Waltham Forest Council (202313052)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313052

Waltham Forest Council

31 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property, including:
1. Garden groundworks.
2. Kitchen fire door.
3. Window safety latch.
4. Scaffolding.
5. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 8 year old son. The resident has stated that she has multiple health conditions including fibromyalgia and osteoporosis, and her son has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
On 10 January 2023, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. The MP stated that the concreting of the resident’s garden had not been carried out to a satisfactory standard. The MP said there was a window which did not lock, and damp throughout the property. They said the resident had tried to contact the landlord several times and no one had responded to her. The MP said that the resident was disabled and unable to raise complaints in person or online. They requested that the landlord contact the resident regarding the repairs required and provide her with assistance in making a formal complaint.
The landlord’s records stated that the resident raised a formal complaint on 8 March 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 March 2023, it confirmed that its contractor had advised there were electrical works, damp and mould, and roofing works on the system. It asked the resident if there was anything else. The resident responded the same day and reported the following: that there was also no fire door in her kitchen, the concrete in the garden was not completed, the upstairs of the house did not heat up above 20 degrees, the window upstairs had no safety latch, another window was not sealed, and a cupboard drawer kept getting stuck. She raised her disappointment with the contractors and how long it had taken them to complete the jobs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 and 16 May 2023 and said she had still not received a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 24 May 2023 and attached a response which it stated had been sent to the resident via its complaint system on 2 May 2023. It apologised for if the resident had not previously received it. The attached stage 1 response was dated 5 April 2023 and stated the following:
1. A surveyor visited the resident’s property following the MP’s enquiry. The survey noted that there was mould in the bathroom and there was no extractor fan. It said there was also mould inside the kitchen cupboard which had never been washed or treated internally. It said there was a defective flat roof over the kitchen, hallway, and bathroom causing water ingress. The survey also noted that the front guttering was not connected to any downpipes.
2. Repairs were raised to remove the kitchen units to wash and treat the mould, connect the guttering to a downpipe, supply and fix a restrictor to the window, and to renew the section of flat roof.
3. Its contractor attended on 17 January 2023 to carry out the mould works but it did not go ahead as it was concluded that there was no mould on attendance.
4. On 3 March 2023 the MP raised further concerns about the lack of progress on the works. The landlord then arranged for a contracts manager to attend the property. In addition to the initial works order, further works were raised, and the resident would receive a date for the works as a matter of urgency.
5. It accepted that it had taken an unreasonable length of time to address some of the problems and upheld the complaint.
The resident said she had not seen the response before and asked for assistance in escalating the complaint to stage 2 as the link provided was not working. The landlord confirmed she could send the details and it would be passed on to the correct team to be logged as a stage 2 complaint. The resident said the contractors had not completed all the works or completed them to a good standard.
The landlord provided a second stage 1 response on 18 September 2023. It said the jobs which were documented in its previous complaint response did not match the action which was taken at the time. It outlined the actual works raised and said its contractor had confirmed that all work had been completed. It partially upheld the complaint for the length of time taken to respond to the complaint and in completing the works in the property. It awarded £150 in compensation.
The resident contacted her MP on 25 September 2023. She said she was still waiting for a heater to be fitted in the bathroom after an energy loss calculation was undertaken. She said neither the roof nor the garden had been completed, although the landlord had stated that the works were complete. She said she “met stage 2” twice yet the landlord had responded with another stage 1 response. She felt the complaint was not investigated properly and the landlord did not see how badly she had been treated in relation to the garden works which needed to be redone again. She said it had been almost 1 year without a garden and it was the only joy she had. The MP forwarded on the resident’s concerns to the landlord.
On 29 September 2023, the resident’s son sent an email to the landlord to explain that his mother was not computer literate and she struggled to read. He said she had responded to the complaint email and he hoped she was not discriminated against because she was disabled. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm that a stage 2 complaint had been raised.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 22 November 2023. It stated the following:
1. A second stage 1 response was issued as her initial request to escalate to stage 2 was out of time. It acknowledged the information provided to the resident on 24 May 2023 regarding the stage 1 complaint being sent on 2 May 2023 and that it would be raised at stage 2. It said that the information provided was incorrect. It said it had correctly applied its complaints policy but there was a service failure with the advice which was provided to the resident at the time. It also noted its own delays in responding to the complaints.
2. It said it did not feel “appalling” and “destruction” were fair or reasonable terms for the resident to use in the context of the works undertaken. It said if it had deemed her situation to be that severe then it probably would have decanted her from the property.
3. It said the resident experienced delays of approximately 5 months for the mould works to be completed. It said the £50 for inconvenience which it previously offered was to reflect the materials left in the resident’s garden and it would offer more for the damp and mould.
4. It upheld the complaint due to the delays in handling the complaints and that it could have provided more reflective and substantial remedies earlier in the complaints process. It said in addition to the previous £150 it would award a further £200. This was broken down as £25 for the delays in responding at stage 2, £50 for the inconvenience with the scaffolding, £75 for the damp and mould works, and £50 for the incorrect advice provided on the stage 2 submission.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the issues had been ongoing since 2021, that works were not getting completed properly, and the roof was still not done. She said even though the landlord upheld the response, the work still needed to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.
The resident reported other issues to the Ombudsman, namely a window which had not been sealed and a stuck cupboard drawer. As these complaints were not escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, they have not been investigated. This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s repairs policy provides different timescales for attending repairs depending on the contractor responding. The repair targets for the contractor in this case states that they should attend emergencies, make safe within 2 hours and rectify the repair within 24 hours. All other works are to be completed at the resident’s convenience and within 14 days after the initial appointment.
The repair policy states that it expects to complete the repair on the first visit. It states that any amendment to the completion timescale will be clearly recorded to create an appropriate audit trail.
The landlord’s fire safety policy refers to a fire risk assessment and that the frequency of undertaking one is based on the building risk profile and as deemed necessary. It said it is designed to identify where improvements are needed and within what timeframe they will be implemented.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints process in which it responds to a stage 1 complaint within 20 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days. It acknowledges the Ombudsman’s guidance for complaints which fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The policy states that if a complaint covers the same issues but there is a gap in excess of 28 calendar days between the first and second complaint, it should be treated as a new complaint. It states that the customer can be sign-posted to the stage 2 complaints procedure and the team can make a decision on whether to accept a stage 2 complaint. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it has now extended the deadline for accepting stage 2 escalations to 3 months.
The complaints policy states that under the Equality Act 2010, the Council has a duty to adapt normal policies, procedures or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. It says it will be prepared to make reasonable adjustments requested by the customer when dealing with complaints. It uses the example of taking a complaint by phone if the customer has a disability or sending the response by printed letter.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggests a remedy payment of between £100 and £300 for distress and time and trouble. It states that in cases where distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified.

