Westminster City Council (202212609)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212609

Westminster City Council

14 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property and has lived there since 2001. The property is a 2 bedroom, top floor flat in a block with 5 floors. She lives with her husband, 2 adult children and a son who has autism. English is not the resident’s first language and she had used a representative to correspond with the landlord and this Service.
The landlord does not have a repairs policy however the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside of the building, including services that supply water and sanitation. The landlord categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency – those which pose an immediate health and safety risk. The landlord will respond within 2 – 4 hours.
2. Urgent – such as plumbing works and blockages. The landlord will respond and start work within 24 hours.
3. Non-urgent – these will be arranged by appointment. These include more substantial repairs e.g. damp proof courses and major repairs including structural work, roofing works etc.
The landlords compensation policy says:
1. When making an assessment for compensation it should consider resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. Compensation amounts are stated as follows:
  1. Low impact, compensation up to £250.
  2. Medium impact, compensation of £250 to £700.
  3. High impact, compensation over £700.
3. Compensation should be offset against any debt or arrears unless the money is intended as reimbursement for costs incurred.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At both stages it aims to respond within 10 working days. If more time is required, the landlord will let the resident know. It states that a complaint can be made through a representative or advocate such as a family member, friend, solicitor, Citizen’s Advice Bureau or a local Councillor, Member of Parliament etc.

Summary of events

On 15 February 2022, a contractor advised the landlord that during its investigation of a leak in another property in the block, it had been given entry to the resident’s property. It had seen that the resident’s ceilings and walls were wet. The contractor stated that he suspected there was a leak coming from the roof and that a surveyor should attend. The following day the landlord raised a job for a surveyor to attend as a ‘routine priority’.
On 16 February 2022, the representative submitted an advocacy form to the landlord, signed by the resident, to enable her to communicate with the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
On 10 March 2022, a contractor attended and noted there was debris and blocked drains. These were cleared on 16 March 2022.
The landlord attended to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident on 12 April 2022, however this was declined by the resident.
During April 2022, a local MP contacted the landlord, on behalf of a different resident, about a roof leak which had been ongoing for 2 years. The landlord assured the MP that it had resolved the leak in mid-March 2022.
On 4 May 2022 a surveyor attended to take damp meter readings at the resident’s property. The findings of this have not been provided to this Service, however, the representative’s communication to the landlord stated that the readings were between 600-999 and were wet. Subsequently a meeting took place at the resident’s property on 10 May 2022 with the landlord and a surveyor. The landlord has not provided details of this but the representative stated that the landlord agreed there was damp, however the surveyor could not confirm the cause. She stated that the cause was believed to be condensation from the bathroom. The landlord agreed to replace the bath, move the bath taps, fit a new extractor fan and replace the shower curtain with a glass screen. This work was completed on 18 May 2022.
The representative chased the landlord for updates about the source of the leak throughout June 2022. Another meeting was subsequently arranged for 27 June 2022 at the resident’s property. The landlord however did not arrange for all of the required contractors to attend and so the meeting was rearranged for 29 June 2022. On 29 June 2022 a contractor went into the roof space and found wet concrete and a possible leak from the water tank. It was not possible to check the north gulley, as the roofers were not present.
On 15 July 2022 roofing contractors attended and works were subsequently done to the roof on 8 August 2022. It is not clear what these works were.
On 12 August 2022 a positive airway pressure system was installed in the resident’s property.
On 8 September 2022 the representative submitted a complaint on behalf of the resident and stated as follows:
1. A leak (suspected to come from the roof above the resident’s property) had been unresolved for 4 to 5 years. The walls of the property were damp with mould, and the wallpaper was coming away. Despite work being done to the roof, the bedroom remained damp.
2. In February 2022 other residents had reported water leaking from the resident’s property into properties below. This had first been reported by other residents in 2020.
3. Despite saying the leak had been resolved in March 2022, the surveyor found that the residents walls were wet in May 2022. The landlord had concluded that this was caused by condensation from the bathroom.
