moved into it in 2014. While some information provided by the landlord dates back to 2014, the repair records provided to this Service begin on 23 September 2021. However, an internal email by the landlord on 13 January 2022 referred to the resident’s “long term complaint about mould”. For the purposes of this report, it is accepted that the damp and mould issues began and were reported prior to the timeframe of the current investigation, with no effective or lasting resolution having previously been found. While there is no specific evidence of the landlord following its stated 3-stage approach to damp and mould by carrying out a mould wash, it is assumed that its investigations were already underway by 2022 and that initial stages of the approach may already have been followed or precluded.
It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property on 7 February 2022, and subsequently to act in accordance with the findings of its qualified surveyor. The surveyor found that the damp and mould was caused by condensation. The report referred to the relevance of ‘lifestyle factors’, but rather than attributing the damp and mould to the resident’s lifestyle, appeared to be highlighting the potential for damp and mould to impact on the resident’s health. It defined lifestyle factors as “the modifiable habits and ways of life that can greatly influence [overall] health and wellbeing, including fertility”, and noted that as the resident had health conditions, “the damp and mould can affect the tenant as a lifestyle factor”. It is unclear whether the report was shared with the resident at the time, and to demonstrate transparency, an order has been made for the landlord to do this if it has not already done so.
In view of the surveyor’s findings, it was appropriate for the landlord (or its contractor) to give the resident advice on preventing condensation. This supported information given in its tenant handbook. It is appreciated that, at a later stage, the resident felt advice was given in an insulting or patronising way – for example, in relation to the functioning of her dehumidifier – but it was reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself that she was aware of ways to effectively reduce airborne moisture.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord made attempts to access the property in order to carry out works recommended by its surveyor between January and July 2022. On 9 occasions during this period, appointments were cancelled by the resident. A tenth appointment (on 7 July 2022) did not go ahead because the landlord was late and the resident had gone out. The landlord’s communication in relation to this missed appointment was unsympathetic: while it acknowledged that it had been late, it did not apologise or recognise the inconvenience caused. Instead, it said that “as our visit would have taken up to an hour we had not anticipated that you would have made other arrangements”. This was inappropriate, particularly as the resident had previously informed it of her other commitments such as hospital appointments and care of her grandchildren.
A comment made by the landlord on 30 May 2022, which referred to closing jobs down if there were further cancellations, was similarly concerning. Some of the cancellations were due to the resident or members of her family testing positive for COVID-19, which was outside her control. In the event of persistent access issues, the landlord should have assessed the urgency of the outstanding works (for example, an imminently due gas safety check and/or overdue electrical safety check), communicated this to the resident with reference to its tenancy conditions, and considered further measures if it was still unable to complete urgent works. There is no evidence that the resident was made aware of any potential consequences of repeated cancellations, or that an incremental approach was taken to manage the access issue.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that, following its visit on 12 July 2022, it had concluded that the mould in the property was “caused by lifestyle issues” and that there were “no building faults causing it”. However, no building inspection had been carried out by the landlord’s officers who attended on 12 July 2022 (as they were not surveyors), so this statement was misleading. The resident justifiably raised this point in her escalation request, and also disputed that the landlord’s contractor had tried to rectify an insulation issue which had not come to light until she recently sought independent advice. The landlord did not directly address these concerns, but later agreed that its surveyor had identified “a number of defects to the property” on 7 February 2022, which was at odds with its stage 1 response. It also referred vaguely to access issues and cancelled or rearranged appointments, but provided no detailed summary of these or the reasons for the cancellations. The resident noted on 5 September 2022 that she had received no appointments for installation of a humidistat fan and overhaul of her windows, which the landlord said it would arrange “in due course” at stage 1; while the window overhaul may have taken longer to schedule, the fan installation was a straightforward job, and a prompt follow-up to its stage 1 response would have demonstrated a renewed commitment to resolving the access issues moving forward.
Relatedly, while the landlord agreed it needed “a better arrangement for gaining access”, it did not propose any practical solutions. Though it was appropriate for it to accommodate the resident’s request for contact via text message, this had proved ineffective. It could therefore reasonably have explored alternative measures such as providing a named point of contact, arranging appointments on agreed days and times, or producing an agreed schedule of works with regular check-ins and oversight. The landlord’s confusing communications regarding whether or not there were building faults, together with its lack of tailored approach in addressing the access issue, caused the resident to lose confidence in its ability to resolve the issues at her property.
The landlord’s position at the time of its stage 2 response (on 20 September 2022) remained that the damp and mould in the property was not due to penetrating damp. However, at this point a number of repairs identified by its surveyor in February 2022 remained outstanding. This meant that the landlord had not carried out works which may have supported its conclusions by eliminating penetrating damp as a contributory factor (discussed in more detail below). This was of particular relevance as the resident had told it on 5 September 2022 that the leak had returned and caused further damage. While the access issues experienced by the landlord are noted, the overall timeframe of the damp and mould repairs far exceeded what this Service would expect.
Furthermore, the stage 2 response stated that the landlord “could not resolve the complaint” until the resident took certain actions. Though not explicitly stated, this suggested that the landlord would carry out repairs on the condition that the resident complied with its other requirements. This was inappropriate, particularly in view of the landlord’s legal responsibilities and the urgency of the works. As there is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident a month after the stage 2 response, as it committed to do, the repairs continued to be outstanding 8 months after they were raised. This resulted in a potentially dangerous situation in which the resident’s electrics were affected by water ingress, and an emergency repair in October 2022. It is unclear from the information provided if, when or how this was followed up, and how the resident came to move to a different property 2 months later.

