Westminster City Council (202210315)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210315

Westminster City Council

15 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. Reports of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom, third floor flat within a block comprised of tenanted and leasehold properties. The landlord is a local authority.
The leak and the landlord’s investigations primarily involved the resident’s flat, and two flats located above the resident’s property on the fourth and fifth floors. These will be referred to as flats A and B throughout this report. There were also investigations of other flats within the block.
The resident used a representative when dealing with the landlord and this Service. For ease of reference, the representative is also referred to as “the resident” throughout.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord discriminated against her as she was from another country, her spoken English was heavily accented, and her literacy and computer skills were poor. We may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and to the corresponding complaint handling.
This Service is bound by the rules of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42(a) states we may not consider a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022, responding to the resident’s complaint about the leak. Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP), the resident continued to raise the same repair issues. Given that the resident’s subsequent correspondence with the landlord involved a continuation of the issues within her original complaint, the landlord’s response post-ICP and its increased offer of compensation (May 2023) has been considered within this investigation.
Following the landlord’s revised complaint response in May 2023, the resident contacted this Service explaining that matters remained unresolved. We cannot consider events that occurred after the landlord’s revised complaint response in May 2023. The landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond within its complaint procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled their concerns.

Obligations

The leaseholder handbook states leaseholders are responsible for maintaining the interior of their property excluding any structural items and communal services.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond at both stages within 10 working days. Some complaints may need longer to investigate and where this is the case a holding response will be sent explaining the reason for the delay and when a resident should receive a full response.
The landlord’s repair policy states emergency repairs are made safe within 2-4 hours and urgent works are responded to within 24 hours. There is no specific timescale for more substantial repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation payments are awarded where there has been a service failure which caused inconvenience or loss to a resident. Residents who experience increased electrical costs and were issued council supplied dehumidifiers will be offered compensation. This is calculated at £2.50 per day. This later increased to £3.50 per day within a policy update.

Summary of events

The landlord has not provided the repair history for this property prior to April 2021.
The landlord’s records state the resident reported a leak on 17 April 2021 from the property upstairs. The job was recorded as cancelled as the operative was unable to access the property upstairs. The resident was asked to call back if the leak got worse.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 November 2021. She said the original leak started in December 2020. The damp patch dried over the summer but had since reappeared. A plumber attended on 16 November 2021 and left a calling card. The resident said she was not told about the appointment. The plumber reattended the following day. The landlord’s repair log states a surveyor was needed to assess the exterior brickwork.
The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 11 January 2022 about the leak. “No access” attendances were noted on 12 January 2022 and 25 January 2022. The repair record for this job states it was cancelled due to no access.
The landlord’s emails show that further work orders were raised to investigate the leak on 8 February 2022. The resident believed the leak was caused by the resident upstairs using a dishwasher. On 15 February 2022 records state that in flat A, wet pipework under the kitchen units was discovered and in flat B, the ceiling and walls were wet. A roof leak was suspected.
The roof was inspected on 16 February 2022. The landlord’s records stated that it seemed like the cause of the leak affecting flat B was a blocked rainwater gully and missing/loose roof tiles. Additionally, moss and debris along the parapets needed cleaning. The landlord raised a job for this.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 February 2022. She said:
1. She reported damp in the walls around the window of the second bedroom in October 2021. This Service notes that within the complaint email, the resident then references October 2020, so the reference to 2021 is likely to be a mistake. She started to receive visits from contractors, but these never fixed the problem.
2. She had at least 7 visits up until November 2021. She was regularly emptying water from a dehumidifier and staining remained on the walls. There was a distinct leak travelling down the wall from her ceiling. She was told that the leak was not coming from her flat.
3. She was concerned about discrimination due to the length of time the matters were ongoing and felt her heavily accented English and poor literacy skills contributed to the landlord’s treatment of her.
