Waltham Forest Council (202217685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217685

Waltham Forest Council

12 December 2023

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 windows.
2. Works to resolve damp and mould.
3. The kitchen refurbishment.
4. The bathroom refurbishment and resolution of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record Keeping.

Background

The tenancy is a joint tenancy of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a low rise block. For the purposes of this report, the term ‘resident’ refers to both tenants.
The resident participated in a mutual exchange and was assigned the tenancy on 3 May 2021. They live at the property with their adult son.
The resident has osteo arthritis in “most joints.” Her thumbs are dislocated due to an accident and because the joints are full of arthritis they cannot be fixed back into place. She has told this service that everyday life is a struggle. The resident’s husband had pneumonia in the past 12 months and their adult son has a diagnosis of autism.

Summary of events

On 5 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the front room window had gaps around it and the seal was not there. As a result, it was letting in draughts. The repair was recorded as completed on 30 May 2022. The resident also reported that there was mould in the corner of the bedroom and the windows in the living room. This job was recorded as cancelled.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord raised a works order for water leaking in over the living room window along an old curtain rail. This was recorded as ‘cancelled’ on the repair logs with a new works order raised on 25 July. On 27 July, an operative attended and reported that further investigation was required to the window ledge which was letting water and draughts into the property.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord raised a works order to “repair or replace the living room window or affected windows” to the ground floor. This was recorded as completed on 21 September.
On 21 September 2022 the resident contacted her local councillor and an inspection of the windows was subsequently carried out by the surveyor on 26 September. On 3 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say it had inspected but she still did not have an appointment for the repair.
Having contacted 2 local councillors and not received a response from either, the resident contacted a third councillor on 27 October 2022 to ask for help resolving her complaint about the windows.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 27 October 2022. She said she reported issues with her front room window at the beginning of the year. Contractors attended but said another team would need to deal with the repair. She was still waiting for the works to be carried out. She said that she was disabled and finding the situation “very stressful.”
The resident wrote to this service regarding the delays in the repairs to her windows. We wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2022 to request that it provide the resident with a response or further information concerning her complaint within 10 working days.
Another operative attended the property on 11 November 2022 and advised that a roofer was required.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 November 2022 to acknowledge receipt of her complaint. It said it had initially believed that the draught was caused by the windows, however it became known that the source of the draft was a large gap which an old curtain rail track was attached to. The gap was creating a draft and allowing water to seep through. There were also holes to the window ledge which required filling. The issue was resolved that day and an order was also raised by the surveyor to install a UPVC strip to cover up the old curtain rail track in the property. Since the external issues had been addressed the internal works could be carried out and an appointment would be booked shortly. It apologised for the miscommunication and the issues the resident had experienced, which it said brought the matter to a close.
The resident replied on 25 November 2022 to say she would like to be reimbursed for the increased heating costs while the landlord investigated the issue. She felt that if the landlord had carried out a property assessment and organised works appropriately, she might not have had to wait months for the matter to be resolved. She asked the landlord to pay £200 towards her heating bill. On 28 November it replied to confirm it would do so.
Also on 28 November 2022, the landlord’s surveyor raised a works order to install the UPVC strip to cover up the old curtain rail track. The landlord’s contractor was advised by the resident that she did not want the strip installed until the new year.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord raised a works order in response to a report that water was coming from the windowsill, the repairs log notes “window needs overhaul.” The job was logged as completed on 21 December.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to report that water was getting in under the windowsill and running down the walls in her bedroom. The front room window was repaired on the outside about 3 weeks ago but was “sopping wet” again. She said someone was coming out to look at the bedroom windows but she was concerned about the front room.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord raised an emergency repair to fix a leak in the bathroom.
The landlord instructed a survey of the property in relation to damp which was carried out on 22 December 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process, as follows:
1. She had been complaining about the front room windows since the beginning of the year.
2. Numerous workmen had inspected the property but updates were not provided, causing her to chase.
3. The front room window was repaired a few weeks ago but the problem was not resolved.
4. The bedroom window was letting in water and there was damp and mould in all rooms.
5. It took almost a month to receive the £200 compensation and she had to chase the landlord to get it.
6. She wanted more help with heating costs until the matter was fully resolved.
7. She had to contact her councillor and this service to get a response.
8. Appointments were not kept with no explanation.

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint by email on the same day.

The resident emailed this service on 3 January 2023 to report that her home was affected by damp and mould. Having moved some furniture, she had discovered that mould had spread through the flat on “every external wall.” Her husband was hospitalised with pneumonia last year so had moved to their caravan to “protect his lungs.” She said she and her husband had developed long-term flu-like symptoms and were diagnosed with respiratory infections. She said that personal possessions had been ruined by the mould and the property was no longer habitable.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 4 January 2023. He subsequently raised works orders to fit thermal boarding and carry out associated works.
On 7 January 2023 the landlord was advised that the damp survey assessed the primary cause of damp to be condensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 January 2023 to say that she had tried to phone and email a number of staff but no one had replied to her. She wanted to discuss concerns that they were not able to live in the property during the works.
Between 11 and 24 January 2023 the resident and landlord exchanged emails and the main points included:

The landlord confirmed it had added the sealing and replacement of the bedroom window to the works specification. It confirmed that the property had been referred to the planned works team who dealt with kitchens and bathroom upgrades.

The resident advised the landlord that mould had returned in the kitchen and bathroom despite the walls being scrubbed clean on 1 January.
The kitchen and bathroom were due to be inspected in February ahead of an upgrade.
Mould was found inside the wardrobe and bedroom cabinets, spoiling the contents, and had also damaged the carpet underneath the windowsill.
The resident had received confirmation that her complaint had been escalated however, she had not received any further response since 5 January.
The home was “freezing” because the radiators had been removed and the windows opened because of the dust.
The resident contacted her local councillor who emailed the landlord on 24 January 2023 to seek an update.