Other repair issues

According to the resident, she first reported a window handle issue prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown (in March 2020). She described contact with the landlord in the summer of 2020 in which it denied having any knowledge of the issue and failed to follow up with further promised contact. The resident said that she reported the issue again on 16 August 2021, and that the landlord again had no record of her previous reports. There is no documentary evidence in relation to these events, and so due to their historical nature, limited weight can be attached to them. However, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s account or provided an alternative explanation.
Following the resident’s email of 23 September 2021, the landlord apparently did not progress the window handle repair internally until 12 November 2021. This 7-week delay was unsatisfactory. It then delayed for a further 4 weeks before it arranged an appointment with the resident. The overall timeframe of 11 weeks between the resident reporting the continued window handle issue and the landlord carrying out a visit was excessive. This would not have been considered a complex repair, and so the landlord should have sought to resolve the issue within its published routine timeframe of 10 or 21 working days.
During the appointment on 13 December 2021, the landlord’s records state that it “repaired all window[s] which needed fixing”. However, despite the appointment appearing to relate to the window handle issue reported by the resident, a report produced by the landlord’s surveyor on 7 February 2022 stated that “most double glazed windows within the property have defective handles that need to be repaired/renewed”. There were then confused internal communications by the landlord on 8 February 2022, in which it said it had attended and completed all required repairs, and “at no point did [the resident] advise there were any other issues”. It is unclear whether the landlord checked with the resident whether any issues remained outstanding on 13 December 2021, but it would have been expected to confirm resolution of the issue for which the appointment was raised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s disorganisation and poor record keeping contributed to its delay in progressing the window repair.
After further discussion, repairs to the window and door handles and locks were not booked in until 14 February 2022 (5 months after the resident’s report on 23 September 2021), and these apparently remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response 7 months later. The fact that some repairs were not completed for at least 12 months was unacceptable. Some of the delayed repairs were apparently straightforward, such as replacement of handles and locks, and appeared to be delayed due to confusion and indecision around costs. Others, such as rectification of guttering defects and ceiling damage, were larger scale and may have had a bearing on the damp and mould issues discussed above. While the landlord may understandably have wished to delay cosmetic repairs in relation to unresolved issues, where recurrence of the issues could have led to repeated repairs, it should have been mindful of the resident’s concerns about an undiagnosed leak and addressed any repairs that could have contributed to water ingress. It should also have satisfied itself that the property was safe for the resident to live in, and completed an assessment or risk and/or hazards in the property if necessary.

