Warrington Housing Association Limited (202115582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115582

Warrington Housing Association Limited

30 November 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. planned maintenance (replacement of kitchen, bathroom, central heating system and re-wiring).
2. repairs to the central heating system.
3. the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2015. The property is a 4 bedroom house and she lives there with her 3 children. The landlord is aware that the resident and her 3 children have additional needs.

Policy and legal framework

The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. It would attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 21 working days.
2. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the central heating system. The loss of heating and hot water is given as an example of an ‘urgent’ repair.
3. Stock condition surveys are used to inform its planned maintenance programme.
Under section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 3 stage process. It should respond in 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stages 2 and 3. Residents can escalate to this Service once they have completed the 3 stage process.

Summary of events

Between April 2021 and August 2022 the resident reported that she had no heating and hot water at the property 18 times. The landlord raised works orders (4 emergencies and 14 urgent) and recorded these as completed either on the date reported or the following day.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord inspected the property and noted that she reported leaks in the central heating system, which it asked her to monitor and report. She also reported kitchen issues and it confirmed that this was due to be replaced that year as part of its planned improvement works programme; with the start date still to be agreed.
The landlord said it tried to contact the resident twice on 15 June 2021 regarding the planned improvements works (rewire and replacement of kitchen and central heating system), but was unable to speak with her. A month later, it told her that the programme of works was due to begin in September 2021.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord visited the property and noted that it told the resident the planned programme of works had just begun in the area. The kitchen replacement and rewire would be done together to keep disruption to a minimum. Its contractor would contact her to arrange a survey and her property would be added to the programme once this had been completed. It agreed to look into the upgrade of the central heating system. The resident asked for a move and it agreed to make follow up contact with her about this. The following day she contacted the landlord to clarify some things from the meeting and it noted that a call back was requested.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 October 2021 regarding her request to move. It offered her a temporary move to another property while it completed the works to her property, which she accepted. The temporary property was due to undergo major works and it would contact her with an update on when the move would be possible.
On 8 October 2021 the resident made a complaint to this Service about boiler problems, no heating or hot water, damp and mould and kitchen and bathroom issues. She had mental health issues and she and her children had additional needs and she felt the landlord was taking advantage of this. She had been trying to complain to the landlord but had not received a response. The landlord was trying to move her to a property with bad damp and mould. This Service wrote to the landlord 3 days later asking it to take action under its complaints procedure.
The resident asked the landlord for updates twice in October 2021. It advised that it had inspected the other property and passed this to its contractor to carry out a survey before the works started.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord advised the resident that works to her property would start on 7 February 2022. It confirmed the works to the other property had started and it would provide a further update when it knew what date it would be ready but it was not sure that would be before Christmas 2021.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, as follows:
1. It had not received any complaints from her so had been unable to respond.
2. She had not reported damp and mould in the alternative property and none had been identified during a survey carried out before the works started.
3. It would do as much as it could to assist her regarding her mental health issues.
4. It would contact her to arrange a date for her to move to the alternative property once it had one, but this was not likely to be before Christmas 2021. The works in her current property were not due to start until February 2022 and it needed time to arrange the removals.
The resident asked for an update on the move on 4 and 11 January 2022. On 12 January 2022 the landlord confirmed a moving date of 26 January 2022, but the resident and the landlord agreed to postpone this on 21 January 2022.
On 26 January 2022 a further moving date of 7 February 2022 was agreed but 5 days later the resident told the landlord that she did not want to move and asked that the works were done while she was living at the current property. The resident explained on 1 February 2022 that she had declined the move because of her children’s health needs and she needed support from family and friends close to her current property.
In February and early March 2022 the resident asked 3 times for an update, including confirmation of the works required. On 11 March 2022 the landlord confirmed that the works required were to replace the kitchen and bathroom, rewire and upgrade the heating system. Four days later the resident contacted the landlord and it noted a call back was requested.
On 21 February 2022 the resident told this Service she had not received a formal complaint response from the landlord. The following day, this Service asked the landlord to provide a response under its complaints procedure. The landlord replied the same day and provided the resident and this Service with a copy of its letter of 30 November 2022. On 14 March 2022 this Service told the landlord that its response was missing key information and asked it to provide this to the resident within 5 days. On 24 March 2022, the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident, which said:
1. The complaint was at stage 1.
2. It wanted to complete the outstanding works as soon as possible but wanted her to confirm that it could start the kitchen and rewire works while she was still living there. It suggested a meeting with her and its contractor to discuss and agree the working arrangements (the next day this was arranged for 1 April 2022).
3. She could request for her complaint to be moved to stage 2 if she was unhappy with the works or the resolution to her complaint.
On 1 April 2022 the resident met with the landlord and it noted that it told her the works would be split throughout the financial year. The kitchen works would be done first and take around 17-20 weeks. It wanted there to be a plan in place to allow its contractors to complete the works without her or her children present and there were discussions around the time works could be completed during the day. The landlord asked the resident to think about what she would do in some additional circumstances to ensure the works could go ahead and her children were safe. In a follow up letter the same day, the landlord suggested the resident seek advice and support from other agencies, including children’s services.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions in April 2022 asking for an update and reporting a further issue with the kitchen. The landlord raised an inspection on 19 April 2022 and noted that it attended on 26 April 2022. It noted that it told the resident that it would contact her with an outcome. The following day the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not properly identified what was needed during the inspection and, on 3 May 2022, it updated its records and completed the inspection with a note that no works were required.