4. There was a hole in the ceiling boxing which revealed a dripping pipe and daylight could be seen through it.
5. In preparation for a meeting with the landlord on 27 June 2022 the resident had dismantled the bed in bedroom 2 and three family members had to sleep in the front room. Not all of the required contractors had been booked by the landlord to attend the meeting.
6. Roofing contractors had arrived unannounced on 8 August 2022 but had not carried out a “flood test”. A further appointment had been arranged for 16 August 2022 for this to be done. The contractor did not attend and the landlord has subsequently declined the request for a flood test.
7. The resident had made an application for a larger property in 2016 but had not been rehoused. The family were living in unacceptable, damp and crowded conditions. The resident had to share a room with her son and her husband slept in the front room.
On 9 September2022 the landlord spoke to the resident’s daughter. It advised that the third-party representative could not act on the resident’s behalf as she was not a legal advocate. It advised that the complaint would be reassigned to the resident. The representative contacted the landlord the same day and stated that the landlord was trying to block the resident from submitting a complaint. She explained that she had previous submitted a signed advocacy form and that it had not been possible to attach one to the complaint. She stated that the landlord’s behaviour was “outrageous and bullying”.
On 21 September 2022, a contractor attended the property and found no damp in the walls and advised that it could be redecorated. That same day the representative asked the landlord when it would respond to her complaint. It advised her that it would do so by 3 October 2022. It later extended this to 13 October 2022.
On 17 October, a contractor attended and advised that the water ingress may not be from an issue with the pointing and that the boxing in the bedroom needed opening up to investigate.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 19 October 2022. A copy has not been provided to this Service however from the landlord’s subsequent records it advised that it was unable to investigate matters that were more than 12 months old. It acknowledged that a leak had been reported in February 2022 and that work had been carried out to identify and resolve the leak. It offered £160 for the delay and impact. It is not clear if this was for the delay in carrying out the work or with the complaint response.
On 28 October 2022 the representative escalated the complaint and said as follows:
1. The landlord had tried to block the resident from making a complaint.
2. The stage 1 response had not included signposting to the Housing Ombudsman.
3. The landlord’s advice that the problem could be an issue with the pointing was out of date.
4. The landlord had not addressed rehousing the resident.
5. There had been delays and the landlord had not shown care or respect to the resident.
On 14 November 2022, the representative contacted the landlord and stated that the resident still had condensation on her windows. She asked for this to be investigated along with the monitoring of a patch of damp. (It is not clear where this damp was.)
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 November 2022 and advised it would respond by 14 December 2022.
On 23 November 2022 a surveyor visited the property and advised that redecoration should not go ahead until the landlord was certain the leak had been resolved. A surveyor attended again on 25 November 2022 and recorded no readings of damp. The representative confirmed that the property looked and felt better. She reiterated this on 10 December 2022.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord advised the representative that it required more time to respond at stage 2 and that it would do so by 29 December 2022.
It is not clear when a further report of a leak was made but on 15 December 2022 a surveyor attended the property and noted that water might be entering via windows or brickwork and agreed to further investigate the roof area.
On 28 December 2022 the representative informed the landlord that rain had “splashed” onto the resident’s son whilst he was asleep. She advised that heavy rainfall in mid-August 2022 had not caused such leaking and questioned whether it could be a new leak. That same day the surveyor made an unannounced visit to the property during a period of “torrential” rainfall but found no water entering the property.
On 3 January 2023 the representative advised the landlord that the leak had got worse over the Christmas period. Internal correspondence from 4 January 2023 showed that the surveyor had tried to ascertain what findings had been made about the roof. He noted that there was contradictory information about whether the leak was caused by a repointing or a roofing issue. He noted that the repointing should have been to the whole area but that only 1sqm had been done. He requested a recall of both the repointing and roofing job. A contractor subsequently attended to check and clear the guttering, although the date of this is not clear.
The landlord noted internally on 6 January 2023 that it was not making any progress in resolving the leak and acknowledged that the resident was suffering. It asked for a clear plan of action and if a thermal imaging camera could be used to check for signs of where the water could be entering.
On 9 January 2023, the representative advised the landlord that she had a video of water dripping down the wall of the boxing in the bedroom and suggested that the boxing should be opened up.