4. Another investigation was meant to take place on 15 February 2022, along with the resident’s independent consultant between 12:30 and 14:30. However, the landlord’s plumber turned up at 11:00. When the plumber returned at 12:30, they were unable to access one of the flats within the building but inspected others, identifying several issues with damp.
5. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of action in resolving the leak. She asked the landlord to confirm how many contacts it had received from flats A and B regarding a leak since October 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 February 2022. It extended the response date on 2 occasions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 March 2022. It said:
1. A pre-inspection was raised on 25 October 2021 to assess the damp and condensation within the property. A surveyor attended on 2 November 2021 and a job was raised to further investigate the damp.
2. A contractor attended on 15 November 2021 but could not gain access. On 23 November 2021, an operative said a surveyor was required to assess the exterior of the building.
3. A surveyor attended on 15 December 2021. They saw the leak coming through the bedroom and inspected the property above. However, they could not find evidence of a leak and advised further monitoring was required.
4. On 11 January 2022, a new job was raised to investigate the issue which was now affecting several flats. In early February 2022, there were several unsuccessful attempts to access the property above. Access was arranged on 15 February 2022, to which the operative concluded the leak could be coming from the roof. A job was raised with the roofing team.
5. The roofing team attended on 10 March 2022 and 16 March 2022. They cleaned the gutters and drains to the main roof. They observed it was a newly felted roof with no visible defects.
6. Due to data protection regulations, it could not comment on the works that were taking place in other properties but confirmed it was arranging for its surveyor to inspect tenanted properties to assess internal damage.
7. As the resident was a leaseholder, she needed to claim for any damage to internal decorations through the buildings insurance policy.
8. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak. It acknowledged service failure as not all jobs were attended within the given timeframe, however there were access issues.
9. Having checked its systems, it was unable to see that the issue was reported 18 months ago. It said the first repair for this was raised in October 2021.
10. It offered the resident £22 compensation for 22 days of delays attending jobs and £31 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above delays.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 30 March 2022. She said:
1. She had photos from November 2020 and job numbers from December 2020 to evidence the leak was initially reported before October 2021.
2. The compensation offered was inadequate. Her son (with health problems) had to sleep in another room. Additionally, the resident had experienced over a year of phone calls and visits with no resolution to the problem.
3. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of oversight and management of its contractors, and its lack of commitment to resolve the problem. Furthermore, the contractor turned up earlier than the agreed time for the meeting scheduled with her consultant.
4. She wanted the landlord to examine performance criteria or operating procedures of its contractors and look at how it escalates jobs and complaints that are not resolved.
5. She wanted a review of the compensation, including costs for running the dehumidifier.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022. She said she did not know whether the leak in the roof above flat B was fixed. She asked for a leak test to be completed on the roof. She followed up a week later asking whether her property was now dry and if she could redecorate. A councillor was contacted on 27 April 2022 as the resident was concerned the matter was unresolved.
The landlord contacted the councillor on 1 May 2022. It said the leak was resolved in mid-March 2022 and that surveyors would attend the affected properties on 4 May 2022 to take damp meter readings to demonstrate the affected areas had dried out.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2022, following the inspection the previous day. It said that the areas directly below the roof had lower damp readings, indicating drying. However, other walls were damp. The surveyor suspected there might be concealed secondary leaks in the stacks that run through the building. A job was raised to investigate this. At the same time, it had instructed plumbers to conduct flood tests to the roof.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022. It said:
1. It apologised that the level of customer service received had fallen below the standards expected for residents.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had initially reported a leak within the bedroom in December 2020, although it could not evidence reports from November 2020.
3. It was unable to investigate issues that were more than 12 months old. As such, it would consider matters from February 2021, 12 months before the complaint was initially made in February 2022.
4. It apologised that it did not reference the resident’s purchase of a dehumidifier within its stage 1 response.
5. It had seen no evidence that the resident previously made it aware that her son was unable to use the bedroom.
6. It acknowledged that there were several visits by contractors to investigate and identify the leak, and it remained unresolved for some time.