On 23 April 2022 this Service told the landlord that its response to the resident’s complaint dated 24 March 2022 was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We asked it to confirm its final response and reissue it to the resident with the required details.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord received a legal letter before disrepair claim from solicitors, on the resident’s behalf. This raised concerns about damp throughout the property and a defective boiler, heating system and electrics.
In early May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident on at least 4 occasions to arrange appointments for the works to be completed. During one of these calls the resident said she had been let down and lost trust in the landlord.
On 18 May 2022 the landlord visited the property and advised the resident that the pre-contract start meeting for the kitchen and bathroom programmes was taking place the following month and it would update her after this. It inspected the property and noted that:
1. Previous works identified in August 2020 to address damp in the property had been completed.
2. There were no leaks or issues reported for the boiler or central heating system but a works order would be raised to check the system. The landlord raised a routine works order 2 days later and this was recorded as completed on 6 June 2022. It said that no leaks were found but the boiler pressure was low, so this was fixed.
3. There were no issues identified with the electrics and a satisfactory electrical inspection had been carried out in March 2021.
On 6 June 2022 the resident asked for an update on the works and the landlord replied the following day with a written summary of the visit on 18 May 2022.
Three days later the landlord inspected the property in response to the legal letter before disrepair claim. It noted that:
1. The majority of the rooms were damp free. All external walls were assessed with a damp meter and found to be dry, except for a back wall in the kitchen which was damp and had high moisture readings. External brickwork was in good order and guttering had been replaced with new but it was likely that historic leaks from the guttering had led to water ingress. Works were required to replace the damp affected plaster, re-paper and repoint the brickwork.
2. The bathroom ceiling was damp, caused by a leaking radiator in the room above. Works were required to repair the leaking radiator, replace plaster, repaper and decorate.
3. Radiator pipework in the living room, kitchen and bedroom were leaking and floor areas underneath were damp. Pressure on the boiler was low, which was likely due to the leaks. Works were required to overhaul the system, repair the leaks and fix the pressure on the boiler.
4. There was no evidence of any issues with the electrics but recommended these be assessed by a qualified electrician.
In the absence of a final complaint response, the Ombudsman chased the landlord in May and June 2022. However, no response was received at that time.
On 29 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding works including the boiler not working and leaks to central heating pipework. The same day the landlord chased its contractor regarding the boiler replacement.
In August 2022 the resident chased the landlord on at least 2 occasions regarding the boiler replacement works. On 1 September 2022 the landlord chased its contractor regarding this and it replied confirming works could start anytime in the next 2 weeks.
The resident advised the Ombudsman, in July and August 2022, that she had still not received a complaint response from the landlord. On 23 August 2022 this Service issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) for the delay in responding to the complaint. We asked it to provide its final response within 5 days. On 1 September 2022 the resident told this Service she had not received a complaint response and that a number of repairs were still outstanding. On the same day the Ombudsman told the landlord that we had decided that its complaints procedure had been exhausted.
On 26 September 2022 the resident chased an update on the works including the boiler replacement. During a visit a week later the landlord agreed to get back in contact with her regarding the outstanding works.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that the new central heating system installation would start on 7 November 2022 and advised the resident of an appointment the following day to discuss these works.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord arranged to inspect the property 6 days later and discuss the outstanding works. It noted that it did this and suggested starting the bathroom replacement on 5 December 2022 and asked the resident to confirm if this was convenient. The kitchen replacement would take place in January 2023. It would carry out a further electrical inspection to check if the electrics were still satisfactory. It noted that it chased the resident to confirm the start date for the bathroom replacement on 22 November 2022.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord raised a “planned” works order for the central heating system replacement, with a due date of 9 February 2023. This was recorded as completed on 24 November 2022.
On 5 January 2023 the landlord raised a “planned” works order for the bathroom replacement, with a due date of 29 March 2023. The works order was recorded as completed on 5 January 2023 and the landlord said that it completed the bathroom replacement that month. It also carried out an electrical inspection at the property in January 2023, which was deemed satisfactory.
The landlord raised a “routine” works order for the kitchen replacement on 5 January 2023 and this was recorded as cancelled. A works order raised on 7 February 2023 for “disrepair works” was cancelled in June 2023 with a note that the works had been terminated.
On 7 March 2023 the resident asked why she had not been given anything in writing regarding the kitchen replacement. The landlord explained that its contractors were preparing the plans based on what she had chosen at a previous meeting and once this was ready it would be provided so she could agree this. Two weeks later the landlord visited to confirm the choices for the kitchen replacement and it noted that this work was completed in May and June 2023.
On 30 May 2023 the resident raised concerns about the standard of the kitchen replacement works and that she was not happy with the conduct of the contractors. The landlord agreed to carry out an inspection to discuss her concerns.
The landlord noted that it met with the resident in June 2023 to agree arrangements for another contractor to attend to complete the works. It raised further works orders for “disrepair works” in July and August 2023, with one recorded as completed in July 2023 and one recorded as “extended”. On 16 August 2023 the landlord noted on a ‘post inspection form’ that it had been completed and post inspected the works the same day. This form was signed by the landlord and the resident. The following month, the landlord confirmed that it had completed all the works identified as part of the disrepair claim and that this had been closed.
The landlord told this Service in November 2023 that the rewire of the property was still outstanding but that the resident had declined for this to go ahead.
In November 2023 the resident told this Service that she still had concerns about the condition of the kitchen following the replacement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that a number of the repair issues were outstanding when she moved into the property in 2015. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually 6 months. In this case, the resident escalated matters via the landlord’s complaints process in October 2021, so this investigation is focused on events from April 2021 onwards. Anything that happened before that date is considered for context but is not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Handling of planned maintenance