On 12 January 2023 a leak detection contractor and surveyor inspected the property. It was found that there was severe condensation forming on the mains water supply, which if not the source of the leak, could be a contributing factor. It was agreed that the mains supply pipe to the property needed to be insulated and a CCTV survey of the drains on the roof conducted.
That same day the representative advised the landlord as follows:
1. The contractors had accessed the walkways and the roof but due to the weather it had not been safe to enter the roof space.
2. The boxing in the property had been removed and the copper pipe was cold and dripping as it had been in February 2022. This had dripped onto the new ceiling box in December 2022. The landlord had put duct tape around the ceiling box to try to stop the drip but this had not worked.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord raised a job for “Ferring pieces” to be fitted along the sides of the roof to prevent water pooling.
On 17 January 2023 the surveyor advised the representative that it was awaiting parts before scheduling the works to insulate the pipework with lagging. The resident chased this up the following day.
The representative contacted this Service on 29 January 2023 and said that the landlord’s lack of action was appalling. She explained that the resident and her son were still sleeping with their heads at the foot of the bed to avoid being dripped on.
The representative chased the landlord again on 31 January 2023 about the thermal lagging insulation. She said that the lack of communication felt like a lack of care and commitment. The landlord’s surveyor advised her the following day that he had chased the supplier but had received no response. He said he would continue to chase it.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said as follows:
1. A leak had been located in the roof space and a post work inspection had found it had remedied the leak, however there were still areas within the property with high moisture readings. Pointing works had been arranged and it had agreed to monitor the progress of the works. It had been in regular contact with the representative and would continue to do so until the leak was resolved.
2. The resident was registered on the medical transfer list for a 4-bedroomed property. Her position on the list was 13. It let its properties in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme. It confirmed that the resident would need to bid for properties via the website.
3. It had no record of a signed consent form having been sent at the time the stage 1 complaint was submitted (the form allowed for documents to be attached). As a result, it had requested a signed form, which was provided on 9 September 2022. There was no evidence that it had tried to block the resident from being represented. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
4. It had acknowledged and apologised at stage 1 for the delays which had been caused by the poor management of the repair. This had been reflected in its offer of compensation.
5. The stage 1 response had included information on how to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It was the stage 2 response within which it would signpost to the Housing Ombudsman. This aspect was not upheld.
6. It acknowledged that there has been some confusion regarding the source of the water ingress and that it was a complex issue. It apologised that it had given conflicting advice in October 2022 when the cause was still unclear. Works had been completed in November 2022 to seal around the windows and repair any damaged tiles to the exterior windowsills. A subsequent inspection on 9 January 2023 found that moisture readings from the walls were almost zero. The readings of the wallpapered areas were higher due its absorbency. Going forward it would insulate the mains water riser pipework as the cold pipe may be causing condensation. It would also arrange to enter the roof space to assess any other issues that may be causing the water ingress along with the mains water tank and supplies. This would be carried out when the weather improved.
7. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response and for not keeping the resident updated. It concluded that the complaint was partially upheld as it had taken some time to trace and remedy the leak. It offered a total of £180 compensation as follows:
  1. £160 (as offered at stage 1) for the inconvenience caused and the resident’s time and trouble.
  2. £20 in recognition of the delays in providing the stage 2 response.
8. This compensation would be offset against any outstanding arrears on the resident’s rent account. Any remaining funds would be credited to her bank account.
On 3 February 2023 the surveyor noted internally that he had attended the property (the date is not clear) and found that the insulation had been rolled away to one side of the roof which was likely to be causing cold bridging to the ceilings in the resident’s property below. He noted that he had raised a works order for this to be re-instated. He noted that there was a mains supply which had a stop cock fitted but that it had no stop end. He asked for an order to be raised for this to be fitted.
On 6 February 2023 the surveyor advised the representative that he had chased the supplier for the lagging material on a number of occasions but had received no response. He advised that he had raised works for the insulation and the stop cock. The resident responded the same day and stated that the matter with the supplier should be escalated as it was unacceptable.
The landlord arranged for works to be done on 3 March 2023 including cutting open the rainwater goods, surveying with a camera and repairing where necessary. It noted internally that it had taken time for this to be arranged as it needed to access three properties in the block simultaneously to carry out the repairs. It noted that the lagging to the mains water supply was booked for 16 February 2023.