The landlord replied on 25 January 2023 to apologise for the lack of response. The officer said she had a high workload and had some unplanned time off. It confirmed that the complaint response was due by 7 February, within 25 working days. She provided the resident with details of how to make a claim on its insurance.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023 to say that she had previously been told that she would be compensated for damages incurred by the mould and for the levels of stress caused. Her autistic son had to leave because they only had 1 functioning bedroom and the front room was packed with furniture from the other bedroom. The radiators had been removed and the walls wide open. She added that the operatives had cut through cables to the internet, the landline, and the electricity supply to wall sockets.
A further email was sent, also on 26 January, to say that her son had attended the property that morning. He discovered that when the operatives removed the radiator from the wall it had started leaking fluid onto the bedroom carpet which was mouldy. Both bedroom carpets were now “ruined.”
The landlord’s internal communications dated 26 January 2023 confirmed that the reason the resident was not offered temporary accommodation was because she said she would be moving out to her caravan.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2023 to confirm that both he and their son left the property on 1 January and his wife left on 25 January. He said they had to leave because there was nowhere for them to sleep. He was dissatisfied that belongings and furniture would not be moved to storage and would be moved from room to room. The resident and her husband were staying in their caravan however, the park closed on 14 February so they would need to move back then.
The resident emailed her local councillor on 30 January 2023 to report a lack of communication and dissatisfaction about the following:
1. Carpets were to be cleaned and not replaced.
2. Removal and storage were not an option.
3. The front room was being used as storage and was now full. The contents would need to be moved into rooms where carpets were filthy and ruined.
4. Dust and dirt had got into everything and the whole property would need to be redecorated.
5. The entire process was a “disaster” with no planning or preparation.
On 3 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to further express dissatisfaction about operatives arriving without correct tools and therefore unable to complete works, leaving rubble on the lawn area and the slow progress of works. He asked for the name of the person overseeing works.
Also on 3 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say it was still trying to obtain responses from various departments to be able to issue its complaint response. It confirmed that a meeting had taken place on 26 January and apologised for the delay.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 February 2023 to request an update and schedule of works. He also raised the following:
1. He had been made aware that a meeting had taken place on 26 January but he had received no feedback.
2. They needed to move back within 5 days and were concerned the property may not be ready.
3. He again asked who was overseeing the works, why works had been planned so poorly and raised concerns about the professionalism of the operatives.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 February 2023 to say that its stage 2 complaint response would be delayed due to heavy case load and delays in the services responding to enquiries. The resident was dissatisfied and was signposted to contact this service which she did on the same day.
The resident sent 3 emails to the landlord on 7 February 2023 in which she expressed dissatisfaction that they were having to live in their caravan over the winter. She requested it visit the property to make sure it was safe to live in and that it consider providing temporary accommodation. She added that a new worker had been allocated and had already made a big difference. However, she was concerned that much of the works had yet to be completed.
The landlord emailed the resident 7 February 2023 to confirm:
1. The name of the contractor managing the works.
2. That the contractor could put furniture into storage.
3. That the previous team of contractors had been removed.
4. Most works would be complete by the end of the week. It said that if for some unknown reason works were delayed then temporary accommodation would be arranged.
5. That the resident should contact its insurance team if she had a query about insurance cover.
6. The type of works being carried out would normally be carried out with the resident in situ.
A number of communications took place on 7 and 8 February 2023, the main points where:
1. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm that works would be completed by 10 February when the landlord would attend to ensure works were complete and carpets dry. It would then meet the resident on site on 14 February to post inspect each room.
2. In an internal email the landlord raised concerns that the contractor may not have protected the carpets and furniture as adequately as it should have done.
3. The landlord emailed the contractor to query why plaster had been hacked off the walls. The contractor replied to say it had interpreted the specification incorrectly and would board on top what was there already.
4. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm that furniture could be moved around while works took place allowing them to occupy the property.
5. The resident emailed the landlord to chase the stage 2 complaint response. It replied to say it would “do its best” to issue the response by the end of the following week.
6. The resident emailed the landlord to provide information relating to damages she had incurred because of the damp and mould and the associated works. She asked to know who would move the furniture from room to room and where they would sleep. She also added that it was currently -4 degrees where they were staying in their caravan.
7. The resident emailed her local councillor again on 8 February 2023 to ask for assistance.
8. The contractor had cleaned both bedrooms and moved belongings from the living room into the bedrooms.
An internal email, dated 10 February 2023, confirmed that works in the back bedroom were complete. The front bedroom was “90%” complete and the living room was “50%” complete. The resident had confirmed she would return on Monday.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 February 2023 to express concern over the slow progress. He added that 2 weeks were wasted by using “poor workmen” and works only started to progress once they were replaced. They had to return to their home that day however, works in the front room were ongoing meaning it could not be used. Bedroom 2 was being used for storage, leaving one bedroom to sleep 3 adults, one of whom was disabled and the other autistic.
The resident sent a further email, also on 13 February, to say they had arrived home to a “total mess.” Only 2 of the radiators were in working order and dust and filth was evident. She said that the mattresses were filthy with dirty finger marks, furniture was broken and there were no curtain rails on the ground floor with no way for her to put them up as there were no plinths above the windows yet. She was dissatisfied that, having moved themselves out, works were not yet complete. She raised concerns about poor communication and asked who they could contact to get immediate help.
The landlord’s internal email dated 13 February 2023 confirmed that all works to the back and front bedrooms had been completed. Works had partially been completed in the living room. It confirmed its intention to carry out redecoration in the living room with them in situ. Belongings for the bedrooms would need to be organised and arranged by the resident in order to get the other bedroom items out of the living room. It confirmed contractors were attending that day to refit a radiator in the front bedroom and renew the adjoining pipework.
In an email to this service, dated 16 February 2023, the resident said she wanted the landlord to offer compensation to replace all the damage caused to her home and “all the stress and worry that had been caused.” She said she was physically disabled, and her husband was made redundant the previous years so they had limited financial resources. She had only just got the landline, internet and ‘Sky’ back up and running after almost 4 weeks as the contractors cut the wires.
On 20 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say it had been 13 days since the complaint response was due. 35 days had passed and the investigating officer had not answered her direct questions or provided updates. She was dissatisfied that it was not complying with its own complaints procedure. She also emailed the council’s leader to ask for her assistance.
On 21 February 2023 the resident chased the landlord for the stage 2 complaint response. It replied and apologised for the delay which it said was due to a high case load. The investigating officer was out of the office unexpectedly and therefore, it was unable to say when the response would be issued. The resident chased again on 23 and 27 February 2023.