Summary

It is noted that the landlord went on to offer the resident £849 as part of a proposed settlement of a disrepair claim. The offer was made approximately a year after the resident’s complaint concluded the landlord’s complaints process, and did not constitute an admission of fault. The settlement, proposed by the resident, was calculated on the basis of a reduction in rent for an active leak affecting both bedrooms in the property, plus an additional payment for inconvenience. The resident’s legal costs of £3,000, which the landlord also agreed to pay, have not been considered as the resident would not directly benefit from this money.
In assessing the adequacy of the redress offered, the Ombudsman notes that the £849 did not reflect all of the repair issues discussed above, such as the delayed window handle repair. It also was not offered within the complaints process, as the landlord did not acknowledge any failure at this stage. The amount offered fell within the level of award made by this Service for severe maladministration, and was therefore roughly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. However, it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles for a landlord to make an offer of redress late in a protracted process with the intended effect that the Ombudsman (or other bodies) will not consider the matter further. While it is accepted that the landlord was not always able to access the property for reasons outside its control, its delays in completing repairs, limited efforts to progress urgent works and pursue alternative avenues of investigation, and omission to identify any failures have resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.

Alterations to the property

It is noted that the landlord had not accessed the property for some time prior to its visit on 12 July 2022. In the Ombudsman’s view, as well as addressing the matters that gave rise to the visit, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise any additional issues that came to its attention with the resident during the visit. It would be expected to do this in a sensitive and appropriate way, explaining its reasons and any tenancy conditions or legal requirements relating to each issue. The conduct of the officers who attended the visit is assessed separately below. This section deals with the issues raised during the visit, which the resident referred to in her complaint.

Summerhouse and shed

The tenancy agreement, tenant handbook and the landlord’s website are clear that tenants of the landlord require its permission to install or replace a shed. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident regarding this matter after receiving a complaint from a neighbour, particularly given that it could not locate any record of having granted permission.
As the resident told the landlord she had obtained permission for the shed, it was appropriate for it to give her the opportunity to provide evidence of this. When she was unable to do so, it was reasonable for it to require her to apply for retrospective permission. Permission for the shed was separate from permission previously granted for a summerhouse, despite the shed being referred to in the summerhouse permission request. This ceased to be an issue after the resident moved out of the property.

Kitchen island

The landlord requires tenants to seek its permission for installation of kitchen units. Since kitchen islands can be permanent installations, it was reasonable for the landlord to query whether permission should have been sought. Once the resident clarified that the island was a non-permanent and moveable structure, the landlord rightly confirmed that no permission was required. Its communication on the topic was prompt. This, too, was acceptable.

Oven

The landlord has a duty to ensure its properties are safe, free from hazards, and compliant with relevant regulations. When it identified that the resident’s double oven may not be compliant in terms of its positioning, it was correct to raise this at the earliest opportunity, explain the suspected issue, and take steps to address it. Omitting to do so could have created a safety issue. It is noted that the resident later confirmed she was willing to resolve the issue.

Bathroom light fitting

As referred to above, the landlord has a duty to ensure the safety of its properties. It specifically requires tenants to seek permission for “electrical sockets and fittings” and “bathroom fixtures”. It was therefore reasonable for it to require its own electrical test to confirm the safety and compliance of a light fitting installed by the resident, if no suitable record already existed. This remains the case even if the resident could demonstrate that the fitting was installed by an appropriately qualified electrician. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s handling of this matter was acceptable.