On 10 February 2023 the representative advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the stage 2 response as follows:
1. The landlord had not addressed the lack of respect it had shown to the resident nor its discrimination towards her.
2. Contractors did not properly resolve issues.
3. The landlord’s communication was lacking and she had to chase it to get the work done.
4. Its suggestion that it had not tried to block her from representing the resident was untrue.
5. The landlord showed a lack of empathy towards the resident and her family in considering her housing request.
6. The offer of £20 compensation was not commensurate with the number of emails and phone calls, nor the frustration and upset she had experienced on behalf of the resident.
On 10 February 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She stated that the leak had not been fixed and that a pipe was still dripping in the ceiling boxing of the resident’s bedroom.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 16 February 2023 the lagging of the pipes was completed. The landlord noted internally that during the appointment, it had accessed the roof and the cause of the leak appeared to be a blocked rain water gully and missing or loose roof tiles directly above the property. It noted that this needed repairing and that moss and debris along the parapets needed clearing.
The representative advised the landlord on 6 March 2023 that the drainage hole on the roof had been found to be too small for a camera inspection and the contractor had been reluctant to carry out a flood or dye test due to issues in accessing the roof. She said she had heard nothing further.
On 15 March 2023, the representative advised the landlord that the resident’s wet ceiling and walls seemed to have improved but that water ingress was still affecting other properties. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 21 March 2023. The contractor found that the lagging to the resident’s pipes was “absolutely soaking and dripping from the pipes” onto the ceiling boxes. The lagging around the rising pipe in the wall was also soaking wet. The contractor concluded that there must be a serious leak from the piping above the property. During the inspection the insulating material in the roof space above the resident’s property was found to be soaking wet. The landlord raised a job for this to be fixed. It advised that these works would be completed on 17 April 2023.
On 19 April 2023 the surveyor advised the representative that a contractor had identified an issue with the ball valve in the mains tank. The representative advised that she was disappointed to hear about a new leak affecting the resident’s property.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord conducted a “ follow-on inspection from ombudsman enquiry” of the property. It found as follows:
1. The external walls had loose thermal insulation. There was moderate to severe mould growth in the areas where it was loose.
2. In the rear bedroom, where the leak was occurring, the lagging was found to be waterlogged. The sleeve to the down service pipework and the surrounding wall was dry.
3. This leak was found to be from the tank of the down service that ran along the pipework.
4. The rear section of the roof needed to be re-inspected.
On 24 May 2023 the representative contacted the landlord and noted that the property appeared to be dry.
On 4 September 2023 the surveyor summarised in internal notes that the issue had been caused by condensation which had been exasperated by the issue of cold bridging due to the roof void having the insulation removed previously. The property would be having internal wall insulation, secondary glazing and improved ventilation around September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The representative has made reference to water ingress occurring at the resident’s property for a number of years. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that, as per its complaints policy, it could not investigate historic reports as it expects residents to raise such matters at the time in order for it to investigate and take appropriate action. This was reasonable and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). As such this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the reports of the leak which was brought it its attention in February 2022. It is noted that the representative raised further matters with the landlord after completion of its internal complaints procedure. These were directly linked to the landlord’s investigation into the water ingress complained about and so have been included in this investigation.
It should be noted that this Service is not able to determine the cause of the water ingress or whether the reports of leaks were related or involved new repair issues. This Service can however investigate whether the landlord responded and acted appropriately to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
The representative has stated that the behaviour of the landlord has been discriminatory. This Service is able to consider the handling of the complaint and its response to the resident being represented however it is not able to make findings on discrimination as such matters are better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress

When the landlord was made aware by a contractor on 15 February 2022 of water ingress and damp and mould at the resident’s property, it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. Although the involvement of a surveyor was appropriate, the landlord did not treat the report as a priority and instead it raised the inspection as a “routine” job. The landlord’s repairs categories do not expressly state which category of repair it considers reports of damp and mould to be. It would be appropriate however for the landlord to respond to such reports with some sense of urgency given the health risks associated with damp and mould. There is no evidence to show that a surveyor attended and no report was provided to this Service. The attendance of a surveyor would have been appropriate in the circumstances as the landlord should have undertaken a suitable investigation to identify any issues and identify responsibility for them. The landlord’s roofing team however, did attend on 10 March 2022, which was over three weeks later. This delay in inspecting the issue was not appropriate and did not show a resident-focused approach by the landlord.
