Vivid Housing Limited (202215308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215308

Vivid Housing Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) in her building.
2. The maintenance and cleanliness of her building’s communal areas.
3. The impact of major remedial works taking place to the building’s cladding.
4. The end of her tenancy.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom fourth floor flat, which is owned by the landlord. She lived there with her partner and children. The resident moved to alternative accommodation with another landlord on an emergency basis in March 2022. The resident has some mental health conditions, which the landlord was aware of.
On 21 July 2020, the resident reported a rough sleeper in the block’s communal areas, who had verbally abused her when challenged. She stated there were dirty needles present. The landlord took action the following day to secure the building.
On 17 December 2020, the landlord notified the resident of upcoming “disruptive” major works to replace the building’s cladding. It stated that there would be restrictions to normal use of the building during the works. Further updates were given on 10 February 2021 and 2 April 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 occasions in April 2021 expressing concern about the scaffolding due to be installed and that the play park had been removed. The scaffolding outside the resident’s building was installed over the summer of 2021, with works to remove and replace the cladding taking place over the following months.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 20 May 2021 and 29 October 2021 regarding reports of issues with block cleanliness and car parking. The resident made further reports about poor communal cleaning standards on 29 October 2021. On 1 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident it was aware of her concerns around the major works, reduced parking, play areas and non-residents gaining access to the building.
On 4 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that damp and mould was affecting the walls, curtains, and windowsills of her home. The landlord provided 2 types of dehumidifier on 14 January 2022 and 24 January 2022.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident, who confirmed she and her family had been moved to alternative accommodation. The resident provided formal notice to end her tenancy on 12 April 2022. The landlord confirmed on 14 April 2022 that her tenancy would end on 15 May 2022.
On 7 June 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord about multiple issues. She stated she “felt let down” and described the impact the issues had had on her mental wellbeing. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2022. It apologised for the level of service the resident had received. It set out the following in response to the issues she had raised:
1. It had carried out 196 visits to the resident’s block between April 2021 and April 2022 for communal cleaning. Additional visits had been carried out to clean drug paraphernalia and excrement when this had been reported.
2. The play park had been deemed unsafe and removed. It was committed to installing a new play park once the major works were completed.
3. It had not identified any failing with the management of the end of the resident’s tenancy. Tenancy termination forms had been provided upon request and 4 weeks’ notice taken as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced in returning her keys to the landlord and awarded £25 to refund postage costs and remedy the inconvenience.
5. There had never been allocated parking provided and it did not manage parking or parking disputes.
6. It understood the major works had contributed to damp and mould in the resident’s flat and the dehumidifiers provided had increased electricity bills. It would offer compensation for this and for additional cleaning products the resident had purchased.
7. Its contractor had dealt with reports of its operatives looking into her home in line with its policies and procedures.
8. It felt it had handled the resident’s ASB concerns correctly. Issues with homeless people accessing the block and using drugs had been appropriately managed by its neighbourhood officer.
9. It had found that it had attended all reported communal repairs within policy timescales.
The landlord offered £255 compensation at stage 1. This comprised of £180 to contribute towards increased energy bills, £25 for postage costs, and £50 towards cleaning products. The resident stated that she felt the compensation offer was unacceptable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2022 giving the reasons why she wished to escalate her complaint. The landlord accepted her escalation request on 19 July 2022.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It referred her to its insurance team with regards to her request for costs associated with damage caused to her furniture by mould. It offered a total of £1058.68 compensation, made up of:
1. £300 for issues relating to the standard of the communal areas;
2. £180 to contribute towards additional gas and electricity costs;
3. £50 to contribute towards additional cleaning costs;
4. £150 to recognise an invasion of the resident’s privacy by contractors;
5. £25 to cover postage costs;
6. £253.68 rent rebate of 2 weeks;
7. £100 to recognise its complaint handling delay.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. She would like for any remaining rent arrears to be written off and to be compensated for the stress she had experienced. She has confirmed that she has not accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has described the impact that the events set out in this report had on the physical and mental health of herself and her family. The resident’s concerns about this are noted and are not disputed. However, the Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability or determine whether a landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. It is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman does however consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any identified failings in the service provided by the landlord.
