Wolverhampton City Council (202101642)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101642

Wolverhampton City Council

22 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. leaks, damp and mould;
  2. various other repairs;
  3. equality concerns;
2. Complaint handling;
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and her tenancy began in late 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority. The resident works from home. She occupies the property with her young children. One of the children has asthma.
The landlord provided a sample tenancy agreement. It shows:
1. The landlord is obliged to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. It must also, unless supplied by the resident, keep the installations in repair and proper working order, or replace them if they are beyond repair. This includes heating and power supply equipment.
2. The resident is obliged to keep the property clean and in good decorative order. She is also responsible for repairing and maintaining certain items including broken doors. In addition, she is responsible for any repairs or works that, in the landlord’s opinion, are not due to fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s repair policy shows it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its routine and planned repair timescales are 20 and 90 calendar days respectively. The landlord’s website shows emergency repairs are deemed to cause a health and safety risk.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant policy, effective 2020, shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. Additional time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed.
The landlord aims to be fair and proportionate when resolving complaints. Its complaints policy shows it can consider awarding discretionary compensation on a “without prejudice” basis. This means without accepting any legal liability to pay compensation. When considering compensation, the landlord considers the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, and the seriousness of any other unfair impact.

Summary of events

On 7 February 2020 the landlord raised a works order to inspect damp and mould in the property. Its repair history shows no completion date was recorded and the “inspection result” was left blank. This suggests no inspection took place.
The next related repair order was raised on 26 August 2020. The notes said “fungi bathroom and bedroom as req”. The recorded completion date was 9 July 2021. This was around 10 months after the order was raised. The total order cost was recorded as £17.34. This indicates anti-mould paint may have been used.
A works order raised on 5 October 2020 said, “Roof leaking, through attic and stairs…”. The completion date was recorded as 9 October 2020. From the records, the outcome of this visit was unclear.
In an email on 15 December 2020, the resident told the landlord she wanted to complain. She said, despite an inspection in October 2020, no action had been taken in response to her reported repairs. Since she was concerned about the health and safety of her children, the resident said complaining was now her only option. Her main points were:
1. The situation was serious. It should be handled swiftly by someone more senior than the landlord’s previous inspector.
2. Since the beginning of her tenancy, the landlord had been reluctant to start repairs or complete them satisfactorily. Its substandard repairs often required repeat visits. It also refused to upgrade items including door frames and radiators. Overall, this was contrary to the Decent Homes Standard.
3. From early October 2020, leaking water from a crack in the ceiling had been “soaking” the carpet below. The landlord had advised this was not an emergency. There were now 2 “wall to wall” cracks above the stairs that were leaking at a “considerable rate”.
4. Black mould was growing in the children’s bedroom. Damp was spreading from the loft area and, due to “consistent bad weather”, the ceiling was at risk of collapse. There was also mould in the bathroom and recently plastered areas had cracked. Bathroom flooring had not been replaced.
5. There were multiple other issues. For example, the resident had to push for a new boiler and fireplace. Cement had been left on the flooring, following works to the fireplace. Further, in response to a reported leaking sink, the landlord told the resident to buy a replacement hose. When the problem persisted, another operative confirmed the sink was leaking.
6. In addition, “to name a few”: light switches were not screwed to the wall after replastering works; Artex was “crumbling”; there was damaged flooring in both bedrooms; patio doors were missing fittings; layers of paint prevented internal doors from shutting; radiators were rusty and there were brickwork issues.
7. Several previous inspections failed to address the property’s issues. The resident was concerned “unconscious bias” was influencing the inspector’s decisions. The landlord’s dismissive attitude was similarly suspicious.
The landlord issued a brief acknowledgement the same day. It said it would respond by 7 January 2021. The following events then occurred between 16 and 18 December 2020:
1. The landlord raised a repair order. The notes said a plumber should investigate a leak from the ceiling under the stairs.
2. The resident replied to the landlord’s acknowledgement. Her email included wording copied from an appointment text message. It said an inspection was booked for 21 January 2021. The resident reiterated her concerns about the ceiling and said this timescale was “negligent”.