A contractor cleared the guttering on 16 March 2022 and concluded that this had resolved the cause of the water ingress. Without confirmation that a surveyor had attended the property to fully investigate the cause, it cannot be determined that the landlord took appropriate action to properly investigate the cause of the water ingress at this time.
When the representative reported further water ingress, a surveyor attended in May 2022. This Service has not seen a copy of the survey and as such is reliant on the representative’s reports on what was identified, namely moisture in the walls. The landlord subsequently undertook work to the resident’s bathroom that same month advising the representative that condensation was causing the issue. It is not clear if the surveyor had inspected the roof in May 2022 however it is noted that a contractor identified a possible leak from the water tank in the roof on 29 June 2022. Despite this having been identified as a further possible source of the leak, the landlord did not arrange for roofing contractors to investigate until 15 July 2022. Following this, the work to the roof was not carried out until 8 August 2022 (this Service has not been provided with details about what these works were). This delay was not appropriate given that water was entering the resident’s property, causing damage and damp and mould.
It is noted that there was a period where the property appeared to be dry around September 2022. The representative however reported a further leak in October 2022 and a contractor subsequently advised that the boxing in the bedroom should be investigated. In response to this, the landlord sent a surveyor to the property, however this was not until 25 November 2022, over a month later. This was an unreasonable delay. Although it is noted that no damp was found, the landlord should have been proactive and arranged for the inspection to have taken place sooner following the contractor’s concerns. A subsequent surveyor inspection on 15 December 2022 identified an issue with water ingress and a recommendation for the roof to be inspected was made. It is not clear why this was not previously investigated. Despite the representative’s reports later that month and in January 2023 that the leak had worsened, an inspection was not done until 12 January 2023. This delay of almost a month was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of proactive monitoring of the issue from the landlord.
During this January inspection, an issue was identified with the pipe insulation. The works for this were not completed until 16 February 2023. This again was an unreasonable delay in actioning the required repair. It is noted that the representative spent time chasing the landlord for updates on this repair. The landlord’s responses stating that the supplier had not responded to its queries were not appropriate. Given the nature of the issues, with water damage being caused to the property and the associated damp and mould, the landlord did not show that it took any steps to source the materials from an alternative source given the issues it was having with its supplier.
Further investigation on 21 March 2023 revealed that the water may be from a “serious” leak from the piping above the property. Despite this having been identified, the landlord did not action the repair until mid-April 2023, a month later and more than a year after the resident’s initial reports.
It is clear that throughout the time the representative has reported water ingress, the landlord has not appropriately prioritised the required repairs, with the repairs generally taking around a month to be carried out on each occasion. This Service has not seen evidence to show that the landlord took prompt action to investigate the matter upon receiving the resident’s reports of water ingress. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took the vulnerabilities of the resident or the household into consideration, including the presence of a vulnerable child who was living in conditions of damp and mould, including in the bedroom.
It is clear that the landlord has not kept full records of the actions it took in response to the issues raised by the resident. There was no evidence provided to this Service of the following:
1. The initial survey, nor of the survey carried out in May 2022.
2. The date of the survey carried out prior to 3 February 2023.
3. Details of the visit of 10 May 2022.
4. The date the contractor attended to check and clear the guttering.
This Service expect landlord’s to retain accurate and contemporaneous records and then use these to inform their decision making and to provide an audit trail after the event. This was not done in this case and this poor record keeping contributed to the landlord’s overall failures.