The landlord advised the resident to consider making a claim against its personal liability insurance, which it was within its rights to do. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the costs of negligence claims and they are not obliged to pay such claims outside the insurance process. The resident should consider this if she feels the landlord’s actions or inaction are directly responsible for impacting on the health of her household or for damaging her belongings. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer as it is our role to consider the actions of social landlords and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome or handling of any liability claim the resident may have made, or decide to make.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the building

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out what behaviours it considers to be antisocial. These include violence, verbal abuse, criminal damage, and drug use. The policy sets out that it categorises reports of ASB into 2 categories; category A and category B. Examples of category A reports include violence and drug dealing. The landlord states it will make initial contact with the reporter on the same working day upon receiving a category A report of ASB, and by the end of the next working day upon receiving a category B report.
The policy also states that it will assess each case and use appropriate early interventions, “such as warning letters, meetings, partnership visits, acceptable behaviour agreements, and good neighbour agreements”. It will also use “a range of legal tools” where appropriate. The policy states that it will support victims and witnesses of ASB, and create a safe environment for them to report it. It states the landlord will contact them weekly and agree an action plan with them.
There is evidence to show that the resident reported somebody sleeping rough and making a mess in one of the stairwells in her building, on 21 July 2020. She stated she had challenged the person and been verbally abused by them. She stated there were dirty needles present, which other residents had taken to clearing up and disposing of in normal bins. The resident said she believed the rough sleeper was accessing the building via the bin store, which provided an additional route into the building. She told the landlord she would like it to do something urgently about the situation.
The landlord contacted the resident the next day and informed her it had locked the external door of the bin store, preventing unauthorised entry into the building. It emailed the residents of the block to explain that it had ordered a new bin store door and temporarily locked its external door pending its replacement. Residents would be able to access the bin store via the internal door. The landlord’s repair records also show that a number of jobs were immediately raised following the resident’s report. This was a prompt and appropriate response from the landlord. There is no evidence of similar reports being made by the resident in the months that followed, demonstrating that the action taken by the landlord resolved the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 October 2021 expressing dissatisfaction with her housing conditions. She stated that children were running around and “trashing the building”. The landlord called the resident on the same day and took further details about the issues, which was an appropriate and prompt response. There is evidence that on the following working day, the landlord took action such as raising jobs and notifying different departments of a concern. It followed up on the same day with an email to the resident. It explained that it had removed the access code for the door system to prevent non-residents accessing the building and causing trouble. Residents were able to access the block using their fobs instead. This was a proportionate response.
On 2 November 2021 and 6 December 2021, the landlord contacted its residents to let them know of an initiative designed to support them during the major ongoing works, and entertain their children. It had leased a unit to use as a youth hub and to support other engagement opportunities. This was a good example of proactive action from the landlord as it was actively seeking to provide opportunities for local young people to meet and engage away from the residential area. This might have had the effect of reducing ASB from children in the communal areas of the resident’s building.
The landlord’s record of a phone call with the resident on 5 January 2022 showed she had raised several issues for it to investigate, including homeless people accessing the building to sleep, and defecating in the communal areas. She also referenced drug-related activity, however the details of this issue are unclear. The landlord arranged to visit the resident the following week to discuss further. However, the Service has not seen evidence that this visit took place. If the visit took place, the landlord should have recorded this, including details of the outcome. There is evidence in the landlord’s repair records that show a job was raised on 7 January 2022 to clean up excrement from the communal areas and that this was completed on the same day.
The landlord has stated to the Service that it did not handle the reports of unauthorised access and drug activity/mess in the communal areas in line with its ASB policy. This was because the policy stated that it would not always take action if the ‘alleged perpetrator is not our customer or a visitor to our properties’. However, the landlord has also not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of any significant response to resolve these ongoing issues, which were likely to have reasonably impacted the resident’s sense of safety and security in the building.
The landlord did, however, state in its complaint response that the issues concerning ASB in the building had been managed by its neighbourhood officer. It said the officer had been in regular communication with the resident about her concerns. It stated that it had found no failure in its handling of these issues, which had been ongoing on at least an intermittent basis since July 2020. The landlord has provided evidence that an internal email was sent on 9 February 2022 asking for a letter to be sent to residents of the block about giving access to unauthorised parties. However, it has not provided any evidence that this letter was sent. It has not provided any significant evidence demonstrating the actions its neighbourhood officer had taken between July 2020 and the email of 9 February 2022.
The resident did not specifically raise this issue with the landlord in her request for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Despite this, the landlord did provide a more satisfactory response in its stage 2 letter. It acknowledged the significant issues the building had faced and its own inadequate response. It made an offer of £300 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by the ASB, and the maintenance and cleanliness of the communal areas.