7. Occupants of the homes above the resident’s property were not reporting any dampness or damage occurring within their own homes. Efforts to locate the leak were concentrated on the leak being directly from above and not due to a defect in the structure.
8. It apologised for the miscommunication between office staff and an operative regarding appointment times, and that no-one contacted the resident’s consultant with appointment information.
9. Following a site visit on 15 February 2022, arrangements were made for its roofing and abseiling contractor to conduct a roof inspection. They attended on 10 March 2022 and found the gutters and drains blocked at roof level with moss and debris, causing water to flow down the side of the building rather than down the rainwater pipework.
10. Contractors attended the following day and cleared the debris. They conducted a water test and confirmed water was now being removed from the roof and gutters via the rainwater pipework and no longer cascading down the façade of the building into the homes below.
11. It upheld the resident’s complaint as the resolution of the leak took far too long and it should have been more proactive in its investigations.
12. It revised its compensation and offered an apology and £547 comprised of:
  1. £62 for the service failure and delay (offered at stage 1).
  2. £75 for the running costs of the dehumidifier.
  3. £390 for the delays and inconvenience in resolving the leak from February 2021 to March 2022.
  4. £20 for the delay in its complaint response

Events after the end of the internal complaint procedure

The resident chased for updates several times throughout June 2022. In August 2022, she asked the landlord to take further damp readings in her property to see whether it was dry. The landlord stated that as the resident was a leaseholder, she would normally be responsible for internal problems. However, it would arrange for a surveyor to contact her to obtain readings. From the evidence available, it is not clear whether it did this.
A leak detection team attended on 21 September 2022. They said the water ingress was via external brickwork and compromised pointing. The landlord’s repair log from this time states roof works had been completed two weeks ago, with the renewal of roof tiles and clearing and application of gutter sealants. It was recommended that the external brickwork outside the flat should be checked/assessed by a specialist roofer, who should then reseal windowsills and repair/renew all damaged pointing and brickwork.
A repair record has not been provided to this Service for repairs/visits that took place after September 2022.
The resident said repointing and brickwork repairs took place on 7 and 8 November 2022.
On 23 November 2022, an email from the landlord’s complaints surveyor states most areas around the windows had low damp readings but one patch was reading higher and suspected to be coming from the boxing. They recommended that the leak detection team opened the boxing.
The resident complained to the landlord again about damp and water marks on her ceiling on 28 November 2022. She had purchased a damp meter and was still obtaining high damp readings. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord recorded another complaint.
There is an internal email from the landlord dated 2 December 2022 stating it believed the work was now complete and would require monitoring for any further water ingress.
During early December 2022, the resident chased for an update several times. She told the landlord that the leak could not have been fixed as her property remained damp. The landlord said the wallpaper was likely retaining the water in the walls and required stripping to allow it to dry out. The resident agreed to continue to use the dehumidifier.
The landlord attended the property on 15 December 2022. It noted the moisture readings were going down. The resident said at this time, there had been no rain. On 23 December 2022, the resident reported that after heavy rain, the moisture readings were high, and the dehumidifier was extracting much more water.
A joint site visit took place on 11 January 2023. The landlord agreed for the cast iron down pipe to be checked with a camera. The boxing was removed in other flats above the resident’s and wet pipework was discovered. It was agreed to open all the boxing in the resident’s flat.
The resident chased for updates over the next few weeks. She was informed on 10 February 2023 that the boxing would be opened on 17 February 2023 and drainage would be examined by camera on 3 March 2023. The camera inspection did not take place as the drainage hole was too small. The contractor requested flood tests instead. This Service has seen no evidence of these tests.
A further site visit took place on 21 March 2023. The resident said from this visit it was determined that the rising main in the roof space above flat B was leaking and the damp in the resident’s flat may be affected by this. The primary cause of the damp could be through the outside wall or from an issue with drainage pipes beneath the kitchen of flat A.