3. She also said the landlord failed to acknowledge her request for a different inspector. In addition, she highlighted the impact to her family. She reported initially blaming her children for the wet carpet, which was “smelling and damaged”. She said a bucket on the stairs was hazardous.
4. The resident subsequently reported further appointment issues. The landlord replied it had notified its investigating officer.
5. The inspection order was marked complete, and a work description was added to the repair history. It said there was a roof leak which may be linked to external vents, and 2 tiles appeared to have lifted. Further, once repaired, damp treatment was needed in the hallway and bedroom.
The landlord’s notepad records said its repairs team emailed the resident a response, under its complaints procedure, on 7 January 2021. Other records suggest a damp survey was raised the following day. The resident’s later correspondence, from 13 April 2021, said “environmental services” visited the property around February 2021.
The landlord appointed a chartered surveyor to inspect the damp and structure. The survey report was dated “March 2021” (full date not provided). It noted the leak was ongoing and the landlord was aware a slipped tile needed to be repaired. Black mould and limited water staining were identified in a bedroom cupboard. Limited black mould was also identified around a bathroom window. The report recommended that all condensation should be treated with an anti-fungal wash. It said there were no risks to the building or its occupants. The main points were:
1. Several loose power outlets were noted. The landlord should remove, install backplates and reinstate them.
2. Two thermostatic radiator valves (TRV) were also missing in the bedroom and bathroom. The landlord should install new valves.
3. No defects were identified to the: Artex, front or patio doors, hearth, radiators, or timber flooring.
4. A loose PVC window-sill needed refixing. The decorative works, including skirting boards, door frames and hinges, as well as “holes stuffed with brick”, were the resident’s responsibility.
Records from 29 March 2021 said the resident had asked the landlord for an update. The notes said she was chasing repairs identified the previous year and during a recent inspection. They also said Citizen’s Advice advised her to escalate the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 13 April 2021. She referenced a damaged carpet and a constant drip. She said it was unacceptable the roof was still leaking over 3 months after her initial complaint and that there were no updates since the landlord’s 7 January 2021 email. Further, it was unfair that she had to pay her full rent in the circumstances. As a result, the resident felt she had to contact the Ombudsman.
After an exchange of emails over the next few days, the landlord advised works orders had been raised to address the roof. On 19 April 2021 the resident replied she was aware of this information. She also said the landlord ignored the substance of her email on 13 April 2021. With reference to the 2020 inspection, she expressed concern about a lack of progress, updates, or follow-up action. She questioned the landlord’s adherence to its complaints process.
In the same email, the resident asked to see the 2020 inspection report. She said only a bathroom tap had been repaired and the landlord was failing to provide a safe environment. She referenced “racial disparities in housing” and said she would notify her MP. Our records show the resident approached this Service around this time. In internal correspondence on 23 April 2021, the landlord said it had received the resident’s complaint via the Ombudsman.
On 4 May 2021 a works order to replace TRVs in the bedroom and bathroom was marked complete. Around a week later, a separate order to refix all loose sockets and switches was completed.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord issued a formal complaint response. This was around 5 months after the resident complained. The landlord apologised if the resident felt its service had not met her expectations. The response failed to confirm the complaint stage. Instead of providing clear escalation rights, it said the resident could contact the complaint handler with any concerns or questions. Given its content, the response resembled an update rather than a formal complaint response or resolution. The main points were:
1. Roofing repairs were scheduled for 24 May 2021. The works would reposition roof vents and renew slipped tiles.
2. Electrical repairs were completed on 10 May 2021.
In a same day email, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord did not appreciate the “stress and anxiety” it caused over the last 7 months, and its response was “patronising”. She also raised concerns about prior notice. For example, she said she was not informed that scaffolding would be erected that day and it was installed while she was working. Her main points were:
1. The landlord failed to address all the repairs initially raised with the inspector, comply with its repairing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), or share its recent survey findings as previously agreed.
2. The resident had already contacted various parties to progress the complaint. She would now approach the landlord’s Chief Executive (CEO), as well as her local MP and media outlets.
3. Rather than focusing on “feelings” the landlord should concentrate on addressing its failures. This meant compensation and an apology. Its current approach was “dismissive and unprofessional”.