The investigating officer replied to the resident on 27 February 2023 to confirm she had returned but could not provide a specific date when the response would be issued. The resident was signposted to this service which she contacted on 3 March 2023 to complain about the landlord’s inaction.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2023 to set out the lengths she had gone to try to resolve her complaint and the distress and inconvenience caused. She asked that the matter be brought to a close with a “fair and reasonable” offer of compensation and an apology.
We wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2023 to request that it provide a final response by 21 March. On 17 March the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response and the uncertainty this caused.
2. Any claims for damage to property or personal belongings were outside of the complaints process. The resident was signposted to make a claim against the landlord’s insurance.
3. As a goodwill gesture it agreed to provide and fit curtain rails and decorate using the resident’s wallpaper. The carpet would be cleaned and did not require replacement.
4. No disabilities were documented when the tenancy was assigned in April 2021.
5. The resident received an informal response to her stage 1 complaint, as opposed to a formal one in accordance with its corporate complaints policy. It added that at that time, it was experiencing a high caseload. It should have explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could raise her complaint for formal investigation at stage 1 and signposted on how to do so.
6. Its repairs policy did not ‘ordinarily’ allow for storage to be provided while works were carried out.
7. The works were of the type that could be carried out with the residents in situ. The resident decided to leave the property of her own volition.
8. The damp survey carried out on 22 December assessed that the primary cause of the damp in the property was condensation. Under its repairs policy it was not “usually” responsible for dampness caused by condensation.
9. The first resident moved out, followed by his wife because the property was “too cold and too dusty.” Her son also moved out because there was not enough space for him to remain.
10. Had the resident remained in situ, the works would have been carried out room by room. However, when she voluntarily moved out it made the decision to work on all the rooms at the same time where possible.
11. The resident informed the landlord that although the mould had been removed from the kitchen and bathroom on 1 January 2023 it had returned.
12. The operatives’ workmanship was poor and there were some continued absences. They were removed from site on 6 February 2022 and the main works were completed by 14 February.
13. The complaint was upheld because:
  1. There was a delay in repairing the front window which took 9 months.
  2. There was poor workmanship caused by the first contractor who was replaced.
14. It acknowledged it may have missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations around her responsibilities of preparing rooms for works to be carried out. This included:
  1. Whether storage would be provided.
  2. Arrangements when she left the property.
  3. Responsibility for making good after works were completed.
15. It said it was going to carry out a review with its contractor as to how such matters are handled in the future, including writing to the resident regarding its expectations should the resident choose to leave the property.
16. It apologised for the “poor level of service” received and inconvenience caused as a result.
17. It offered £490 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £240 delay in repairing the window by 8 months at £30 per month.
  2. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor workmanship.
  3. £100 for time and trouble.
On 20 March 2023 the resident provided the landlord with a copy of her mutual exchange document which set out that “the applicant or a member of her household was disabled.”
On 25 March 2023 the resident emailed this service to express her dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
On 27 March 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about an issue with the boiler with occurred the previous night when it began to leak fluid. When the engineer arrived that night he “condemned” the boiler and capped the gas, leaving them with no heating or hot water. She said the boiler was giving off fumes and had been told this was because the kitchen fitters had removed a pipe they should not have done. The smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were not replaced following works to the ceiling. A warning notice signed and dated 26 March 2023 confirms that the landlord’s contractor “condemned” the resident’s boiler and capped the gas. The purpose of which was to “make safe due to a condense pipe being removed.”
The landlord’s internal records dated 27 March 2023 asked for a stage 1 complaint to be logged.
The resident contacted this service on 20 April 2023 to request that we investigate her complaint. She sought a resolution which included compensation for loss of personal belongings and an apology from the landlord for having to live in “substandard” accommodation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 April 2023 to confirm receipt of the complaint. It said that “due to the nature” of the complaint it required more time to respond. It said a response would be issued by 2 May.
The resident forwarded the complaint response to this service on 3 May 2023 and said that there was no CO detector in place in the kitchen despite what the landlord said. There was no smell of gas when they attended because the emergency engineer had attended the day before to cap the pipe and the shut down the boiler. She said there had been a “risk to life.”
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023 as follows:
1. It apologised for the late response, adding that due to the nature of the resident’s complaint more time was required.
2. The issue arose from a pipe which was “tampered with during the kitchen renovation”, which should only have been handled by an appropriately trained contractor.
3. Its contractor confirmed that its operative removed the condense pipe when fitting the kitchen. It should have been reconnected straight away. It said it would ensure its contractor was made fully aware of such eventualities going forwards.
4. The boiler was isolated from the gas system until the condense pipe was reconnected which took place the next day and the boiler recommissioned.
5. The contractor that attended did not detect any toxic fumes during its visit.
6. The contractor confirmed that there was a CO2 detector present, although not attached to the ceiling, and there was no indication it was faulty in anyway.
7. On completion the contractor placed an additional detector on top of the boiler as a temporary measure, which it would, now that the works were finished, re-fix this to the structure.
8. It recognised that the resident felt at risk however, there was no sign of combustion present and no release of fumes.
9. It apologised for any alarm caused.
10. It awarded £100 compensation for stress and £200 for inconvenience.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 May 2023 to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process because she disagreed its response.
On 29 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord following its visit to sign off works to the kitchen and bathroom earlier that day. She had pointed out the bulge in the hallway behind the shower and taps in the bathroom. Since then, she had noticed a damp patch on the hallway carpet that led from her bedroom to the bathroom and kitchen which was getting bigger and wetter. The landlord emailed the contractor that same day to ask that a plumber attend the property to resolve a leak behind the shower. It said that the resident became “deeply distressed” when it explained that works would be intrusive. She expressed reservations about the contractor’s work.
Later that day, 29 June, the resident sent a further email to say that 2 men had attended, taken the power shower apart and pulled back the carpet. She was concerned that they did not seem to know what they were doing and had said they were not trained plumbers. She was worried they may make things worse so she intended to ask them to stop and leave. The landlord replied that day to say that it would arrange for a qualified plumber to attend to complete the works the following morning and would provide their details to her in due course.
An internal email was sent on 11 July 2023 following a site visit by the landlord’s surveyor. It said the contractor had not returned to check the leak or complete the outstanding work. It said there appeared to be more damage to the bottom of the wall, outside the bathroom in the hallway. Having removed the bath panel it was evident that the waste pipe had not been fitted correctly, so the leak was ongoing, despite the contractor saying it had fixed it. The contractor was asked to reattend that day to rectify the problem. It was also instructed to check the shower “immediately” as it did not appear to have been fitted correctly. The landlord also noted that the bath had been fitted at the incorrect height so the resident could not use it which also needed to be rectified.