The landlord has told this Service that it brought forward the planned maintenance of the property. Where a landlord identifies that planned maintenance is required earlier than scheduled, it is appropriate that it brings this forward and includes it in its programme, at the earliest opportunity. Where it does this, it is important that it records when this decision is made and the reasons for this. While appropriate that it brought works to the property forward, from the records provided, it is not clear when this decision was made or why. An order has been made below for the landlord to review how it records changes to planned maintenance and provide staff training on this.
The landlord is responsible for carrying out planned maintenance at the property. Where this is required, there are no specific timeframes for the landlord to schedule it, set out within its repairs policy. It is understandable that the timescale for this type of work can be changeable based on a number of factors, including contractor availability and scope of works required. Therefore, it would be reasonable that a landlord provide an estimated timeframe of when the works would be carried out and provide regular updates on progress so residents are kept as informed as they can be.
The evidence provided shows that, on a number of occasions, the landlord made pro-active contact with the resident to update her and progress the works. However, this contact was not consistent and resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on at least 9 occasions. Several times, the landlord committed to provide further updates on when the works would start but did not specify when these updates would be given, which would have been appropriate. Its failure to provide consistent updates amounts to maladministration and resulted in the resident losing faith in it and feeling that it had forgotten about her and did not take the matters seriously. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of the planned works and pay her £300 compensation.
Once planned works have begun, it is appropriate for landlords to monitor the time taken to complete these and from the repair records, it is clear that it has target time frames for these works to be completed. However, the landlord’s records in this case are inaccurate, as the works orders for the bathroom and central heating system replacement were raised and completed the same day, once the works had been completed. While a works order was raised for the kitchen, this was later cancelled and no other raised to record this. This inaccuracy is a concern as it means the landlord cannot properly monitor and report on its performance against its targets.
Due to the scale of the works required in the property, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident a temporary move while they were completed. When she declined the move, it was reasonable that it met with her to go through the scale of the works and make arrangements for when these could go ahead to ensure her and her children were safe. This was particularly important considering that the resident and her children have additional needs and the works would be disruptive.
The resident raised concerns about the number of inspections and meetings with the landlord. It is reasonable that the landlord carry out inspections and arrange meetings where required and this can be particularly important where there are additional needs as there are in this case. Where the landlord believes a meeting or inspection is required, it should clearly set out the purpose of these and ensure any follow up actions are progressed in a timely manner.
In this case, the landlord did that on the majority of occasions; however, the purpose of the inspection on 26 April 2021 was not clear and following this there is no record that any updates were provided to the resident as was committed. In fact, the landlord noted on its systems that “no works were required”, which was inaccurate as it had already confirmed on a number of occasions that works were required. Similarly, following receipt of the letter before claim in April 2022, the landlord carried out 2 inspections within 6 weeks, with different outcomes noted. The reason it carried out 2 visits was not clear and would have, understandably, been frustrating for the resident and felt like a waste of time.
When the resident raised concerns about the standard of work in relation to the kitchen replacement and the conduct of the contractor, the landlord agreed to carry out an inspection, which was appropriate. From the records provided, it is not clear if or when this inspection took place and what the outcome was. In recent contact, the resident has told this Service that she still has outstanding concerns regarding the kitchen and so an order has been made for the landlord to reinspect the kitchen and provide a written update to the resident confirming what, if any, additional works it will carry out.