Separate repair orders referenced works on 24 May 2021. The first said the leak was caused by a slipped tile. It also said roof vents were refitted to address a defective installation. A second repair order said “hall ceiling has fallen through following roof leak, tenant worried more will come down and plaster is covering the stairs please make safe”. The order was marked complete the same day.
On 2 June 2021 another works order was raised in relation to the ceiling. It said loft insulation should be removed as soon as possible. Further, around 5 metres of ceiling should be “ripped down reboarded and skimmed”. It shows “a tower” was needed to reach the ceiling.
The following events occurred between 9 and 16 June 2021:
1. The resident emailed her local councillor. She said a hole in the ceiling and other repairs needed “immediate attention”. Further, in contrast with the 2020 inspection, “repair men” advised the hole in the roof “had been there for years”. She said she was paying for a property that the landlord had “no intention of repairing”.
2. In its internal correspondence, the landlord said it had received an escalation request from the Ombudsman and that it was investigating via its Repairs Team.
3. The resident chased the landlord’s complaints team. She asked when the CEO or “someone with any substance” would address her situation. She said “(her) case stinks of racism”. Further, she reported mould in the children’s bedroom “over 4 years ago”. Since then, her eldest child needed a stronger inhaler. Overall, the state of the property was “disgusting”.
4. Her other concerns included: the landlord’s survey record keeping, a lack of communication or follow-up, and failure to escalate the complaint. In contrast to nearby homes, the resident felt the landlord refused to access the property’s loft. She said this led to the mould in the bedroom and “partial falling of the ceiling”.
5. The landlord’s CEO thanked the resident for contacting them. They said her concerns were forwarded to its relevant senior leader. Further, she could get in touch again if she was unhappy with the outcome.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was around 1 month after the resident’s initial escalation request. It addressed the leak, compensation, the updates after a surveyor’s inspection, a “request to postpone rent” and her concerns about unfair treatment. While failures were identified, no compensation was offered. The response only included referral rights to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGCSO). The main points were:
1. In relation to the ceiling, the landlord was sorry for the problems the resident experienced. It was aware that the ceiling was renewed on 14 June 2021. It was also aware the appointment details and repair scope were not fully communicated to the resident. This was not consistent with the landlord’s communication aims.
2. Further works were scheduled for 28 June 2021. Since access equipment was required, the resident should expect considerable disruption during the works. With regards to compensation, all requests were managed by another department. The resident could claim through a link provided. An independent insurance professional would handle the claim.
3. It was usually unnecessary for surveyors to maintain contact with residents after an inspection. Instead, the landlord expected relevant information to be discussed at the time. It was sorry if this was not the resident’s experience. The property was “fully habitable” during the roof leak, now rectified, so the rent was due in line with the tenancy agreement.
4. The landlord was sorry the resident felt unfairly treated. It had policies and procedures in place to ensure equality and fairness. Its staff were diversity trained in line with legislation and good practice. It acknowledged “lines of communication” were not consistent with its expectations. It was pleased the resident had since been allowed to discuss her concerns in detail with members of its property team.
5. It understood the resident felt the property was “disproportionately different” to others in the area, which she believed were upgraded. Modernisation was not within its repair team’s remit, so the resident’s request was referred to the landlord’s stock investment team. A stock condition survey would be arranged in due course.
A stock condition survey took place on 23 June 2021. The results were recorded on a checklist-type form with added written notes. The document noted: mould to sloping soffit area in a front bedroom cupboard implying cold-bridging, a crack near the window, uneven flooring, visible water damage to the stairway ceiling, damaged kitchen unit doors, failed sealant around the sink and a blocked rear drain. It said there were “no obvious voids” in relation to the front and patio doors.
The surveyor reported their findings in internal correspondence 2 days later. They said the kitchen, installed in 2010 under a Decent Homes Programme, was in good condition overall. However, door and drawer fronts should all be renewed. Further, an additional unit should be installed for extra storage. It was noted the resident raised several issues during the inspection. The main points were:
1. The resident mainly wanted the boiler relocating to incorporate a separate toilet into the main bathroom.
2. The landlord should repair the sealant around the kitchen sink. Though mould was noted in a bedroom cupboard, no recommendations were made. The email did not reference a blocked drain.