The Ombudsman considers there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the ASB problems in the building. There is evidence of prompt and appropriate short term interventions by the landlord upon receipt of reports. However, it had a duty to safeguard its residents from the potential dangers that arose from repeatedly encountering human bodily fluids, and drug use or paraphernalia on its property. There is a significant lack of evidence todemonstratethe landlord took reasonable and timely steps to identify perpetrators and address the causes of these behaviours. Therefore, the Service considers that it will be appropriate for the landlord to make an additional compensation award to the resident to recognise her distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (published online) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to putting things right for residents where they have gone wrong. It suggests that awards of £250 may adequately remedy service failure including where it has been necessary for the resident to have a unreasonable level of involvement in seeking for issues to be resolved. The landlord will be ordered to pay this sum directly to the resident and apologise for failing to adequately respond to her reports.

The maintenance and cleanliness of the building’s communal areas

The landlord has a legal and contractual obligation to ensure the maintenance and satisfactory repair of the communal areas in the resident’s building, such as corridors, stairways, windows, and doors. This was set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has the responsibility to maintain and repair communal doors, door entry systems, communal glass, staircases, and fire alarms. It also has the responsibility to manage rubbish and fly tipping.
There is evidence of the resident reporting dissatisfaction with the upkeep of the block of flats she lived in, on 7 April 2021. On 20 May 2021, the landlord emailed all of the residents within the block asking to “work together” with it to “improve the block and keep the communal areas clean”. It stated that it had received complaints regarding supermarket trolleys being abandoned in the stairwells on a weekly basis. It had received various other complaints about fly tipping and rubbish being dropped in the hallways.
The landlord has provided its repairs and cleaning records for the resident’s block. Between her report of poor upkeep on 7 April 2021 and the landlord’s group email on 20 May 2021, the landlord had attended the block on 10 occasions to respond to repairs or reports of bodily fluids on the carpets. The records show that the landlord responded promptly to each report, attending on the same working day to resolve the issue, or within a few days. The evidence demonstrates that it was taking reasonable steps to manage the block’s cleanliness and state of repair. It was reasonable that it reached out to residents to request a collaborative approach to improving the building’s environment. The landlord’s overall response was proportionate in the circumstances.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 October 2021 expressing unhappiness with her housing conditions. She stated that children were “trashing” the building and the standard of cleaning was poor. She stated that the communal windows on the fourth floor had been left open for 48 hours. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s email by calling her to discuss the matter. It followed up with an email on 1 November 2021 and confirmed her concerns had been passed to the grounds team. It had also raised a job to close the fourth floor window and would see if this could be completed by the end of the following day. The landlord’s repairs and cleaning records demonstrate that the landlord continued to respond to a significant volume of reports within reasonable timescales, which was appropriate.
The resident formally complained on 8 June 2022. She raised concerns with the poor standard of the building’s cleanliness, broken and damaged communal doors, and a faulty fire alarm “going off month after month”. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had completed 196 visits to the resident’s block between April 2021 and April 2022. These visits included urgent visits to clear up body fluids when reported. The landlord stated it had not identified any failures with its service and that the cleaning carried out met the service level standard. It also set out that the fire alarm had recently been replaced and it had attended multiple repairs regarding the lift and communal doors within reasonable timescales. It empathised that these issues caused the resident frustration but it had not found evidence of a failing on its behalf.
Having considered the available records, the Service takes the view that there is no evidence of the landlord mishandling these reports, and its response was reasonable. The vast majority of reports of repairs and cleaning requirements were resolved promptly, within the set target dates. The target dates did not always reflect that every issue was considered to be urgent. Therefore, if the landlord responded to a report within a period of days or weeks, this may still be considered a reasonable timescale, depending on the issue. The Service has recognised that this may have contributed to the resident’s perception of inaction by the landlord in the absence of appropriate communication with her.
Sending communications to residents was a reasonable action, on the occasions the landlord did this. The Service accepts this may have a limited effect on changing behaviours and that the landlord could not be considered responsible for the behaviour of the resident’s neighbours in creating damage and mess. However, the landlord should have been able to demonstrate a more holistic approach to the problem that sought to tackle the cause of the issue rather than relying on a largely reactive approach. The landlord has not provided evidence of any significant efforts to identify repeated culprits of the damage and mess, or to otherwise find a long term solution.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s property was in a “challenging area” that had “underlying problems” with issues emerging at a rate the landlord had struggled to manage. It stated its view that issues may go unreported or occur between block inspections, and this would have contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord had been inactive. In light of this, it offered the resident £300 compensation calculated to reflect the level of service charge she had paid over the relevant period. This was to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by both the ASB and cleanliness issues she had experienced. It also sought to remedy the trouble she had gone to in contacting the landlord numerous times about these issues.