Towel rail

It was appropriate for the landlord to query the size of the resident’s towel rail if it had concerns about this, particularly if it suspected that a smaller rail could be contributing to the damp and mould issues in the property. As it arranged an inspection and confirmed within a month that the towel rail was of sufficient size, this was a short-lived issue that caused no significant detriment to the resident.
It is noted that the resident felt the resolution of this matter should have been included in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman agrees that this would have been helpful. However, it was sufficient for the landlord to explain why it had arranged for the towel rail to be inspected.
When the resident told the landlord that there was no radiator or towel rail in the bathroom when her tenancy began, it would have been reasonable for it to consult its void records (which may have contained photos as well as details of the property specification) and confirm its findings to the resident, rather than telling her it was “fairly sure” there would have been a radiator installed. This would have given her some assurance that it was making evidence-based decisions in relation to her case. However, this again did not have a substantial negative impact on the resident’s experience.

Summary

Overall, while the resident’s feelings of being “attacked” and “bombarded with questions” during the landlord’s visit on 12 July 2022 are appreciated, a finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of alterations to the property. This is because it acted promptly and in line with its policies and obligations, explained its decision making, and gave the resident the opportunity to respond to its concerns.

Neighbour issues

Dog boarding and noise – Neighbour A

When the resident reported noise from dog barking at her next-door neighbour’s property on 1 June 2021, the landlord opened a case and spoke to her within 1 working day. This was a swift and positive response. It then made appropriate enquiries and followed its policy by issuing diary sheets. After the resident returned these, the landlord was proactive in carrying out in-person observations on 5 occasions. The Ombudsman is satisfied that it took sufficient initial steps to investigate and attempt to evidence the reported nuisance.
The resident requested installation of noise monitoring equipment on 6 August 2021, and the landlord installed this the next working day. A power cut that affected the functioning of the equipment was unfortunate, but outside the landlord’s control. When the resident asked for the equipment to be reinstalled on 3 September 2021, the landlord replied the same day to request her availability, but she apparently did not receive its email. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to make further attempts to contact the resident before deciding to take no further action.
Following an interval of over 7 months, the resident reported dog barking again on 25 April 2022. The landlord’s response was again prompt and solution-focused: it spoke to the resident within 1 working day, discussed the case internally, wrote to Neighbour A and the resident, and provided diary sheets. This was proportionate and in accordance with its policy.
When the resident told the landlord on 17 May 2022 that she felt unable to complete the diary sheets, it should have explored the reasons for this, considered alternative methods of gathering evidence (such as further observations, submitting voice notes or providing video evidence), and offered relevant support. Instead, it requested an update a month later, then closed its case when the resident did not reply. On this occasion it could have done more to address the reported behaviour and offer reassurance. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its response, it simply reiterated its need for diary sheets rather than reviewing its approach and considering alternative solutions, such as mediation. It also defended its actions the previous year by forwarding its email about noise equipment on 3 September 2021, but did not repeat its offer to reinstall the equipment. The landlord therefore missed opportunities to progress its investigation, understand the impact of the situation on the resident, and assure her it was taking her concerns seriously.
The Ombudsman is not aware of any further reports by the resident, although the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it continued to investigate her claims that Neighbour A was running a home boarding service and had more pets than their tenancy agreement permitted. It appropriately confirmed that it would update her with its findings. When this update was not immediately forthcoming, the resident requested an update in her escalation request, and the landlord advised that its investigations to date had proved inconclusive. However, it also said it had been unable to visit Neighbour A, indicating that further investigations would ensue. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for further evidence which may have assisted its enquiries, and to outline the type of evidence it would find useful.

Cat issues – Neighbour A

When the resident reported issues with her neighbour’s cat entering her garden and property, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise her of the legal position – namely that cats are seen as ‘free agents’ that may roam, and as such are treated differently to dogs. Likewise, it was appropriate for it to signpost her to relevant specialist information regarding ways of deterring cats. The landlord also agreed to speak to Neighbour A about the issue, despite there being no possibility of enforcement, which demonstrated a willingness to help resolve the situation. This was a helpful and proportionate response, which did not unfairly raise the resident’s expectations regarding likely outcomes.