The contractor replied on the same day, 11 July, to say a plumber was attending the following morning. The landlord reiterated the urgency of the repair to the shower which the contractor confirmed would also be looked at.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 12 July 2023 to say that its plumber attended that morning to rectify issues with the waste and removed water from under the bath. He checked the shower unit and found no issues with it. The landlord requested completion pictures from the visit however, the contractor replied to say that none were taken. It offered to meet the landlord on site to remove the bath panel and check under the bath.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 13 July 2023 to say it had visited the property that day and the cover on the shower was still not fitting correctly. The resident advised that the operative had not done anything with the shower. The contractor replied on 14 July 2023 to say that it had attended that day to rectify the issue with the shower unit cover.
A meeting between the resident and landlord took place at the property on 17 July 2023. The notes set out the details of the resident’s complaint to date and included an itemised breakdown of the resident’s claim for damages which amounted to £2,824.00.
In an internal email dated 19 July 2023, the specific point of contact (SPOC) for the resident queried with the contractor whether the leaks in the bathroom had been resolved as previously stated. It asked because its surveyor had visited the property that day and found a leak in the outlet. This was because the pipe did not fit and was not securely connected therefore, the leak would be ongoing until the problem was rectified. The resident was going away the following day and would return home on 28 July. No water would be running during that period so it was likely there would be no further damage to the property. It requested that a qualified plumber attend on 28 July at 3pm as agreed with the resident.
On 20 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord chasing compensation for damaged items and distress. The leak in the bathroom was reported on 29 June but was unresolved. The landlord replied on the same day to it was collating all the information following its meeting with the resident in order to provide a stage 1 complaint response which was formally opened on 17 July. It said it would reply within 10 days.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord received an email from an occupational therapist (OT) who, having visited the property, recommended a lower bath with a grab rail fitted along the wall.
The resident chased the landlord for a reply on 31 July and 1 August 2023. The responding officer replied to say she was dealing with personal issues and would respond on 2 August.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2023 to acknowledge that there had been service failures and it apologised for her “very poor experience.” It said its contractor would attend the property the following day to investigate each of the issues in turn and report back. It confirmed that the request for compensation for delays, inconvenience, time and trouble had been opened as a stage 1 complaint. The claim for damages was being referred to its insurance company.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 August 2023 to say she was disappointed that she had not yet received an offer of compensation. She was happy with the £2824 offered but would like an offer for “damages and compensation in total.”
An internal email dated 4 August 2023 referred to a visit made to the resident by the OT the previous day and said a different bath would need to be installed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2023 to say that the leak in the bathroom had now stopped however, she was reluctant to have the same contractors back to the property due to their poor performance. The landlord replied on the same day to acknowledge receipt and confirmed it was trying to identify an alternative solution.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 August 2023, as follows:
1. A meeting was held with the resident on 17 July 2023 where an itemised list of damages to belongings was produced, amounting to £2824, to be paid “alongside compensation.”
2. A repair to fix a leak in the bathroom was first raised on 21 December 2022 and this was used as a basis for compensation.
3. An internal meeting was held on 2 August 2023 when all aspects of the complaint were upheld. It was agreed that:
  1. It would issue an apology and outline next steps to address her concerns.
  2. The contractor would visit her home on 3 August 2023 to investigate reports of outstanding works.
4. The resident spoke to the landlord on 2 August 2023 and said that she did not want certain staff at the property as planned for the following day which the landlord understood. The landlord subsequently made alternative arrangements to attend the property on 8 August.
5. It issued a further apology for the “poor experience” she had received, particularly in relation to the delay in resolving the leak and the ongoing distress, alarm and inconvenience that had been caused.
6. It had appointed a point of contact and the resident was asked to email that individual only, copying in the generic repairs email address.
7. It offered compensation of £1750, broken down as follows:
  1. Delays and incomplete works over an 8 month period for the leak, bath and shower installation – £750.
  2. Inconvenience for lack of appropriate showering and bathing facilities, disruption caused to the resident and her family- £600.
  3. Time and trouble for multiple enquiries and complaints raised – £400.
8. In addition, it offered a further £2824.00 compensation for the damages as agreed previously.
On 8 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of its recent visit to the property. The proposed resolution of the outstanding works had been agreed with the resident. A contractor would be visiting to take measurements and works would proceed from there.
The landlord emailed the OT on 10 August 2023 to request a specific recommendation for the bath, to avoid any further issues. It said once that had been agreed it would obtain a costing. The OT provided details by email on the same day. On 11 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a date for fitting the bath.
The landlord’s internal records dated 4 September 2023 confirmed that the resident preferred to wait for a new bath which had been ordered and would take up to 4 weeks for delivery. Once the bath had been delivered it could confirm an appointment date for works to be begin. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2023 to report that she hurt her right shoulder struggling to get out of the bath.
In its response to this service, the landlord said “there was certainly some evidence of disrepair when the resident took on the property as a mutual exchange. In the case of mutual exchanges, the resident effectively takes the property “as seen” and there is usually a 6 month cooling off period. As such, it is likely that the residents inherited the property in some state of disrepair.” The landlord has also advised this service that the installation of the new bath is the only work outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 within 25 working days.
Its stage 1 complaints procedure says that if the resident has submitted a complaint through the formal route but then agrees that it can deal with the matter informally, a record of this should be made by the officer dealing with the case. All action taken to resolve the complaint should also be recorded.
Its stage 2 complaints procedure sets out that where the complaints officer had made a request for information, and there has been no feedback from the service area, and the deadline has not been met, this will be escalated to the appropriate head of service or other senior officer within the service area concerned. The head of service should take the necessary action to ensure that the response to the request for information reaches the complaints officer within 1 working day from the date the matter is escalated.
Its compensation policy says that where damage has been caused directly as a result of the actions or omissions of the landlord, consideration can be given to reimbursement without the need for the customer to make an insurance claim against it, at further inconvenience and cost to themselves. This could be appropriate where the facts of the case are not in dispute. Each case should be assessed on its own merits.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including windows.
The landlord has told this service that it has established a damp and mould task and finish group to review operational performance and implement an effective strategy for addressing damp and mould in its properties.
The Equality Act 2010 says public authorities must think about the needs of people who are disadvantaged or suffer inequality, when they make decisions about how they provide their services and implement policies.