The Service has made a finding of service failure with respect to this complaint issue. The landlord took appropriate short term interventions to resolve individual issues as they were reported. However, it is clear it had identified “underlying problems” with the resident’s block and it had failed to take significant action to implement appropriate long term solutions. This put an unreasonable burden on the resident to repeatedly contact the landlord to report problems, which was inappropriate.
The Guidance on Remedies suggests that the landlord’s offer of £300 would adequately remedy failures where it has been necessary for the resident to become unreasonably involved in getting issues resolved. The landlord considered this to be a reimbursement of service charges paid for communal services over a significant time period. The Service finds it will be appropriate to order the landlord to pay additional award of £250 is paid to the resident specifically to remedy her distress and inconvenience.

The impact of major works taking place to the building’s cladding

The resident’s building was undergoing major works between April 2021 until after the resident moved out of her home in March 2022. The works were essential and safety critical. In her complaint of 7 June 2022, the resident listed the following issues that had impacted on her as a result of the works.
1. A lack of car parking due to the car park being used for the works.
2. The children’s play park had been removed.
3. The works had involved the building’s cladding and insulation having been removed over the winter months, resulting in increased energy bills, and damp and mould forming in the resident’s flat.
4. Sleep problems affecting the resident as a result of noisy works taking place during the day, when she was often awake in the night with her newborn baby.
5. Privacy issues due to contractors looking through her flat’s windows from the scaffolding.
6. The resident’s fear of the building having reduced security due to the scaffolding.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the lack of car parking near her home. This had recently become a problem for the resident as a result of fewer car parking spaces being available as a result of the major works. The landlord empathised with the resident’s frustration. It stated, however, that it had not provided allocated car parking at any stage and therefore did not manage the parking or any parking disputes. The landlord’s response was reasonable. However, it could have gone further to reassure her that the situation was temporary and likely to improve once the major works were completed.
In her escalation request, the resident stated that she understood the situation with the parking. However, she found it unacceptable and inconsiderate that the landlord had agreed for the limited available car park space to have been used for building supplies, skips, and lorries. The landlord did not respond to this point in its stage 2 complaint response. While the stage 2 response was generally comprehensive and covered several complaint issues, it did not offer an additional response to the car parking issue, which it should have done.
The resident’s tenancy agreement does not refer to a car parking space forming part of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord had not made a contractual undertaking to provide the resident with a car parking space in close proximity to her home. While the situation was undoubtedly inconvenient for the resident, the landlord was otherwise entitled to use its land as it considered appropriate. The Service accepts that the situation was temporary, and likely to be necessary to ensure the efficient and safe operation of the works. The landlord was within its rights to respond as it did, however it could have gone further to adequately explain the situation to the resident.
The resident also complained that the nearby children’s play park had been removed. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the play park had been deemed unsafe and it had therefore been removed. It then stated that it had agreed that a new children’s play park would be installed once the major works were completed. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
In her escalation request, the resident stated she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because she paid for the play park in service charges and therefore she considered the children deserved compensating for having no outside space. She stated that children had also been playing on scaffolding, which could have been prevented with a play park. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response again failed to address this particular issue, which was inappropriate. Even if the landlord felt it had no further comment to make, it should have acknowledged that this continued to form part of the resident’s complaint and set out that it had nothing further to add to its previous response.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord does not provide specific information about what services are covered by the weekly service charge that formed part of the resident’s rent liability. However, it states that the landlord “reserves the right to add to, remove, introduce or vary service we provide in connection with the property” if the landlord considers that “in our reasonable opinion it is necessary, or it is in the interests of good housing management”. The tenancy agreement also suggests that the setting of service charges is not based on an exact breakdown of costs, with the landlord potentially required to meet any deficit where annual service charges do not match its expenditure.
The tenancy agreement does not set out that the landlord had a contractual obligation to provide a children’s play park. The landlord did have a duty to ensure any available provision did not pose a health and safety risk to children. It would have been inappropriate for it to fail to act on its belief that the play park was unsafe.. As set out earlier in this report, the landlord had also gone to lengths to provide entertainment for young people while the works were ongoing, by leasing a unit to use specifically as a youth hub. The landlord’s position on, and response to, this issue was reasonable.
The resident complained that the major works to the building had resulted in increased energy bills and the formation of damp and mould in her home. This was because the building’s cladding and insulation had been removed over the winter months. The records show that the resident reported damp and mould affecting her home on 4 January 2022, 6 months before she made her formal complaint.