Verbal and physical attacks – Neighbour B

Limited information has been supplied to this Service regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to examine any contemporaneous records or correspondence, and so investigation has been confined to the documentation provided.
The resident and landlord have presented differing accounts of what was previously agreed in terms of action against Neighbour B. Following an email she said she sent in August 2022, the resident was under the impression that the landlord would be visiting her neighbour. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that its most recent contact with the resident regarding the matter was in January 2022, and that the resident had not subsequently returned diary sheets it provided. It also noted in its stage 1 response that it understood the resident had asked it not to “raise a formal complaint” of ASB, but instead to log her concerns “on file”. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Ombudsman cannot say for sure what was agreed. In either case, it would have been good practice for any agreement to have been followed up in writing, which may have avoided misaligned expectations.
It is noteworthy that, for reasons of data protection, the landlord would not have been able to tell Neighbour B that the resident had made reports about them unless she consented to this. If the reported behaviour involved violence or threats of violence, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out and review a risk assessment, and to consider liaising with relevant partner agencies such as the police. There is no evidence that it did so, or that it took any other action to address the situation. While it offered to revisit the issue in September 2022, there is no indication that it would have done so if the resident had not complained. By this time the resident felt it was “too late” and declined to speak to the landlord about Neighbour B’s behaviour. This was an unfortunate reflection of the relationship breakdown that had occurred by the time of the stage 2 response, due to a combination of factors discussed in this report.

Summary

An overall finding of service failure has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of neighbour issues reported by the resident, as while it did many things appropriately, its response to the resident’s concerns about Neighbour A in May 2022 was inadequate, and there is no evidence that it took any effective action to address the resident’s reports involving Neighbour B or put appropriate support in place.

Conduct and communication of staff members

The resident told the landlord that her complaint related primarily to “the way she had been treated” by officers of the landlord (and 1 officer in particular) during their visit on 12 July 2022. She felt that the officer in question “picked at several things in [her] home” and shifted the focus away from issues she had raised. She described their behaviour as “rude, nasty and bullying”, referring to things she was “told” or “questioned on”. She also raised concerns about the officers making “false statements” which contradicted previous advice from other professionals.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it had spoken to both officers concerned, which was an appropriate and proportionate course of action. It also provided clarification regarding some of the remarks made, such as those relating to the resident’s oven, towel rail, and dehumidifier. This showed a willingness to resolve any misunderstanding. However, the landlord’s statement regarding the officer’s conclusions about mould in the property – namely that the mould was caused by “lifestyle issues” and that there were “no building faults causing it” – served to perpetuate the resident’s concerns about bias and unsubstantiated conclusions. She understandably noted in her escalation request that no inspection of her property was carried out by a suitably qualified officer on 12 July 2022. As highlighted by the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (titled “It’s not lifestyle”, published October 2021), the language used by the landlord was also problematic and had the effect of conferring blame on the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted and apologised for the fact that it had not directly addressed the resident’s concerns about “rude, nasty and bullying” behaviour by its officer at stage 1. It was appropriate for it to recognise and make redress for its omission. It appropriately confirmed that it had spoken to the other officer who attended the visit, who said their colleague “acted very professionally”. However, the landlord could have done more to investigate this at stage 2, such as formally interviewing the officer responsible for the alleged behaviour and reviewing any contemporaneous records of the visit. Assuring the resident that it had considered this evidence would have further demonstrated a thorough and impartial investigation of her complaint.
The briefness of the relevant section of the stage 2 complaint response was inadequate, particularly given that the issue was clearly of great importance to the resident. The response came across as unsympathetic, and despite agreeing that the allegations were “strong words which [the landlord] takes very seriously”, did not acknowledge the effect of the visit on the resident, which she had described at length. Furthermore, the landlord should have stated its findings rather than saying “I am not intending to investigate this matter further”. Though it may not have been the stage 2 responder’s intention, this statement appeared evasive and inflexible, and left the matter feeling unresolved.
In summary, while the Ombudsman understands that the landlord found no evidence of misconduct, a finding of service failure has been made due to its omission to fully address the staff conduct issue at stage 1 and insufficient evidence of a thorough and conclusive investigation at stage 2. The landlord also should have done more to acknowledge the resident’s feelings about the visit and the impact on her mental health, even though it was reasonable for the officers to raise issues besides those raised by the resident. The landlord’s apology for its error at stage 1 has prevented a finding of maladministration.