Window repairs

The landlord was first put on notice about the front room windows on 5 January 2022 and the repair was recorded as completed on 30 May 2022. There are no further notes on the repairs log and it is therefore unclear what works were carried out and why it took over 5 months to complete them. The delay was unreasonable, particularly considering the resident’s disability, the time of year and the nature of her report.
The issue was not resolved by any earlier works because a further works order was raised on 9 June 2022 however, this repair was cancelled. Again, there are no notes to explain why which is inappropriate. A further works order was raised on 25 July which led to an operative attending 2 days later, on 27 July. By this point 7 months had passed since the resident first made her report.
The operative recommended further investigative works be carried out. However, a works order was not raised until almost 2 months later, on 13 September 2022. This was a further lengthy delay for which no explanation was provided. The repair logs record this job as completed on 21 September 2022.
The resident had to go to the time and trouble of contacting her councillor for the landlord to arrange a further inspection on 26 September 2022. Furthermore, when the resident emailed the landlord on 3 October she said despite the inspection, she still did not have an appointment for the repair. When an operative finally attended on 11 November 2022 it advised that a roofer would need to attend for the matter to be resolved.
In its informal stage 1 response of 25 November 2022, the landlord appropriately set out the steps it had taken to remedy the water ingress and draughts caused by the windows. It appropriately apologised for the miscommunication and the issues the resident had experienced. However, it did not offer any compensation, nor did it acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the unreasonable delays. By that time, it was 10 months since the repair was first reported and the colder weather was once again a factor.
It is acknowledged that the landlord responded promptly on 28 November 2022 to agree the resident’s request for a payment of £200 towards her heating costs.
Having waited months for the windows to be repaired, the resident went to great lengths to try to resolve her complaint. She was caused time, trouble and inconvenience when she contacted 3 different local councillors to ask for their help. She also tried to resolve her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process but experienced delays in doing so. She was caused further inconvenience when she had to contact this service for assistance.
In her stage 1 complaint of 27 October 2022 the resident said she was still waiting for the works to be carried out. She pointed out that she was disabled and finding the situation “very stressful.” In her stage 2 complaint dated 30 December the resident said she first reported the issue at the beginning of the year but the problems were ongoing. She asked for more help with heating costs until the matter was fully resolved.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 17 March 2023 the landlord upheld the complaint because there was a delay in repairing the front window which took 9 months. By the time the landlord issued its response, the resident had cause to complain about other non-window related repairs which it also addressed. It offered £490 compensation in total which comprised of £240 for the delay in repairing the window by 8 months, at £30 per month. It also offered £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor workmanship and £100 for time and trouble. There is no evidence that the £250 offered for distress, time and trouble and inconvenience was exclusively for the failures related to the window repairs.
This investigation has assessed whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It has taken into consideration that:
1. The evidence shows that the landlord delayed in repairing the front window by 11 months, not 9 as stated by the landlord (it went on to incorrectly use 8 months as a base for its calculation).
2. Having made a one off payment of £200 in November 2022 the landlord did not consider the resident’s request for assistance with the ongoing increased heating costs for the month of December.
3. The landlord did not acknowledge the detrimental impact that the significant delay had on the resident in terms of the time of year and the lengths she went to try to resolve her complaint. It also failed to consider her disability and in not doing so failed to have due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
4. The amount of monthly compensation was set at £30 per month which was reasonable.
5. The compensation offered for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience was not solely for the window repairs.

It has also considered the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

This investigation considers that the failures in the landlord’s response amounts to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £390 compensation, comprised of:
1. An additional £90 (a further 3 months x £30).
2. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays.
3. £50 towards the heating costs for the month of December.