The landlord informed this Service on 5 April 2023 that it had requested a joint inspection between a damp and mould specialist and a property surveyor, in addition to a mould wash. Once the outcome of the inspection and action plan was complete, it would write to the resident and offer further compensation.
The landlord informed the resident on 18 April 2023 that works had been completed. When she asked for more information about what was done, the landlord did not provide specific details. However, it mentioned an issue with a ball valve on a water tank which was subsequently replaced.
The resident was concerned by this information. She felt the faulty ball valve was a new source of a leak to flat B, rather than a resolution of the issues previously identified. She asked if the contractors had commented on the condition of the rising main and whether there was a report or photos. She confirmed her damp readings were low and said she would wait for more rain.
A damp and mould survey took place on 26 April 2023. The survey states that 11 issues were identified, however these were not described within the survey seen by this Service. It said the areas in question were acceptably dry.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord issued a letter titled “formal update on complaint”. It summarised the previous offer within its stage 2 response and said:
1. The resident reported in June 2022 that there was still a leak.
2. The senior property surveyor said the leak had been sporadic since March 2022.
3. It was unacceptable that the leak continued, and it recognised the inconvenience caused.
4. Contractors attended on 13 March 2023 and fixed the issue with the water tank which had since stopped the leak. A damp and mould survey on 26 April 2023 confirmed the areas affected by the leak were drying out.
5. It would replace a small area of plasterboard and the resident was to arrange remaining works through her insurance.
6. Following the stage 2 response, it identified further service failings including a delay in organising the repairs and a failure to escalate the complaint following the resident’s contact.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,658 comprised of:
  1. £500 for service failings including delays arranging repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £200 for complaint handling.
  3. £958 for running the dehumidifier from 11 March 2022 to 13 March 2023
In June 2023, the resident found higher damp readings within her property after thunderstorms. She followed up with the landlord regarding this several times and agreed to monitor damp readings over a period of 2 weeks. Additionally, when taking the readings, she would note when the tenant above used their washing machine.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s damp readings. It said it was not clear whether rainwater was entering the property at all. It asked her to continue to monitor.
On 7 August 2023, the landlord’s director of housing offered to meet with the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns. He said his priority was to resolve all outstanding matters and rebuild the resident’s trust in the housing service.
The landlord said it would arrange for a quote for scaffolding for the outside wall to be examined. It said it was likely this would exceed Section 20 limits and therefore its leasehold team would need to conduct a Section 20 consultation.
A joint meeting took place on 26 September 2023 with the resident, her representative, the director of housing and the service improvement lead. The resident said they discussed the history of the complaint, the service received throughout and the current position in the resident’s flat.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 November 2023, explaining that the leak remained unresolved, and the landlord had been unresponsive.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In adjudicating this, the Ombudsman considers 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.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property

It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks. It can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake.
However, in this case, the delay in identifying and remedying the leak between December 2020 onwards was extensive and unreasonable. This was likely to have caused significant inconvenience to the resident and it is evident she spent time and trouble pursuing updates and a resolution from the landlord.
It is noted that the landlord maintains the leak was resolved in March 2023. The resident believes the matter is ongoing. It is not for this Service to decide whether there is or is not an ongoing leak within the property. Rather, we have considered matters up to 9 May 2023, as per paragraphs 7 and 8.
The Ombudsman appreciates it can be difficult to identify the reason why a property is damp and has water staining, and this may be caused by a combination of things. This is why investigations must be managed effectively and handled with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously early-on, proactively managed the investigations or completed a comprehensive survey at the earliest opportunity.