3. Despite a slight rise in several floorboards, no trip hazards were identified. There was a “drop” in the flooring where a hearth had been replaced.
4. There was no sign of gaps letting draft through the front door. Nor were similar defects allowing insect entry through the patio.
The parties exchanged emails in July 2021. The resident reported rubbish and scaffolding had been left in the front garden for over a month. She subsequently clarified the dismantled scaffolding, used for internal ceiling repairs, was below the front window. The ceiling repair order was eventually marked complete on 13 August 2021.
On 17 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team. She said the shower stopped working 7 days ago and she previously reported the issue. She felt the fault was related to recent electrical works. She said, besides other unresolved issues, the scaffolding was still in place. With reference to various examples, she asked why she had to keep contacting the landlord after repair visits. The repair history shows the landlord attended the shower the next day.
The resident emailed again on 19 October 2021. She asked when repairs would resume. She said she was awaiting carpentry works “to finish the perimeter after the ceiling incident”. Additionally, despite chasing an update, she was not given outcomes following several inspections. Further, the last inspection was in August 2021. Her main points were:
1. After a year, the resident was “still dealing with unfinished chaos”.
2. Despite being shown holes, rot, and mould, the landlord failed to address the situation.
3. There were no updates on a decorating grant, the stairs or when the carpet would be replaced.
The landlord replied 2 days later. It said an inspection was scheduled for 26 October 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding inspection report.
In a further email on 12 November 2021, the resident reported additional shower issues. She attributed them to a poor-quality duct tape repair. She said she was “continually going back and forth with no measurable outcomes”, and the landlord’s complaints process was flawed. She said it failed to follow its process despite the involvement of various managers, surveyors and the CEO. Her main points were:
1. Multiple parties visited the property, took notes, and were never seen again. This was particularly unfair given the pandemic. The landlord should share its survey findings and explain the next steps. It should also explain its overall repair timescale.
2. The landlord had “not touched” the interior of the property. Floor boards did not meet; fixtures, including door frames, were rotting; the patio was missing draft proofing and there were holes in the wall from “shoddy” plaster repairs. These issues were all reported previously.
3. The landlord’s apathetic approach was impacting the resident’s health. Some of its operatives were unqualified. The landlord should have communicated its plan following the February and July 2021 inspections.
On 30 November 2021 a works order was raised to renew loft hatch architrave, adjust internal doors, and install a bump stop to the patio door. The order was marked complete on 14 January 2022. The Ombudsman has seen limited other information about this period.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team and CEO on 3 February 2022. The subject heading was “DANGEROUS HOUSE”. She said the children’s bedroom door had fallen from its hinges while they were in the room. Further, she had been reporting rotten frames for years. She asked if an injury was needed for the landlord to act. She reiterated a list of previous repair issues. She said her son’s foot was previously injured by a defective trunking repair and the property did not meet a decent standard.
The Ombudsman has seen a number of (undated) supporting images. They show mould in the corner of a cupboard, watermarks, clothing with mould spots, a door frame with a split around a hinge, a hinge with mismatching screws, jagged pipe boxing, a minor foot injury, an electrical device duct taped to a wall, protruding brick/plaster and a fallen door with split timber where the hinge was attached.
A repair order was raised on 9 February 2022. The notes said, “Secure and realign floorboards, fix bump stopper, refix internal door”. The order was eventually cancelled on 24 March 2022. No cancellation reason was recorded. No information was seen to suggest the resident refused access.
On 3 March 2022, the resident detailed her preferred outcome to the Ombudsman. Her extensive list included: new interior doors and frames, a bathroom that met Decent Homes Standards, compensation for damaged flooring, drain unblocking and a rent reimbursement. The resident said, since she was paying more rent, her home should meet the same standard as neighbouring properties.
In April 2022, the landlord gave us its case evidence. Its summary notes disputed that the ceiling collapsed. It said an attending operative made the situation safe, and a works order was raised to “replace damaged ceiling”. It also said it had “no recollection or record” of a damaged carpet. Similarly, “nothing was raised” for a blocked rear drain, Artex was not previously reported, and there were no trunking safety issues.