Overcrowding

At the time of the complaint, the resident’s household consisting of 3 adults was living in a 2-bedroom property. This meant that the lounge was being used as a third bedroom, causing significant inconvenience to the resident and impacting on her ability to socialise and see her grandchildren. The landlord recognised the impact of this and was sympathetic. It also accepted that overcrowding may be a contributory factor in the level of condensation in the property, which it believed to be causing the damp and mould issues.
When the resident raised concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to check her priority banding and confirm that this was correct. It was also helpful for it to explain that there was high demand for 3-bedroom properties in the area, and to give advice regarding properties that the resident was eligible to express interest in. She was subsequently granted a move to a new build property owned by the landlord within 4 months of her complaint. While the impact of overcrowding on the resident and her family is not underestimated, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

There is no evidence that the landlord logged or responded to a complaint in September 2021 when the resident said she wanted to complain about its handling of the window handle repair. This was unsatisfactory. If the landlord had reason not to deal with this matter through its complaints process, it should have explained this.
When the resident made a further complaint on 8 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged this within 2 working days (on 10 August 2022). This was appropriate and within its target timeframe of 5 working days.
The resident asked for a response to her stage 1 complaint by 16 August 2022 (within 6 working days). While this differed from the landlord’s target response time of 10 working days, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the shorter requested timeframe by informing the resident on 22 August 2022 that it needed more time to respond. It also explained the reason for the extension – that its officer had been on leave – which was reasonable. The landlord then responded by its revised target date of 24 August 2022. This was 10 working days after the complaint was made, and so in accordance with its policy and this Service’s complaint handling code.
There was some confusion regarding the point of contact for the resident’s escalated complaint and which officer would deal with the stage 2 complaint in the absence of the designated officer. In the circumstances, it was acceptable for the landlord to reassign the complaint to an alternative staff member of appropriate seniority, although there was a slight delay (of 5 working days) in it doing so. This resulted in the resident requesting an update after 4 working days, but in the Ombudsman’s opinion, did not cause significant additional detriment.
The landlord’s email of 12 September 2022 promised the resident a further update, but there is no evidence that such an update followed before the stage 2 response was issued on 20 September 2022. Its communication at this stage could therefore have been improved. However, the overall stage 2 response time was again 10 working days, which was within the landlord’s target timeframe. The overall 6-week duration of the complaints process was appropriate, and enabled the resident to refer her complaint to this Service within a reasonable period of time.
The complaint responses themselves were detailed and appropriately mirrored the structure of the resident’s complaint. This served to make the landlord’s position on each issue clear. The responses summarised a range of actions previously taken by the landlord, as well as further actions it had taken in response to the complaint. Where the resident’s version of events differed from its officer’s, it was appropriate for the complaint responder to take steps to establish the current position (for example, in relation to Neighbour B).
At both stages, the complaint responses did not state what stage of the complaints process the complaint had reached or whether the complaint was upheld. This was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code. At stage 2, the landlord’s language in relation to ‘resolving’ the complaint was also confusing. The concluding paragraphs of the response appeared to indicate that it was incumbent on the landlord to decide when the complaint had been ‘resolved’, whereas the complaint resolution process should be a reciprocal one involving discussion and negotiation between both parties. As discussed above, the stage 2 response implied that the complaint could not be fully addressed until the resident took certain actions. Though these actions would have enabled certain aspects of the resident’s case to progress, they did not prevent effective resolution of the complaint. The landlord’s presentation of the complaint as ‘unresolved’, together with its proposal to write to the resident again in a month’s time, gave the impression of wishing to defer escalation to this Service. It also made the response appear conditional and inconclusive. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that complaint responses must be sent “when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”, with any outstanding actions to be tracked and actioned expeditiously beyond the complaints process. There is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident with an update after a month as it committed to do, which was unsatisfactory.