Handling of repairs to the central heating system

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the central heating system in line with its repairs policy, as detailed above. In response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water, the landlord raised urgent or emergency works orders, which was in line with, and on 4 occasions exceeded the commitment made in, its repairs policy, as set out above. In response to these works order, it noted that it attended the same day or the following day, which was in line with its committed response times in its repairs policy, as set out above.
When the landlord inspected the property in May 2022, there were no issues with the central heating system identified, but it agreed to check the system, which showed that it was taking the matter seriously. It raised a routine works order for this check, which was reasonable considering no issues had been identified. It recorded this as completed in 10 working days, which was within the committed response time in its repairs policy, as set out above.
When the landlord inspected the property in June 2022, it identified several repairs to the central heating system. These repairs formed part of a legal disrepair claim, which was being addressed through the pre-action protocol. From the records provided, it is not clear when these specific repairs were completed as it is not clear whether the landlord raised an individual works order for them. While a works order was raised for “disrepair works” in February 2023, the central heating system had been upgraded in November 2022, meaning these repairs were no longer required.
There were 13 other works orders raised in relation to the central heating system after the inspection on 9 June 2022 and prior to the system being replaced but these appear to relate to a lack of heating and hot water only. The landlord records are not clear on this issue and so the Ombudsman has been unable to fully assess its actions regarding these repairs. With that in mind, an order has been made below for the landlord to review how it records and tracks repairs being managed through the pre-action protocol stage of a legal disrepair claim to ensure that it can accurately monitor these against its committed response times.
Between June and August 2022 the resident reported that her heating and hot water was not working on 13 occasions. Where there are repeated issues with a central heating system, it is appropriate for the landlord to consider whether additional repairs or a replacement is required to ensure a long term resolution. As the landlord had already identified that the property required a central heating upgrade, there was no need for a further assessment in respect of this. While it had identified that this upgrade was required, it was not until the resident chased this up in July, August and September 2022 that it followed up with its contractor to progress this, which ultimately resulted in the system being upgraded. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in that regard.

Handling of damp and mould

The landlord is required to take action to address damp and mould and the underlying causes as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as detailed above. Depending on the severity and the nature of works required, the landlord would be responsible for completing these in line with its committed response times set out in its repairs policy, as detailed above.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property via a legal letter before claim in April 2022. While the disrepair pre-action protocol has timescales attached to it, it is important that landlords remain committed to inspecting properties as soon as possible and completing repairs as soon as is practicable. In this case, the landlord inspected the property within a 6 week period and identified works required, which was appropriate. However, it was a further 8 months before any works orders were raised in relation to these repairs, which was an unreasonable and avoidable delay and amounts to maladministration.
After the works order was raised in February 2023, there were some further delays in the works being carried out which were outside the landlord’s control. From the repair records, it is not clear the exact date these works were completed, but the post inspection form suggests this was 16 August 2023. This was 300 working days after the works were identified and significantly over its committed response time set out in its repairs policy, as detailed above.
While some of this delay was not attributable to the landlord, a large portion of it was avoidable. This unreasonable delay meant that the resident and her children had to live in a property with damp and mould for an extended period of time, which would have been upsetting. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlord’s should recognise that damp and mould issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents. In this case, there is no record that the landlord provided any timescales for the works to be completed or any updates on the progress of the works, other than 1 visit in June 2023; which was a year after the initial inspection was carried out.
The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould would have left the resident feeling let down and as though it was not taking the matter seriously. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident, pay her £300 compensation and provide staff training on a best practice approach to damp and mould with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.

Complaint handling

The landlord has indicated that its stage 1 complaint response was provided on 30 November 2021, 37 days after the resident made her complaint via this Service. This was significantly over its committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above.