It is concerning that the landlord’s repair record for the resident’s property state a “fairly bad leak” was recorded in April 2021, yet the work order was cancelled in view of no access to the upstairs property. It was inappropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to call back if things got worse, rather than making a follow up appointment and taking ownership of getting to the root cause of the leak. Additionally, the landlord evidenced work orders were cancelled due to access issues with neighbouring properties. The landlord missed opportunities to pursue its investigations and attempt to resolve the leak at an earlier stage.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord has not evidenced active management of the damp investigations and repairs throughout. For instance, at stage 2 the landlord said it resolved the leak in March 2022, but in the days prior to the stage 2 response being issued, the walls were identified as damp by the landlord’s surveyor. It seems that the landlord was not fully aware of what works had been actioned, repair timescales, or what works were outstanding. Furthermore, in December 2022, the landlord said in an internal email, “could we please stipulate what flat the leak is coming from I can’t figure it out by going through the emails, also what steps are being taken to rectify the leak”. It is a concern that the landlord’s own staff member was unable to comprehend the current position with the leak. The landlord’s overall lack of ownership and oversight is a serious failing in this case.
Information provided by the landlord suggested surveyors inspected the resident’s property on several occasions and identified areas of damp. However, apart from one report dated 26 April 2023, this Service has not seen documentary evidence of this. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided reports from these inspections. Additionally, there is reference to leak detection tests within the landlord’s emails, however no evidence of these tests has been shared with this Service.
The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s record keeping, since the records provided do not include all details of what happened at every repair appointment or inspection. The repair history for the property shows 6 different work orders from April 2021 to September 2022. The communal repairs log shows 1 work order for the roof. Additionally, events referred to in the emails provided to this Service by the landlord do not appear on its repair logs, and neither do the work orders quoted by the resident from December 2020. Landlords and contractors should be aware of a landlord’s record management procedure and adhere to this. The landlord’s lack of clarity over the actions of its contractors also indicates there were shortcomings in its record keeping and management.
It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
From the limited information available, it is evident the resident was not updated regularly and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to drive the repairs forward. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 and offered compensation. In May 2023, the landlord increased its offer to £500 for the service failure, delays, distress, and inconvenience caused, £200 for the complaint handling failures, and £958 for the costs of running the dehumidifier.
This Service has separately considered complaint handling below. While the resident is minded the compensation for the dehumidifier use was higher than it cost to run, the Ombudsman finds that it was fair for the landlord to calculate the dehumidifier payment in line with its own compensation policy (as per paragraph 13) as if it had provided the dehumidifier to the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s view, compensation of £500 to reflect the service failings, repair delays and the impact on the resident was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The landlord failed to offer suitable redress to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience or the time and trouble she spent pursuing an effective and lasting repair before, during and after the end of the complaints process. Appropriate orders have been made to reflect this below.
In conclusion, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed reports of a leak and damp within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to communicate effectively. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. Taken altogether, this constitutes maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained on 23 February 2022. The stage 1 response was issued on 29 March 2022 – almost 5 weeks later. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 30 March 2022. The stage 2 response was issued on 11 May 2022 – 6 weeks later. As such, the landlord exceeded the complaint response timescale set out in its own complaint policy.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) published in July 2020 is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord exceeded the timescales within the Code when responding at stage 1. This is a service failure. However, it did send holding responses advising of a new response date. The landlord responded within 28 working days at stage 2, considering the bank holidays and weekends. As such, the Ombudsman concludes the landlord adhered to the Code complaint handling timescales at stage 2.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord has updated its complaint policy since the resident’s complaint. Its response timescales are now in line with the Code.
At stage 1, the landlord summarised the actions it had taken. It identified delays in resolving the leak, however it did not take full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident or consider the impact on her and her family. It did not examine its decision making or identify where it could have acted proactively to get the leak resolved at the earliest opportunity. It also did not consider its overall communication. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and uphold the complaint, however the Ombudsman is minded that the compensation offered of £62 was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website). Additionally, the landlord failed to acknowledge its delay in responding to the complaint.