Damp and mould

On 5 January 2022 the resident reported mould in the corner of the bedroom and the windows in the living room. The repair logs show the job was cancelled but there are no notes to explain why that was the case. It was unreasonable of the landlord to cancel the repair without giving reasons for doing so.
In the absence of any action by the landlord, the damp and mould persisted. Having seen the problem for itself in December 2022 the landlord instructed a damp survey be carried out which took place on 22 December. While it was appropriate of the landlord to act on the findings of its inspection, this was 11 months after the issue was first reported by the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould sets out that landlord’s should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions therefore, the delay was inappropriate.
A report was provided on 7 January which concluded damp was due to condensation. In its stage 2 complaint response of 17 March the landlord advised that under its repairs policy it was not “usually” responsible for dampness caused by condensation.
Given the undisputed evidence of water ingress from the windows and leak in the bathroom, in the absence of the report it is difficult to understand how the landlord came to this conclusion. However, it is also noted that the detriment caused to the resident by this statement was minimal because the landlord carried out remedial works in any event.
Following the damp survey, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and raised a number of works orders. The resident tried to contact the landlord on 9 January 2023 to discuss whether she and her household would be able to live in the property while works were carried out. There is no evidence, either in communications with the resident or during internal discussions, that the landlord considered whether the resident would remain in situ which was inappropriate. This was a failure which led to considerable confusion, and caused significant distress and inconvenience, for the resident.
The resident’s husband moved out of the property at the beginning of January 2023, followed by the resident’s autistic son on 26 and the resident herself on 27 January. The reasons cited were the lack of living space and the poor condition of the property. On 27 January the resident described the property as “freezing” because the radiators had been removed and the windows opened because of the dust.
The landlord’s internal communications, dated 26 January 2023, confirmed that the reason the resident was not offered temporary accommodation was because she said they would move to the caravan. While the resident had access to alternative accommodation, the evidence shows that she originally believed she could remain in the property while works were undertaken. She only left at the point at which this was no longer practical. This was unreasonable because she was caused distress and inconvenience in doing so.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 17 March 2023, the landlord said that the works were of the “type that could be carried out with the residents in situ.” It said that the resident decided to “leave the property of her own volition.”
There is no evidence that the landlord came to an agreement with the resident, at the outset, about whether she would remain in the property. It would have been appropriate to discuss what arrangements needed to be in place to make this a practical option. It could also have then considered alternative options and how it could support the resident if a decant was required. In saying that the repairs were of a ‘type’ that could be carried out around the resident, and that the resident “left of her own volition”, the landlord evidenced that it failed to consider that:
1. Different residents could be affected by the same type of works to a lesser or greater degree, depending on their individual circumstances. It failed to consider the resident’s disability and the vulnerabilities of her son and husband. It there failed to have due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
2. It was winter and the type of accommodation available to the resident may not have been suitable given the prevailing temperature and other environmental factors.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged its lack of planning or preparation in terms of whether it was practical for the resident to remain in the property. It is particularly unreasonable that it did not take the resident’s circumstances into account.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 17 March the landlord said that it had not been made aware of a disability when the tenancy was assigned in April 2021. However, on 20 March 2023 the resident provided the landlord with a copy of her mutual exchange document which had confirmed that “the applicant or a member of her household had a disability.” Therefore, the landlord should have logged the disability on its database and should reasonably have taken this into account when planning the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions to report her dissatisfaction with the quality of the work being carried out and the professionalism of the operatives. On 26 January 2023 she reported that the operatives had cut through cables to the internet, the landline and the electricity supply to wall sockets. On 16 February the resident emailed the landlord to say she had only just got the landline, internet and ‘Sky’ back up and running yesterday after almost 4 weeks as the contractors cut the wires on day 1. The landlord does not dispute that these events but there is no evidence that it has offered an apology or compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
The resident also raised concerns about the quality of workmanship, including her email of 3 February 2023. In an internal email of 7 February, the landlord raised its own concerns about the contractor’s conduct. The landlord acted appropriately and emailed the resident, also on 7 February 2023, to confirm that the previous team of contractors had been removed.
The resident repeatedly asked who was overseeing the works, including on 6 February 2023 when the landlord provided a response the following day. By June 2023 the landlord’s complaints manager took the role of caseworker. It was appropriate that the landlord should appoint a SPOC however, this was not formally communicated to the resident until it issued its complaint response on 7 August which was inappropriate. Furthermore, given the scale of the works and issues which occurred, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a point of contact to the resident far sooner. This would have provided an opportunity for the landlord to rebuild its relationship with the resident, as well as saving her time and trouble in contacting different members of staff,
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January to raise concerns about damage caused to carpets, furniture and belongings because the landlord advised they could not be moved to storage. She advised that “dust and dirt had got into everything and the whole property would need to be redecorated.” In its email to the resident of 7 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that its contractor could put furniture into storage however, it did not provide an explanation as to why it chose not to do in this case, which was unreasonable.
Not only did the resident raise concerns about the need to store furniture to protect it, but she also expressed concern as to the how storing items in the property would impact on their ability to occupy it. On 8 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask if it believed that with all the furniture stored in 2 bedrooms there was enough space for them to live while works were carried out in the front room. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that yes, furniture could be moved around while works took place. The resident contacted the landlord to ask who would move the furniture and belongings to the 2 bedrooms for work to be carried out in the front room. She also asked where they would sleep if the bedroom were being used for storage.
The landlord responded by arranging for the contractor to go to the property that same day, 8 February, to clean and move belongings from the living room into the bedrooms. While its actions were appropriate, it would have been appropriate for it to have communicated this to the resident earlier on in the process so that her expectations were managed, reducing her distress caused by uncertainty.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 17 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged its failures around managing the resident’s expectations. Having identified its errors, it said it was going to carry out a review. This was an appropriate step towards ‘putting things right’. In terms of redress, it apologised for the “poor level of service” received and inconvenience caused as a result.
On 7 February, and again in its stage 2 complaint of 17 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim against its insurers if she wished to seek compensation for damages. It met with the resident on 17 July and noted the “cost of damage was to be agreed alongside compensation” with no mention of an insurance claim. However, in an email to the resident on 2 August the landlord once again said that the claim for damages was being referred to its insurers. Its position was at odds with its compensation policy which said in such circumstances consideration could be given to reimbursement without the need for the resident to make an insurance claim against it, at further inconvenience and cost to themselves.
The landlord changed its mind and in its stage 1 complaint response of 7 August 2023 confirmed that it would pay damages of £2824. The additional compensation awarded in that response was in relation to the kitchen and bathroom refurbishment, not the damp and mould. Therefore, compensation awarded to date for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble was £250 which was offered in its stage 2 response of 17 March.
In her email to her councillor on 30 January 2023 the resident described the entire process as a “disaster” with no planning or preparation. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to plan, and project manage the works effectively. Its communication with the resident on crucial aspects, such as her occupation of the property, storage and moving of items, was poor. It told her a meeting took place on 26 January 2023 but failed to provide her with the details, even when she asked for them on 6 February.
While the resident was happy to accept the landlord’s offer of payment for damages this was contradictory to its earlier advice. It gave no explanation as to why it changed its decision which was confusing for the resident and a further example of poor communication. Furthermore, having agreed to pay damages the resident had to chase the payment, including on 20 July and 3 August. An offer of compensation is a way of the landlord putting things right following a failure, it should be paid promptly so as not to provide potential for a further complaint.
These issues had a significant impact on the resident and her household, causing distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because:
1. The resident and her household had to move out of the property because they could not remain while works took place. The landlord did not consider that the works might have a greater impact on the resident and her household due to their disabilities and vulnerabilities. It therefore failed to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
2. She had to continually chase the landlord to seek updates about critical matters, some of which caused her greater distress because she was disabled.
3. There were no timescales set out for the works and no plan to coordinate works. She was not allocated a SPOC from the outset.
4. The workmanship and professional conduct of the first team of operatives was poor.
5. The landlord was not consistent on its position on compensation for damages.
The failures in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould amount to severe maladministration.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 17 March 2023 the landlord offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor workmanship and £100 for time and trouble. Part 6.4 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that factors to consider in formulating a remedy can include, but are not limited to, the:
1. Length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. Severity of any service failure or omission.
3. Number of different failures.
4. Cumulative impact on the resident.
5. Resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
There is no evidence that the landlord took these factors into account when calculating compensation. The level of compensation therefore did not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by its poor management of the situation which was unreasonable.
During 2022/23 the rent was £119.28 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to make a payment of compensation which recognises the impact of the failures on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The period considered for this calculation is 1 January to 13 February 2023.
In the circumstances the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £477.12 compensation. The figure has been calculated as follows:
1. A 50% refund for the period 1 January to 27 January 2023 (4 weeks) when the first resident moved out of the property. 4 x £59.64 = £238.56.
2. A 100% refund for the period 27 January to 13 February 2023 (2 weeks) when all the occupants moved out. 2 x £119.28 = £238.56.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional emotional and physical distress to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £1000 and above should be awarded where there was a series of significant failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1650 for distress and inconvenience, including the adverse effect of poor record keeping.