The landlord’s response of 30 November 2021 was not clear what stage the complaint was at and did not provide an outcome or escalation rights to the next stage of the procedure as is required by the Code. When this Service asked the landlord to provide a further response with the missing details, it did this but was still not clear and failed to include all of the necessary information. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its policy and the Code.
The lack of formal responses resulted in the resident chasing the landlord via this Service on at least 4 occasions and it was ultimately necessary for this Service to issue the landlord with a CHFO. A CHFO is issued where we have taken reasonable steps to seek engagement from a landlord, but the resident remains unable to progress a complaint. Despite issuing the CHFO in August 2022, the landlord still failed to provide a final response that was compliant with the Code. This resulted in the Ombudsman accepting the resident’s complaint early for investigation. This action shows that the landlord’s internal complaints process failed, as it did not properly assess the resident’s concerns and missed the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to follow its policy or comply with the Code and this resulted in the resident taking additional time and trouble to chase up formal responses that were never provided. This would have been confusing and frustrating for her. The landlord’s failure to properly address the resident’s complaints would have left her feeling as though it did not value her concerns and with no faith that it would resolve the issues. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £500 compensation.

Record keeping

There are gaps in the landlord’s records, which mean it is not clear what it has done or why in some situations. It is important that landlords keep detailed and accurate records so it can account for its actions to residents and this Service, where required. Detailed records also allow the landlord to review its actions as part of its complaints process and provide meaningful responses, which did not happen in this case. This meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to identify any failings and put things right at an earlier stage.
There are also inaccuracies in the landlord records, particularly in relation to its repair records, which mean it is not clear when things happened. This means that the landlord is unable to properly monitor its actions in line with its internal targets and commitments to its residents. The poor record keeping in relation to works orders contributed to the delay in the handling of the damp and mould in this case, which caused detriment to the resident.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
  1. planned maintenance works.
  2. resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. formal complaint.
  4. record keeping.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the central heating system.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide consistent and meaningful updates to the resident regarding the progress of the planned works, which resulted in her chasing updates on at least 9 occasions. It appropriately offered her a temporary move and, when declined, followed up to ensure practical arrangements were in place for works to go ahead safely. While the majority of inspections and appointments were explained and followed up, this was not the case on 2 occasions and this would have been frustrating for the resident and left her feeling that they were a waste of time. The landlord records are incomplete, which is a concern as it is not clear why or how it reached its decisions in some situations.
The landlord responded to the 18 reports of no heating or hot water in line with its repairs policy. When the resident raised concerns about the central heating system in May 2022, the landlord carried out a check of the system, even though no specific issues were identified. This was reassuring and showed that it took the matter seriously. Over 3 months in 2022 the resident reported 13 incidents of no heating and hot water and while the landlord had already identified that a replacement was required, it was only after the resident chased this up on at least 3 occasions, that the landlord chased its contractor for the works to progress.
The landlord inspected the property within 6 weeks when damp and mould was reported in April 2022, but it was a further 8 months before a works order was raised for the repairs to be carried out. This unreasonable and avoidable delay meant the resident and her vulnerable children were left living in a damp and mouldy property for an extended period of time.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confused and required a lot of intervention from this Service, including the issue of a CHFO. While some responses were provided, it never provided a final response that complied with the Code, meaning the landlord missed the chance to properly assess the resident’s concerns and put things right at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s records were incomplete and inaccurate. This meant it was unable to provide meaningful complaint responses and contributed to the delay in the handling of the damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Inspect the kitchen to identify any areas of concern in relation to the replacement works and provide a written update to the resident confirming what, if any, additional works it will carry out.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the:
  1. planned maintenance.
  2. damp and mould.
  3. formal complaint.
3. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for its handling of planned maintenance.
  2. £100 for its handling of repairs to the central heating system.
  3. £300 for its handling of damp and mould.
  4. £500 for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
2. the importance of keeping detailed records with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management – KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
3. a best practice approach to damp and mould with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report – Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 6 weeks.

In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practices in relation to how it records changes to planned maintenance. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. Following the review, the landlord should produce a written report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review;
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future, including how it will share any learning and embed changes across the organisation.
The landlord to provide an update to this Service on its progress at 4 weeks, and evidence of full compliance within 12 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to how it records and tracks repairs being managed through the pre-action protocol stage of a legal disrepair claim. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include but not be limited to:
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred. Including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her vulnerabilities;
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by delayed repairs, being managed as part of the pre-action protocol stage of a legal disrepair claim from April 2021 to present day.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a written report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review, including how it will ensure that it can accurately monitor repairs being managed through the pre-action protocol stage of a legal disrepair claim, against its committed repair response times;
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future, including how it will share the learning and embed changes across the organisation;
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord to provide an update to this Service on its progress at 4 weeks, and evidence of full compliance within 12 weeks.