Garden groundworks

The resident has stated that the works were first reported in 2021. The landlord’s repair log shows the first raised repair related to the garden was on 29 September 2022. The notes stated, “repair cracks and concrete” and “renew concrete bed and sub-base” on the path.
The raised repair dated 29 September 2022 was shown as cancelled due to it being a “complaints case”, it also states that there was no access on 9 May 2023. It is unclear from the records what initial action was taken by the landlord or what was communicated to the resident at the time. In her correspondence the resident refers to contractors attending in October 2022 and that the work was not completed and tools were left in the garden. This was not reflected in the records and it is unclear why the works were not completed at the time and why tools were left in the garden. The landlord’s poor record keeping will be addressed later in the report.
The resident’s MP raised the issue of the quality of the works in January 2023 and while the landlord evidenced that it responded to the MP, there was no reference to the garden works, which was a failing. The resident raised the issue with the landlord again on 22 March 2023. In its first stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the issues raised by the resident. It also accepted that it had taken an unreasonable length of time to address some of the problems. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have liaised with its contractors regarding the status of the repair and why tools were left in the resident’s garden. It is a further failing that it did not do so which led to the resident having to continue to raise the issue.
In its second stage 1 response, the landlord said the orders in its previous complaint response were not reflective of the actual works raised. It said the actual works included “removing the builder’s material from the rear garden” and “fill gap with concrete mix – between front step and path.” It confirmed that all works had been completed. It is concerning that the landlord’s first stage 1 response was not accurate and did not provide a clear schedule of works for the resident. It is not surprising that following the response, the resident remained dissatisfied and had to raise the repairs again.
On 25 September 2023, the resident confirmed that works were undertaken to the garden on 25 July 2023 but that it was ruined and needed to be redone. The landlord raised a further repair on 29 September 2023 for the garden. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors for managing the repairs, this should only be up to a point where multiple reports of reoccurring issues were raised. The resident had repeatedly reported issues with the quality of the work by the contractors and the landlord should have engaged with its contractors to ensure the issues could be resolved. There is no evidence that the landlord took such a resolution oriented approach or had oversight of the repairs.
While the landlord awarded £50 for the materials which were left in the resident’s garden, the garden repairs were not addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The repair remains outstanding.
While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its delays in some of its responses and awarded £50 for the materials left in the resident’s garden, the landlord did not evidence any learning from its failures or show what it would do differently in the future. The resident stated that she first reported issues with her garden in 2021 and while the landlord must prioritise essential repairs, it is not acceptable that the work remains incomplete in 2024.
Overall, the landlord failed to take oversight of the repairs which led to repeated visits and the resident having restricted use of her garden for a prolonged period. Its repair records were poor and it is unclear what decision making had taken place. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the garden groundworks. Orders and further compensation will be made to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs.