There is evidence within the landlord’s internal emails dated 5 January 2022 of the landlord referring to a survey that had been carried out at the resident’s home on 14 July 2021, prior to the works starting. The resulting report had noted that there had been no sign of damp and mould at that time. A member of the landlord’s staff had carried out a visit to the resident’s flat on 4 January 2022 and reported that it felt “like a greenhouse”. They reported that the resident had stated she had the heating on constantly to keep their newborn baby warm in the absence of the building’s cladding.
The landlord was entitled to assess internal environmental factors that may have contributed to the conditions leading to the development of damp and mould. However, it was clear from its own records that this issue had recently developed, and had coincided with the removal of the building’s insulation. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate for the landlord’s initial response to be solely concerned with the resident’s actions affecting the environment in her home. There is evidence of an email, later in an internal email trail dated 5 January 2022, that raised concerns about the effect of mould spores on the respiratory system of babies. It was then agreed that a visit would take place the following week to clean down the mould and assess the damage to the resident’s belongings. This was the appropriate response. It was reasonable that the resident had her heating on to keep her newborn baby warm during the winter months in an uninsulated building.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord provided the resident with 2 dehumidifiers to assist with the mould problem, on 14 January 2022. This was reasonable as these would have assisted with the resident managing the humidity levels in her home. The dehumidifiers were replaced with 1 of a different model on 24 January 2022, following a report from the resident that the original ones were too noisy. This was a prompt, and appropriate, response from the landlord. However, it was necessary that this action formed part of a wider response to the damp and mould issue.
No evidence has been provided that the landlord carried out the mould wash to the resident’s home as it had suggested. The landlord’s records suggest it was queried internally why the visit had not been progressed. In a contact record following a call with the resident on 23 February 2022, it was noted the resident had said that the “only thing that changed was [the resident] got a dehumidifier”. There is no evidence that any further action was taken to resolve the damp and mould issue before the resident moved out of her home a month later. This was a failing by the landlord. It was aware that the resident’s household had young children, including a newborn baby, and that the resident’s housing issues were having a significant impact on her mental health. While it took some action, it has not evidenced that it went far enough to resolve the damp and mould issue in line with its obligations. The Service acknowledges that the impact of this failure was short term due to the resident moving away 2 months later.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £50 to reimburse her for cleaning products that she had bought to tackle the damp and mould in her home, an offer repeated in its stage 2 response. This was reasonable as a reimbursement of the resident’s financial loss.
However, it responded to the resident’s complaint of her personal belongings damaged by the mould by suggesting that she had contributed to it by having her heating “up high” and her furniture up against the walls. When considering the significant external factors contributing to the sudden development of the mould, and the vulnerability of the household members, this was an inappropriate response. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report ‘It’s Not Lifestyle’, published online in October 2021, emphasised the importance of landlords taking responsibility for reports of damp and mould, and shifting away from blaming residents. In her escalation request, the resident stated she also found the landlord’s “accusations” to be inappropriate. She pointed out that some of her neighbours had been having the same issues. The landlord did not repeat these comments in its stage 2 response but it did not acknowledge, or apologise for, their inappropriateness.
The landlord acknowledged that the removal of the building’s insulation was likely to have contributed to increased heating costs as well as the likelihood of damp and mould forming. It offered £180 to cover 6 weeks of increased energy costs for the heating and dehumidifier, which was the standard provision being made available to residents as part of the cladding project. It was reasonable that the landlord offered this. However, it did not offer any remedy for the failing in its handling of the resident’s initial damp and mould report. It will be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its comments at stage 1 suggesting her attempts to keep her flat warm were responsible for the damp and mould.
The landlord gave the resident its insurance team’s details to enable her to make a claim against its liability insurance for damage by the mould to her personal belongings. This was the appropriate response, however it should reasonably have provided this information at stage 1.
The resident complained that she had experienced significant sleep disturbance as a result of the major works taking place to the building. As caring for her newborn was affecting her sleep at night, she was disproportionately affected by the noise caused by the works during the day, when she attempted to catch up on sleep. There is first record of the resident reporting this in a note made by the landlord’s contractor. The resident had said she was suffering from sleep deprivation and anxiety as a result of the noise and works. The landlord’s tenancy management team and the resident’s social worker were raising concerns about the impact of her housing conditions on her mental health.