While the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was swift and effective, the failures referred to above have resulted in a finding of service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property;
2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of alterations made to the property by the resident;
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of neighbour issues;
4. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct and communication of individual staff members;
5. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of overcrowding in the property;
6. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the property. This meant that a window handle repair remained outstanding 12 months after it was reported, and damp and mould repairs were outstanding 8 months after they were raised. These timescales far exceeded the landlord’s target response times. While the delays were partly due to COVID-19 and numerous appointments being cancelled by the resident, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to address the access issue. Its record keeping, organisation and communication in relation to repairs were often poor. Prior to investigation, the landlord made an offer of compensation through a legal settlement process, but this did not represent an acceptance of fault and was made a year after its stage 2 response. The landlord therefore missed a key opportunity to identify failures within its complaints process and to put things right at the time.
It was appropriate for the landlord to address matters that came to its attention, including concerns about alterations to the property, during its visit on 12 July 2022. While the unexpected discussion of these matters caused frustration to the resident, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and obligations and explained its decision making.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of dog boarding, noise, and animal nuisance by Neighbour A was proactive and solution-focused. However, it later failed to explore why the resident felt unable to complete diary sheets and to explore alternative methods of gathering evidence. There is little documentary evidence available in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding Neighbour B. However, the information provided indicates that agreements were not followed up in writing, leading to misaligned expectations, and that the landlord did not take sufficient steps to assess risk, offer relevant support, or investigate the behaviour reported.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct in its stage 1 response. While it carried out appropriate investigation at stage 1, it did not carry out sufficient further investigation at stage 2 when it considered the resident’s allegations of “rude, nasty and bullying” behaviour. Despite telling the resident it took her concerns seriously, it did not clearly state the findings of its investigation and instead told her that it did not intend to investigate the matter further. The landlord’s response was overly brief, did not acknowledge the impact on the resident, and left the matter feeling unresolved.
The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of being overcrowded. It took appropriate action by checking her priority banding, explaining the demand for properties in the area, and giving advice regarding housing options. The resident moved to a larger property within 4 months of her complaint.
The landlord did not appear to log a complaint made by the resident in 2021. When she made a further complaint in 2022, it responded promptly at both stages with detailed and appropriately structured responses. However, these did not state what stage the complaint had reached or whether the complaint was upheld. The stage 2 response was also confusing in relation to whether the complaint should be considered resolved, and there is no evidence that the landlord abided by its commitment to follow up key actions after 1 month.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays in completing repairs and failures in handling her reports of neighbour issues, concerns about staff conduct, and associated complaint. The apology should be made in writing by a member of staff of director level or higher.
2. Pay the resident £1,300, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delayed repairs and missed opportunity to acknowledge its failure;
  2. £100 for its service failure in handling her reports of neighbour issues;
  3. £100 for its service failure in handling her concerns about the conduct and communication of staff members;
  4. £100 for its service failure in handling her complaint.

This should be paid to the resident as a distinct payment and not offset against any rent arrears (unless she prefers otherwise).

Share its surveyor’s report dated 7 February 2022 with the resident, if it has not already done so.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its website and tenant handbook to ensure that its target timeframes for repairs are consistent across its published material. It is further recommended that, in future, the landlord includes the year of publication in any documents such as handbooks.