Kitchen fire door

On 22 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there was no fire door in the kitchen. It is unclear from the information available, whether the landlord had any obligation to fit a fire door on the property.
In line with its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the property to check whether it was compliant with fire safety standards. There is no evidence that it did, however, the landlord’s repair records show that the landlord raised a repair on 24 March 2023 for a new door. While it is unclear from the records when the door was installed, the landlord confirmed in its second stage 1 response that the work had been completed. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the lack of fire door was reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that in an email dated 25 September 2023, the resident stated that it had taken more than 1 attempt to fit the door to a satisfactory standard. It has already been determined that the landlord should have liaised with its contractors regarding repeated works being raised. While it would have been an inconvenience to have to raise the issue again, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was unreasonably delayed in its handling of the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether the door was in need of replacement, rather whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly when responding to the reports of the problem. While there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the matter, such as poor record keeping, the Ombudsman does not find the failings so serious as to warrant a finding of maladministration. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed separately and the door was replaced, with no significant detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen fire door.

Window safety latch

The UK Government Building Regulations requirement K5.3 s8 “Safe opening and closing of windows etc” guidance states that “Where a person may fall through a window above ground floor level, provide suitable opening limiters, to restrain the window sufficiently to prevent such falls or guarding”.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) guidance refers to a landlord’s obligations and the risks posed to the safety of the property from windows regarding inadequate locks and falls from outside of a dwelling.
The resident has stated that she raised the issue of the upstairs window not having a safety latch in 2021 and while 2 cable restrictors were fitted to the window on 21 April 2023, she felt it should have been dealt with sooner. While the Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident raised the issue in 2021, we must rely on the contemporaneous evidence presented to us. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised on 29 September 2022 for the window and it said to “renew friction stay to PVCU”. The job was shown as cancelled due to it being part of a complaints case and was raised again on 24 March 2023.
The resident has reported to the Ombudsman that her main concern with the window was that she was worried her son could climb out of it. While there was no legal requirement for the landlord to fit window restrictors, in line with the guidance outlined above, the landlord should have risk assessed the windows to determine if there was a need for window restrictors. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this when raising the repair and in determining the urgency of it. The job was raised on 29 September 2022 and it took 7 months for the landlord to carry out the repair, which was not appropriate.
In its first stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property and a repair had been raised for the installation of a child safety window restrictor. It said it recognised the historical nature of the resident’s concerns but did not provide any reassurance that it would do anything differently in future or award any compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused. Overall, the landlord had an obligation to manage the risks associated with the window and the resident’s concerns. The restrictors were eventually fitted to the window, however, there was poor communication prior to that and unreasonable delays, which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the window. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the restrictors fitted were not sufficient and while it is unclear whether this was raised with the landlord, an order will be made for the landlord to assess the windows. Compensation will be awarded to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Scaffolding