The evidence shows that the landlord stated it would look into a management move for the resident, which would have involved suitable alternative accommodation being identified for her to transfer to. It made an appointment with the resident in order for the relevant forms to be completed. It informed her it would be making a safeguarding referral due to concerns about her wellbeing. This shows the landlord was responding to the resident’s communications that she was struggling to cope with the impact of the works. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered an immediate decant (temporary move to alternative accommodation) for the resident considering her level of distress.
The Service accepts that the landlord made an advance decision that the works to the building’s cladding could reasonably have been carried out with all the residents remaining in their homes. While major works can cause disturbance, decanting residents causes significant disruption. The landlord was not obliged to decant the resident. It has confirmed that the resident did not ask the landlord to decant her and her family. However, under the circumstances it would have been reasonable for it consider whether the resident’s distress and the household’s vulnerabilities meant this was a reasonable approach.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not directly address this issue. It stated that the works to the building were necessary to ensure the building’s safety. It stated it had communicated with residents about the ongoing works, including how these works may affect them. It stated that it understood the works had “been difficult”. The landlord’s response was reasonable and the Service would not make a finding against the landlord as a result of necessary disruption caused by essential works. However, the response did not go far enough to assess its handling of the resident’s welfare concerns and its response to her specific circumstances.
In her complaint escalation request, the resident referred directly to the impact of the works and the associated noise on her health and wellbeing. She stated that she felt the landlord had not helped with “getting [her] moved. While the landlord had started the management move process, this was unlikely to have presented an immediate or short term solution. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider an emergency response and whether a decant would have been appropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 response again did not acknowledge this specific issue, which was inappropriate. While there is evidence of the landlord taking some action upon the resident communicating her distress to it, it could have gone further to ensure its obligations to the resident and her family were met.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s contractors looking into her home from the scaffolding erected outside the building. She stated in her complaint that she had felt she needed to keep her curtains closed during the day in order to maintain her privacy. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had spoken with its contractor regarding the resident’s concern when it was first reported and that this was dealt with in line with the contractor’s policies and procedures.
The landlord had responded appropriately by reporting the issue to the operatives’ employer. Major works such as the works being carried out to the resident’s building are disruptive by nature and the resident was able to, on a temporary basis, take the action of closing her curtains when she felt her home was in sight of contractors. However, it would have been difficult for individual operatives to entirely avoid seeing inside the building the scaffolding was directly outside of. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that the resident had experienced this and offered £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable response and remedy from the landlord.
The resident raised concerns in her complaint about her building having reduced security as a result of the scaffolding installed outside of it. Due to her past and ongoing experiences at the time, the resident reasonably felt more vulnerable about her home potentially being more easily accessible than normal. The landlord did not respond to this particular concern at stage 1, which it should have done. In her escalation request, the resident did not refer to this issue again and it was again not handled by the landlord at stage 2.
The landlord has provided the Service with evidence of steps it had taken to mitigate any security concerns while the scaffolding was in place. It had put fencing on the ground floor all around the building to deter access. The scaffolding was alarmed from the first floor. There were 6 fire watchers patrolling the building. The Service takes the view that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to ensure the security of the resident’s building. The evidence suggests that this information had been discussed before the scaffolding was installed.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the major works that she had experienced, the landlord’s final compensation award at stage 2 was £380. This was comprised of £150 for the resident’s privacy concern, £180 contribution to her increased energy bills, and £50 to reimburse for cleaning products for the mould.
The landlord’s offer was proportionate given the quantifiable financial loss and to recognise distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of privacy. The offer of £180 was in line with what was being offered as part of the works’ project and was based on a weekly calculation. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the award of £150 suggests that it considered the privacy issue to be at the upper end of its high impact/low effort or low impact/high effort range. This refers to the assessed impact of the issue on the resident and the level of effort she had to go to in order for her concerns to be addressed. The Service therefore finds this was reasonable.
However, this investigation has identified a failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould affecting her home, and concerns for her wellbeing. The landlord will be ordered to apologise to the resident for this and pay her an additional award of compensation by way of remedy. The Guidance on Remedies suggests 2 additional awards of £150 would adequately remedy each service failure, which were of short duration. The landlord had taken some action to improve the damp and mould, and safeguard the resident’s wellbeing but its overall response did not go far enough to ensure it met its obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the end of her tenancy

The resident informed the landlord on 24 March 2022 that she and her family had been moved to temporary accommodation elsewhere and she would not be returning to live in the flat. The landlord’s records state that it discussed with the resident how she could give notice to end her tenancy, and the timescales associated with this. The landlord emailed a termination form to the resident on the same day. This was the appropriate response from the landlord. It had responded promptly to the resident’s request and enabled her to give notice to terminate her tenancy at the earliest opportunity.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 asking for the termination form to be sent. The landlord emailed the form again on 11 April 2022. While this was not as prompt a response, it was still within 3 working days, which does not constitute an unreasonable delay. It was unfortunate that the resident did not appear to have received the form in the landlord’s email dated 24 March 2022. She returned the completed tenancy termination form on 12 April 2022.