Kitchen refurbishment

The landlord has told this service that a kitchen refurbishment was necessary because the damp and mould had spread. In her stage 1 complaint of 27 March 2023 the resident said that the engineer “condemned” the boiler and capped the gas leaving them with no heating or hot water.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 3 May 2023 the landlord confirmed that the contractor failed to reconnect the condense pipe and appropriately apologised. It is concerning that the pipe was removed by an operative who did not possess the relevant qualification to do so. However, the landlord said it would ensure its contractor was made fully aware of such eventualities going forwards. It was appropriate that the landlord took steps to ensure that the same mistake would not reoccur in the future. It denied that there was no carbon monoxide detector present however, it confirmed that it was not attached to the ceiling. It awarded £100 compensation for stress and £200 for inconvenience which the resident accepted.
This investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the works to the kitchen could reasonably have been improved, it recognised its failure and the impact on the resident. It also took proportionate steps to put things right by appropriately offering compensation. As such an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Bathroom refurbishment and leak

On 21 December 2022 the landlord raised an emergency repair to fix a leak in the bathroom. There are no further details as to where the leak was or what the landlord did in response to the leak which was inappropriate.
During an inspection of works on 29 June 2023, the landlord was shown a bulge in the wall behind the shower. The landlord responded appropriately when it contacted the contractor that day to request that a plumber attend. However, the operatives that attended were not qualified plumbers and the resident was concerned about their ability to carry out the work satisfactorily. The landlord replied that day to say that it would arrange for a qualified plumber to attend to complete the works the following day. Although it was appropriate of the landlord to rearrange for a qualified plumber to attend it is unclear why this did not happen on the first occasion. This failure meant that the resident had to wait until the next day for works to begin which caused additional distress. This was particularly inappropriate given that she had already been described as “deeply distressed” at the prospect of intrusive works.
The landlord’s internal records show that by 11 July 2023 the contractor had not returned to check the leak or complete the outstanding work. This was 12 days after it was first put on notice about the shower leak. Not only was this unreasonable because it increased the level of distress caused to the resident, but the delay also meant further damage was caused by the ongoing leak.
During its inspection of the property that day the landlord removed the bath panel and noted that the waste pipe had not been fitted correctly. This meant the leak reported in December 2022 was ongoing, despite the contractor saying it had fixed it. The landlord responded appropriately when it asked the contractor to reattend that day to rectify the problem. It specified which outstanding works the contractor should rectify and by whom. Significantly, it requested that the shower needed to be attended to “immediately” by a suitably qualified plumber because it was a “safety issue.”
The contractor emailed the landlord on 12 July 2023 to say that its plumber attended that morning to rectify the issues with the waste but found no issues with the shower. Given its experience thus far with the standard of workmanship the landlord appropriately undertook quality checks by visiting the property itself the following day. It found that the cover on the shower was still not fitting correctly. The resident advised that the operative had not done anything with the shower when they visited. The contractor confirmed the shower was finally repaired on 14 July.
In an internal email dated 19 July 2023, the SPOC queried with the contractor whether the leaks in the bathroom had been resolved as previously stated as it had identified a further leak. It appropriately requested that a qualified plumber attend as agreed with the resident. However, this is not recorded on the repairs log which is inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2023 to say that the leak in the bathroom had now stopped however, she was reluctant to have the same contractors back to the property due to their poor performance. The landlord replied on the same day to acknowledge receipt and appropriately confirmed it was trying to identify an alternative solution.
In an email to the contractor on 11 July 2023, the landlord advised that the bath has been fitted at the incorrect height which it needed to rectify. In its stage 1 complaint response of 7 August, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the failure and noted that this has caused the resident and her family considerable inconvenience.
Following an OT assessment of the resident’s bathing needs, the landlord appropriately offered to either lower the bath or order a new, adapted, bath as recommended by the OT. The landlord’s internal records of 4 September 2023 confirmed that the resident preferred to wait for a new bath and was advised that one ordered it would take up to 4 weeks for delivery. It was therefore, reasonable that there was a delay in rectifying the issue with the bath.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 7 August 2023 the landlord confirmed that it used the date the bathroom leak was first reported, 21 December 2022, as a basis for compensation. It offered compensation of £1750, broken down as follows:
1. Delays and incomplete works over an 8 month period for the leak, bath and shower installation – £750.
2. Inconvenience for lack of appropriate showering and bathing facilities, disruption caused to the resident and her family- £600.
3. Time and trouble for multiple enquiries and complaints raised – £400.
4. It appropriately issued further apology for the “poor experience” she had received, particularly in relation to the delay in resolving the leak and the ongoing distress, alarm and inconvenience that had been caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not contain guidelines as to how much compensation can be offered and in what circumstances. However, the landlord appropriately provided a breakdown of what compensation it offered and why. It demonstrated that it considered the duration and frequency of the failures, the resident’s circumstances and cumulative impact. This investigation considers that its formulation of the remedy was therefore reasonable. While the landlord’s handling of the works to the bathroom could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact of the failures on the resident and took proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 October 2022 but did not receive a response from the landlord. She was therefore caused time, trouble and inconvenience when she contacted this service to escalate her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 9 November to ask that it provide a response within 10 working days, by 23 November.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 November 2022 but inappropriately only provided an informal response. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy which states that an informal response should only be provided in agreement with the resident, in which case all actions should be recorded. There is no evidence that the resident made such an agreement which was inappropriate.
The landlord appropriately addressed its error in its stage 2 complaint response by setting out what it should have done better in the circumstances. However, this did not include the provision of an informal response itself which it justified as being due to a ‘high caseload’. This is not reasonable because the landlord is responsible for ensuring that it allocates sufficient resources to respond to complaints competently and efficiently, as set out in section 3.4 of the Code. It also failed to apologise for the failure and did not offer any specific compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience which would have been appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 December 2022 which the landlord appropriately acknowledged the same day. The complaints officer appropriately replied on 5 January 2023 to introduce herself but then communication lapsed. The resident was subsequently caused time and trouble when she chased the landlord for a response on 24 January, 20 and 27 February. Due the continuing lack of a response the resident was caused further inconvenience when she contacted this service on 3 March.
During 25 January and 27 February 2023 the landlord sent 5 holding responses to the resident, citing a heavy workload and delays with services providing relevant information to the complaints officer. When it provided its fifth holding response on 27 February, after the resident chased again, it said it could not say when it would be able to provide a response. Having already waited a significant amount of time the resident was understandably frustrated. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide updates to the resident during the complaint process. However once again, it inappropriately cited heavy workload as a justification for the delay. Furthermore, section 5 of the Code sets out that if an extension is required it should be agreed by both parties which did not happen.
It also said there were delays in other services providing relevant information for the investigation. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a clear escalation process, the purpose of which is to resolve such situations in a timely manner. There is no evidence that the complaints officer followed that procedure, and therefore, the head of service was not given the opportunity to take appropriate action to ensure the information was provided. Therefore, this was also an unreasonable explanation for the delay.
We wrote to the landlord on 14 March to request that it provide a final response by 21 March. The landlord finally provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 March. This was 54 working days after the resident made her complaint and 29 days out of time. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response but again, failed to consider compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused which was unreasonable.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 27 March 2023. Even though an internal request for it be logged was made the same day the landlord failed to provide a response. This caused further frustration for the resident who experienced additional inconvenience in contacting this service on 20 April.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 April 2023 to confirm receipt of the complaint and said that “due to the nature of the complaint” it needed more time to respond. It said it would issue the response by 2 May and did so on 3 May however, this was 5 days out of time. Furthermore, it is unclear as to why the complaint was so complex that it could not reply within the timeframe stated in its complaints policy. Therefore, while the delay was minimal, and therefore detriment caused to the resident low, the reasoning was inappropriate.
Following a meeting with the resident at the property on 17 July 2023, the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint. It said it would reply within 10 days but failed to do so. The resident was caused additional time, trouble and inconvenience when she chased the landlord for a response on 31 July and 1 August. The response was provided on 7 August 16 working days after the complaint was made and 6 days after the landlord’s own deadline.
The landlord’s complaint response times are unreasonably long and an order has been for the landlord to undertake a review.
The failures in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Record keeping