At stage 2, the landlord responded to the points raised in the resident’s complaint escalation email and offered additional compensation to recognise the delay resolving the leak, the delay in responding and the cost of running a dehumidifier for 1 month in addition to the sum previously offered at stage 1. While it was appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its position, the Ombudsman is concerned that the stage 2 response was written as though the leak had been resolved. The landlord’s email to the resident’s representative dated 6 May 2022 (prior to the stage 2 response) acknowledged that walls were still damp and further investigations were required to explore a suspected secondary leak from the 2 stacks that ran through the building. Additionally, the landlord had agreed to conduct flood tests to the roof. It was inappropriate for the landlord to omit this information from its stage 2 response.
When further works are required to diagnose and resolve a problem, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to reflect this within its final complaint response and set out the next steps with defined timescales, and to monitor repairs through to completion. It was a significant failure that the landlord did not do this. Taken altogether, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship.
Under the Dispute Resolution Principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. Within its complaint responses, the landlord did not identify any steps it would take to improve future service to its residents in respect of investigations into damp, water ingress, repairs, communication, and complaint handling. We require a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar failures will not occur in the future. Additionally, to evidence specific learning from a resident’s experience to improve its service provision and management of complex works. The lack of learning here is a service failure.
At both complaint stages, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concern about being treated differently due to her origin, accented English and poor literacy and computer skills. At stage 2, the landlord did not explore the resident’s concern that her son had to sleep in another room for a year. The Code expects a landlord to address all complaint points within its complaint response, and while the resident’s comment about her son’s sleeping arrangement was not raised in the initial complaint, the landlord ought to have reasonably explored this through the complaint escalation. It is a complaint handling failure that the landlord did not consider all the resident’s complaint points. The landlord also failed to explore whether it could offer any reasonable adjustments to the resident to improve the communication and understanding between the parties.
In May 2023, a year after the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (“ICP”), the landlord issued a formal update on the resident’s previous complaint. Although the landlord did a follow-on review and revised compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it did not thoroughly investigate the continued failings, the reasons for it and how it would finally resolve the leak and damp.
Within the formal update on the complaint, the landlord accepted it did not respond to the resident’s reports of a continuation of the leak in June 2022. It said the leak was resolved in March 2023 and a site visit in April 2023 found the property to be drying out. The landlord recognised its delays in arranging repairs and its failure to escalate the complaint. It offered £200 for the complaint handling failures. Considering the failures identified within this report, the Ombudsman concludes that the final compensation awarded by the landlord for its complaint handling is insufficient to recognise the resident’s experience and the detriment caused to her.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the length of time this occurred for, and the impact on the resident, this constitutes maladministration. As such, appropriate orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed reports of damp and a leak within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and communication failures were identified throughout. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management, despite the landlord being aware of the longstanding problem. There were several unreasonable and unexplained delays and missed opportunities for the landlord to put things right following the complaint. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord did not respond at stage 1 within the timescales set out in the Code. It did not identify any learning from the complaint to improve its future service. It failed to demonstrate that it improved its repairs provision following the resident’s initial complaint. It did not use the complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issue or improve the landlord/resident relationship.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the failures identified within this report.
2. Inspect the property to establish if there are any outstanding repairs that it is required to complete in relation to the leak(s). It must provide the resident with a report stating what the repairs are (if applicable) and a target timescale for completion. A copy of this report is to be shared with this Service.
3. Agree a defined action plan with the resident to consider her concerns regarding the moisture readings in the property. A copy of the action plan is to be shared with this Service.
4. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 to reflect the repair delays, poor communication and overall distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £400 to reflect the overall complaint handling failures and the time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the complaint.
5. Make its previous offer for dehumidifier costs (£958) available to the resident should she wish to accept it.
6. Review its actions from May 2023 to date and consider whether any further compensation should be paid to the resident.
7. Review its record-keeping practices against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy to ensure appropriate recording of responsive repairs reports, appointments and repair works.
The landlord should consider amending its repair policy to include timescales for all types of repairs.
The landlord should let us know its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.