The landlord called the resident 2 days later to confirm the form had been processed and that her tenancy would end on 15 May 2022. The landlord followed up the phone call with 2 emails containing important information about the end of the resident’s tenancy and a ‘move out guide’. This was appropriate handling by the landlord as it ensured the resident had the information she may need to prepare for the end of her tenancy.
The resident called the landlord on 12 May 2022. The landlord’s contact notes set out that the resident wanted it to end her neighbourhood officer’s employment as she had delayed her email response by a month. The resident stated that she was unhappy with the length of her notice period as a result and felt she had been unreasonably been charged additional rent.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out how she can end her tenancy. It states that the resident “can end this tenancy by giving [the landlord] at least 4 weeks’ notice in writing. The notice must end on a Sunday or the last day of a period of [the resident’s] tenancy”.
The landlord received the resident’s notice on 12 April 2022 and correctly calculated that her tenancy would end on 15 May 2022, which was a Sunday. Therefore there is no evidence of any failing in how the landlord processed the resident’s tenancy termination form. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence that it gave the resident a termination form on the same day she originally requested it, to her email address. Therefore it could not reasonably be considered responsible for any delay to the resident providing the completed form.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 stating that she had attempted to return the keys to a keysafe provided by the landlord in accordance with its instructions. She provided a photograph showing that the given code to the keysafe had failed to successfully open it. The resident stated that she had posted the keys back to the landlord by first class tracked delivery and would be seeking compensation for the “wasted trip”.
These issues formed part of the formal complaint the resident made to the landlord on 7 June 2022. She stated that her neighbourhood officer had failed to tell her she needed to write a letter confirming she wished to end her tenancy until over 3 weeks after the completion of the requested tenancy form. The resident felt she had to pay an extra months’ rent as a result. She also complained about the issue with the keysafe and requested compensation, including for the inconvenience.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the incident with the keysafe and offered £25 compensation to cover postage costs and inconvenience. The landlord had made an avoidable error with the keysafe and this had caused expense and inconvenience to the resident. It was appropriate that it acknowledged that and offered an apology and redress.
The landlord also explained in the stage 1 response that it had sent the tenancy termination form to the resident on the same day she had requested it. Upon receiving the completed form on 12 April 2022, the landlord had processed the form and given the correct tenancy end date in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s response was appropriate and is supported by the evidence that is available. The Service accepts the landlord’s position in its stage 1 response that no failure occurred.
The resident escalated her complaint and stated in an email dated 6 July 2022 that the landlord had failed to inform her that a formal letter was required. She said that she had returned the completed form but remained unaware she needed to complete a formal letter until weeks after she had returned the form. She stated this had cost her an extra months’ rent, which she wanted reimbursed.
The landlord reiterated its position on the tenancy termination issue in its stage 2 complaint response dated 2 September 2022. Its version of events is supported by the evidence it has provided to the Ombudsman. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord asked the resident to send a formal letter, in addition to completing the relevant form. The termination was processed upon receipt of a completed form and not a letter.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that its investigation had found that it had the discretion to reduce the resident’s notice period by 2 weeks upon her request, considering the sensitive circumstances around her move. The tenancy agreement sets out that while the landlord has this discretion, it is “not obliged” to accept a shorter notice period. While the resident had not specifically requested this, the landlord decided to exercise its discretion to do this. It offered the resident a reimbursement of 2 weeks’ rent, which totalled £253.68 in total. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to use its discretion in this way, when considering the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s failure to ensure that the keysafe was programmed correctly was unfortunate and avoidable. This was especially so considering the distance the resident would have travelled to return the keys. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failings and its offer of 2 weeks’ rent rebate plus the £25 compensation was proportionate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to formal complaints at stage 1 of its procedure within 10 working days. It says if that is not possible, it will inform the resident within those 10 working days of when it expects to provide a response. It states it aims to “provide updates once a week during the investigation, unless less frequent contact is preferred”.