It is not in dispute that works were required at the property which required scaffolding to be erected on 20 April 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2023 and stated that she was not informed of the date for the scaffolding. She said the contractors had only needed 1 day to complete the works, but the scaffolding remained up at the property until 23 May 2023. The resident said it was a waste of the landlord’s money, she said that her son with suspected ADHD would swing from the scaffolding, and he did not understand that it was not a climbing frame. The resident said the stress caused by this was “unreal.”
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will work with residents to agree a suitable time to carry out works. It states that the resident does not always need to be at home for it to carry out works but where necessary it will gain permission to work in that way. There is no evidence provided which suggests that the landlord did notify the resident of the works or agree that it could carry out the works in her absence, which is a failing.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the stress caused to the resident because of the scaffolding being left and her son climbing onto it. However, there is no evidence that she reported the issue while the scaffolding was still erected. If the landlord was made aware at the time, it could have removed the scaffolding sooner or carried out safety checks based on the issues reported by the resident. The records show that a scaffold removal was requested on 19 May 2023 and the scaffolding was removed within 3 working days. It is unclear whether the request came from the resident, however, the landlord’s response to it was appropriate.
It was positive that the landlord did acknowledge the impact on the resident in its stage 2 response and offered £50 in compensation. While the landlord should have informed the resident of its intention to erect the scaffolding on 20 April 2023, there is no evidence to suggest that the scaffolding was left for a prolonged period or that the scaffolding was a risk, as a result of the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the scaffolding.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repair log shows that a repair was first raised on 13 October 2021 for mould on the kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended on 2 November 2021 and the notes stated that the resident “cancelled works because the issue was with the cupboards, not the ceiling”. It would have been reasonable for the contractor to have treated the mould in the cupboards when it visited or to have raised follow on works for the cupboards. The initial repair raised may have been recorded incorrectly and it was reasonable for the resident to inform the contractor that treatment to the ceiling was not required. It was not reasonable, however, for the landlord to not take any further action.
On 9 January 2023, the landlord raised a repair for a mould wash on the wall of the cupboard. The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 January 2023 and determined that there was nothing to be done. Following further reports on 3 March 2023 regarding the lack of progress, the landlord inspected the property again and raised works for mould treatment. A mould wash was carried out in the kitchen and living room and is shown as completed on 17 May 2023. In its first stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that works were not carried out due to differing opinions of its contractor and apologised. While it is positive that the landlord apologised, it is concerning that repeat repairs had to be raised, and the issue was not resolved in a timely manner.
On 11 November 2021 a repair was raised for a condensation control fan and to provide a “wall grill” in the bathroom. The notes dated 9 March 2022 stated that the repair was cancelled and the resident had refused all repairs. The resident has disputed this and said she only refused repairs to the roof as she wanted the contractor to go back and ask the landlord to consider a full roof replacement. While it is difficult to determine exactly what happened at the time, the repair was raised in November 2021 and it took the landlord 4 months to attend on 9 March 2022, which was not appropriate.
The landlord raised a repair for an air brick or vent on 29 September 2022 and this was cancelled due to a complaints case being raised. The landlord’s records show that an air vent and extractor fan were fitted on the 15 and 17 May 2023, almost 8 months after the repair was raised. The delays in fitting the fan and vent in the bathroom were unreasonable and left the resident to address the issue of condensation in the bathroom throughout the winter months, likely causing further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has provided an undated damp and mould report as part of the request for evidence in this case. The report outlined the causes of the damp and mould in the property. This included no extractor fan in the bathroom, a defective flat roof causing water ingress, and defective guttering. The Ombudsman assumes this is related to the surveyor’s visit which took place following the MPs enquiry in January 2023, however, the landlord’s repair log does not show most of the repairs being raised until 24 March 2023.
The roof repair had been cancelled due to no access on two occasions in February and March 2023. While it is reasonable to conclude that the no access would have delayed the repairs, the landlord is still responsible for the preservation of its assets. If there were difficulties in accessing the property to make an issue safe, then the landlord should have considered what enforcement action it could take in line with the conditions of the tenancy.
In its first stage 1 response the landlord noted that the surveyor recommended that a section of the roof needed to be renewed to assist with the damp and mould issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the no access from the resident and the next steps which would need to be taken. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she was told the landlord would update her on a full replacement of the roof but it never did. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this correspondence, the landlord had the opportunity to clarify its position on the matter and it did not do so.
The landlord’s records show further repairs being raised to address damp and mould in the property up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. It is positive that the landlord conducted a heat loss survey in April 2023, however, the Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of the survey. The resident confirmed in September 2023 that she was still waiting for a heater to be fitted in the bathroom following the survey and there is no evidence it has been completed. The resident has also confirmed to the Ombudsman that the roof repair remains outstanding and that a new leak has appeared in the kitchen.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the resident experienced delays of approximately 5 months for mould works to be completed in the property and offered £75 in compensation. This report has identified significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property. While some of the delays can be attributed to times of no access, most were due to the lack of response from the landlord or confusion in relation to the work required. Therefore, the landlord’s response was inaccurate.
Overall, the landlord’s planning and oversight in relation to resolving the damp and mould was poor. Its approach was reactive, rather than proactive, which led to a disorganised and confusing approach. It failed to communicate with both the resident and its contractors, which led to repeat visits and unnecessary delays. The repair to the roof remains outstanding and the resident remains dissatisfied with the repairs in the bathroom. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

Record keeping

The landlord’s repair logs are lacking detail and do not adequately capture all the events discussed in its correspondence with the resident and its contractors. This made it difficult to determine the exact order of events and much of the timeline is based on correspondence from the resident. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail or detailed records, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to hold appropriate data about its products, services, and residents to inform the planning and delivery of repairs. The poor record keeping in this case not only hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation but led to the landlord exhibiting poor management and monitoring of the repairs. As such, this investigation considers the failures to amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling and level of compensation offered.