The landlord’s repairs logs are lacking detail and do not adequately capture all the events, including:
1. The nature of each repair and its response, for example its response to the fault with the boiler on 26 March 2023.
2. Visits to the property by the surveyor and/or its contractors, including the appointments to remedy the ongoing bathroom leak and fault with installation of the shower during July 2023.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, including the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to hold appropriate data about its products, services and residents to inform the planning and delivery of services. This investigation considers the failures to amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the remedial works to resolve damp and mould.
Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the kitchen refurbishment which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the bathroom refurbishment and resolution of a leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in completing the repairs to the windows. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the detrimental effect on the resident.
The landlord’s planning and project management in relation to works to resolve damp and mould was poor. It failed to proactively communicate with the resident in critical issues. This had a significant detrimental emotional and physical impact on the resident.
The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately reflects the detriment caused to the resident by its failures in its handling of the kitchen refurbishment.
The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately reflects the detriment caused to the resident by its failures in its handling of the bathroom refurbishment and the resolution of a leak.
The landlord’s reason for complaint handling delays were inappropriate. It failed to consider offering compensation as redress for the failures identified in this report. Its complaint response times are unreasonably long.
The landlord’s repair records lack critical details regarding data capture in relation to responsive repairs and planned works.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2737.12 compensation comprised of:
1. £390 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the window repairs.
2. £447.12 for the detrimental impact of the landlord’s failures in its response to damp and mould on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
3. £1650 for the significant effect of the landlord’s failures on the resident caused by its poor handling of works to resolve damp and mould, including poor record keeping. The landlord may deduct £250 compensation if this has already been paid.
4. £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a member of the senior leadership team should contact the resident to apologise for the failings in the case. This should be done in person if this is the resident’s preference.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to set out the outcome of the review it refers to in its stage 2 complaint response dated 17 March 2023. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
2. Hold a joint review with the contractor to discuss the series of failings by its operatives. The review should consider:
  1. How the contractor will assess the competence of its operatives and ensure a suitably qualified operative attends a repair.
  2. A framework for quality checks including how, by whom and how often.
  3. A process for addressing and resolving concerns regarding professionalism and competency.

The date of the review and its outcomes should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.

Review its lengthy complaint response times and arrange refresher training for all staff around the importance of adhering to response times set out in its corporate complaints policy. The date and content of the training should be confirmed to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
Review the method used to log repairs to ensure it captures all relevant information relating to property repairs to include:
1. The details of the resident’s report including the date it was made.
2. Its response in terms of who attended when, and what works are completed until the repair is resolved including the date the repair was completed.
3. An assessment of its performance against the recommendations outlined in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Review its approach to compensation for damages and ensure that its policy provides appropriate guidance on how it will assess claims. The outcome of the review should be communicated to all relevant staff to ensure that it takes a consistent approach to such claims. The outcome of the review and the date of communication should be provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its approach to repairs reported in the 6 month period following a mutual exchange, ensuring that it fulfils its statutory obligations.