Should the resident request their complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, the policy sets out that they will be asked to provide answers to the following questions:
1. What part of their original complaint was not resolved?
2. How does the resident feel the landlord can resolve it?
The policy states the landlord will let the resident know within 5 working days if it has accepted a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It then aims to have provided the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being accepted at stage 2. Where this is not possible, it states that it will make contact within that timescale to advise when it expects to deliver a full response.
The resident made a formal complaint on 7 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2022. The response was issued a week later than the 10 working day deadline. However, the resident had indicated on 16 June 2022 that she would be sending in more information, which the landlord chased on 23 June 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord allowed more time for the resident to provide further information and it still provided a timely response.
The resident first indicated that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response on the same day it was issued. The landlord responded promptly the following day by issuing her a form with which she could request a stage 2 review. It also asked the resident to answer the 2 questions previously referred to, in accordance with its policy. The resident responded with an email containing significant detail on 6 July 2022, which set out her response to the landlord’s stage 1 position on each complaint issue. Despite the volume of information the resident had provided, the landlord responded the following day asking her again to specifically answer the 2 questions. It then responded in the same way to a third email from the resident. The Service acknowledges that the resident was likely to have felt significant frustration at this point, which was demonstrated in her fourth email to the landlord requesting the escalation.
The landlord’s policy sets out that it requires the resident to provide certain information to support a request to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) allows landlords to take an inquisitive approach to an escalation request to support its investigations. However, the landlord should ensure that it does not unduly gatekeep access to stage 2 by requiring an excessively precise level of detail from the resident. The resident had provided a significant amount of information to challenge the landlord’s statements at stage 1 and communicate her ongoing dissatisfaction. Given that the resident had clearly explained the reasons for her remaining dissatisfaction, it is unclear why the landlord continued to seek a response to the 2 questions. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request resulted in the complaint escalation being delayed. The resident was also required to go to additional time and trouble, which was the cause of unnecessary distress.
The landlord confirmed on 19 July 2022 that it had accepted the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. The stage 2 response is dated 2 September 2022, however the evidence shows it was emailed to the resident on 5 September 2022. The response had been due by 16 August 2022, in line with its policy. However, there is evidence the landlord provided the resident with regular updates on its progress, which was appropriate, and the delay was not unreasonably long.
As identified earlier in this report, both complaint responses contained gaps where the landlord did not respond to every complaint issue raised by the resident. The Service accepts that complaints that contain several issues can be challenging to manage and investigate in a timely manner. However, the landlord should ensure that it acknowledges each issue and clearly state if it has nothing further to add. The Code states that the landlord should “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. That it did not do so was a shortcoming in its complaint handling.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £100 to recognise its complaint handling failures. The Service does not take the view that the landlord failed to handle the complaint within reasonable timescales, as its communication with the resident was appropriate. However, it was reasonable that this award had been made due to the unnecessary time and trouble required from the resident to escalate her complaint. It also provided reasonable remedy for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge each complaint issue consistently across both responses. The landlord’s offer of compensation was therefore proportionate taking into account the circumstances of the complaint and the inconvenience that was caused to the resident.
While the resident’s request to have her rent arrears written off is noted, there are no grounds for such an order to be made. Our approach has been to identify where the landlord’s original remedy did not go far enough as redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to her, and order additional compensation where this is appropriate. The landlord will be ordered to pay the full amount directly to the resident, unless she indicates to it that she would prefer all or some of it to be used towards clearing the arrears.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about ASB in her building.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the maintenance and cleanliness of her building’s communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about major works being carried out to the building’s cladding.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the end of the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the following:
1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in its response to her reports of ASB, and damp and mould in her home. The apology must also acknowledge and additionally apologise for the comments made in its stage 1 complaint response that suggested the resident had contributed to the problem by heating her home in the absence of the building having its normal insulation.
2. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £550 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 to recognise distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of ASB in the building.
  2. £150 to recognise its service failure in its response to the damp and mould affecting her home.
  3. £150 to recognise its service failure in failing to evidence a consideration of a temporary decant.

The landlord must not offset this award against any remaining arrears the resident may have, without first gaining prior agreement from her. This award is additional to the landlord’s final offer at stage 2, which also must be re-offered.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, poor mental wellbeing, and ASB occurring in her building. It should note the failures identified in these areas within this report and assess areas for improvement. Where those areas are identified, it should come up with an action plan for implementation. The landlord should provide a copy of its review and action plan to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should take steps to review its complaint escalation procedure with its complaint handling staff. It should ensure that its communication to residents around escalation requests is clear, including its reasons for needing a response to certain questions asked. The landlord should not go to unreasonable lengths to obtain a high level of detail from residents who wish to escalate their complaints.