The landlord took 20 working days to provide its first stage 1 response, 82 working days to provide its second stage 1 response, and 38 working days to provide its stage 2 response. The delays were not acceptable nor in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint responses and awarded compensation, but it did not outline what steps it would take to ensure it did not happen again. This was a failing.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlord’s will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order will be made in relation to the delays. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
In the MP’s email dated 10 January 2023, the MP informed the landlord that the resident wished to make a formal complaint but required assistance as she was unable to do so online or in person. The MP provided the resident’s phone number and asked that the landlord contact her. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out this request or logged a formal complaint for the resident at the time. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the reasonable adjustment and took the resident’s complaint by phone. It did not do so and this led to a delay in the resident being able to raise her complaint. This was a further failing.
On 10 and 16 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 24 May 2023 and attached a copy of the stage 1 response which was dated 5 April 2023, she was informed it was sent to her via the landlord’s complaint system on 2 May 2023. The resident confirmed she did not receive it and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day, the landlord confirmed it would be logged at stage 2.
It has already been considered that the time taken to respond to the resident following her stage 2 escalation was not appropriate. It was also not appropriate that the landlord responded with a second stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response it explained that this was because the resident’s stage 2 escalation was outside of its 28 calendar day timescale at the time. The landlord said that some of the information provided to the resident regarding the date the first stage 1 response was sent to her and logging her escalation at stage 2 was inaccurate. It awarded £50 compensation for the incorrect advice given.
The landlord’s policy and complaint responses stated that a resident must log a stage 2 escalation within 28 calendar days from the date they receive it. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, no consideration was made to when the resident stated that she received the response. Given the errors it had made and that it had been informed that the resident struggled with information provided online, it would have been reasonable to have provided a stage 2 response. In not doing so, the landlord unreasonably delayed the resident and prevented her from accessing the Ombudsman sooner.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it did not feel the resident’s use of the words “appalling” and “destruction” were fair or reasonable terms to use. It said if it deemed her situation to be that severe, she “probably would have been decanted from the property while the works were completed” and it could find no evidence that a decant was considered.
The landlord upheld her complaint and accepted the failures, therefore it was not appropriate for it to then minimise the impact caused to her. The resident had informed the landlord of the vulnerabilities in the household on multiple occasions and the impact of the issues. If the landlord disputed what the resident had reported in terms of the repairs, then it should have explained why, using the evidence available to it. It did not do so, and therefore its response lacked empathy and did not seek to put things right for the resident.
The overall offer of compensation was £350. This was broken down as the £150 it previously offered, £25 for the delays in responding at stage 2, £50 for the inconvenience with the scaffolding, £75 for the damp and mould works and £50 for the incorrect advice provided on the stage 2 submission. The Ombudsman does not consider the offer to be proportionate to the additional failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay a further £600 for the additional failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the groundworks, window safety latch, and damp and mould. This is in line with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. While £175 was offered for the delays in responding to the complaint and the incorrect advice, an additional £100 will be awarded to account for the additional failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the garden groundworks.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen fire door.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window safety latch.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the scaffolding satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this case which led to maladministration. The resident should be given the choice as to whether she wishes to receive the apology verbally or in writing.
The landlord must liaise with the resident to ensure it has an up to date record of the vulnerabilities in the household.
The landlord must undertake a further damp and mould inspection in the property, this should take into consideration the outstanding work on the roof, new reports of a leak, and the outcome of the previous heat loss survey. Once completed it must inform the resident of its findings and provide an action plan for carrying out any identified repairs. The action plan should include an estimated timeframe for any works to be completed. If no repairs are identified, the landlord should outline the reason(s) why, ensuring its response is in line with its repairs policy and the HHSRS.
The landlord must provide an action plan for the completion of the garden groundworks, with an estimated timeframe for any works to be completed.
The landlord must assess the windows in the property to ensure it is meeting building regulations and its obligations under the HHSRS. The landlord must confirm its findings with the resident.
The landlord must pay a total of £1,050 to the resident. This includes the £350 it already offered.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should reflect on its failings in this case. Particularly:
1. Reflecting on its own and its contractors actions in this case, and how it will ensure there is effective information sharing and record keeping in future.
2. Consider its staff training and system needs in relation to complaint handling and allowing for reasonable adjustments, where applicable.