When things have gone wrong, this Service expects the landlord to follow the dispute resolution principles and take steps to put things right for the resident and learn from its failings. The landlord acknowledged that it had not actioned the repairs quickly enough and it offered £160 to acknowledge the inconvenience of this on the resident. The landlord did not explain how it determined this figure which, following its compensation policy, would fall under the category of “low impact” where it considers compensation up to £250 to be appropriate.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failures nor to the impact caused to the resident. This Service does not agree with the landlord’s conclusion that the multiple delays had a low impact on the resident. It is clear from the representatives correspondence that the resident was vulnerable, with English not being her first language and that there was a vulnerable child present in the property. The landlord was aware that the family of 5 was living in the two-bedroom property which had damp and mould in the bedrooms. It is clear that living in such conditions, including having rain water drip onto the bed, would have a significant impact on the resident and her family. The landlord’s lack of prompt action to identify and repair the source(s) of the water ingress was not appropriate and exacerbated the damp and mould. The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the impact that its failings had on the resident whilst the issues were ongoing nor during its subsequent attempts to put things right through its internal complaints process. This amounts to maladministration.
This Service had determined that compensation of £700 is commensurate with the distress caused to the resident. This takes into consideration the resident’s vulnerability and that of her son, and the impact on the resident of the length of time the issues were ongoing. This amount is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The Code states that landlords should response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It is not clear why the landlord’s complaints policy provides a shorter timeframe than this at stage 2. A recommendation has been made for this to be reviewed below. It is expected that a stage 2 response would be a detailed investigation by a senior member of staff and the landlord holding itself to a period of 10 working days may not allow sufficient time for such an investigation.
The landlord provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of its 10 working day timeframe and outside of the timeframes stated in the Code. The stage 1 response took 29 working days. A copy of this response was not provided to this Service despite this being requested. This Service expects the landlord to have such complaint correspondence recorded on its system in order for it to be evidenced as appropriate. The stage 2 response took 67 working days. It is acknowledged that the landlord advised in December 2022 that it required longer to respond, however it is clear that the delays in the complaints procedure caused frustration to the resident.
The representative had submitted a signed advocacy form to the landlord enabling her to act on the resident’s behalf on 19 April 2022. As the landlord had this on record it was not appropriate for it to state that this had to be provided again with the stage 1 complaint. The landlord should have systems in place to ensure that it records when an advocacy form a been received and to ensure that staff in all department are aware of this. The landlord’s insistence that it would only communicate with the resident was inappropriate in the circumstances. Whilst this Service cannot determine that this was a deliberate attempt to block the resident’s complaint, it is clear that the landlord’s poor record keeping led to the distress this caused the resident. The landlord’s failure to identify that it had the signed permission on file was another example of how its poor information management and record keeping impacted the resident.
The landlord acknowledged that it’s responses to the complaints had been provided outside of its stated timeframe and it apologised for this. It also offered £20 compensation for the delays. The landlord has not stated how it determined this figure given the delays at both stages and the inappropriate actions of the landlord in not accepting the initial complaint, the landlord’s offer of redress was not commensurate with the distress caused to the resident. This amounts to maladministration.
In order to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the landlord declining to accept the complaint from the representative and for the delays in its complaint responses, compensation of £300 has been ordered. This takes into account the impact this had on the resident and that the delays in the complaint handling exacerbated the substantive issue of rectifying the water ingress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not action the required repairs within a timely manner. Although it acknowledged that it had not done so its offer of redress did not consider the resident’s vulnerability of those of the household.
The landlord inappropriately declined to accept the complaint made via the resident’s representative, which delayed its handling of the complaint . It’s offer of redress of £20 did not go far enough to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide evidence of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £1000 compensation directly to the resident. This is made up as follows:
  1. £700 to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s delays in identifying and actioning the repair issues had on the resident.
  2. £300 to acknowledge the impact and distress caused to the resident of the landlord declining to accept the complaint from the representative and for the delays in its complaint responses.
  3. If the landlord has paid the resident the £180 compensation previously offered, this is to be deducted from the total amount to be paid.
3. Arrange an inspection of the property to identify if the water ingress issue has been resolved and action any identified repairs within a further 2 weeks.
4. Review the case in relation to the record keeping failures and do so in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord to confirm to this Service its findings following this review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints procedure and compensation policy in accordance with the complaint handling code.
It is recommended that the landlord provide staff training on handling complaints made by representatives.