The landlord highlighted access issues. It provided a screenshot showing 25 no-access incidents between 2012 and 2022. The details were shown in a supporting spreadsheet. When filtered, as part of our investigation, the spreadsheet confirmed only 2 recorded incidents were relevant to the above timeline. As a result, there was little evidence to show access was a significant barrier to resolving the resident’s complaint.
The evidence included a repair history spreadsheet with a separate inspections tab. Though some inspection dates were given, no outcomes were recorded. There were no records of the March 2021 damp inspection or the subsequent stock condition survey. Records relating to February 2022 said, “Various issues throughout…customer to show issues”. This was typical of the level of detail captured.
The resident emailed the landlord in late June 2022. She said, following recent replacement works, it left 2 internal doors on a grass verge outside the property. Further, the “disintegrated” doors were an “eyesore” and the local authority was unable to cut the verge. The resident said it was the second time she had reported the issue. In addition, the situation was stressful, and neighbours had complained. She also said the hallway ceiling was still “a mess”.
On 6 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO. She said she wanted the “structure and foundations” of the property repaired. This was on the basis they were “falling in”, which was preventing her making any aesthetic changes. She said she was being “held to ransom” by the landlord’s inability to act. She invited the CEO to visit the property. The councillor subsequently asked the landlord how many times it was necessary to chase a resolution.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord shared its survey findings with the resident. Its correspondence suggests the property’s kitchen was recently replaced. Further, damp and mould works were completed to the children’s bedroom in August 2022. The landlord’s key points were:
1. A plastic trim was missing from the front door and the patio was missing a door stop. The landlord would install the missing fittings within 90 days.
2. Lowering concrete below the hearth could cause a trip hazard. The resident should notify the landlord when she was ready to change the living room flooring. It would then level the floor to the correct height. Pipework and trunking had come away from the living room wall. The landlord would refit the pipework and replace the trunking within 20 days.
3. The staircase ceiling was not decorated when it was replaced in 2020 (landlord’s date error). While it did not decorate after repairs, the landlord would cover the cost of the resident’s materials. A £40 voucher would be issued in due course. A split landing architrave may relate to these works. A repair would be completed within 90 days.
4. Damp in a bedroom cupboard had been treated around 3 months ago. There was no sign mould had returned. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord would remove a clothes rail in the cupboard. Cracked plasterwork would be repaired within 90 days. Since the door was damaged, a replacement would be fitted within the same timeframe.
5. Floorboards in the second bedroom would be removed so the joists could be adjusted. Around 6 broken floorboards would be repaired when the floor was levelled. A door hinge would be also replaced. The resident was advised not to hang heavy items on any doors.
6. A rusty bathroom radiator would be replaced. The findings referenced several other issues that were not directly related to the resident’s complaint. For example, the landlord also agreed to replace the toilet cistern. It declined several requests to relocate fixtures and fittings.
In February 2023, around 90 days after the landlord’s above email, the resident emailed its complaints team. Various parties were copied in including the CEO. She reported: ongoing shower issues, defective drainage, unstable bathroom flooring and mould around the bath. She said she had raised issues for years, and she was paying for a service the landlord was not providing.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 25 August 2023. She said mould in the bedroom and bathroom was resolved some time ago. In terms of repair issues, it was understood she was more concerned about quality problems linked to a recent bathroom upgrade. Nevertheless, she still had broad concerns about the landlord’s approach. She also said a promised radiator replacement was still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows she has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.
Where a claim or complaint is made about resultant damage or injury, the courts will often consult medicolegal reports. These will be created by expert clinicians who will advise the court on the injury and its cause (diagnosis) as well as how long it is likely to last (prognosis). Where the medical expert’s evidence is contested, they will be asked to attend court to be cross-examined. Whilst the Ombudsman can consider the general impact on residents, it is often difficult for us to say if they have been caused ill health or injury without clear medical evidence. Based on the evidence reviewed in this case, the Ombudsman would not be able to reasonably conclude the resident or her household was injured by the landlord’s actions or inactions.
The resident repeatedly said the landlord treated her unfairly based on her personal characteristics. It is acknowledged these are serious allegations. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. This will be considered in the relevant section below. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns under the Equality Act (2010). There are short and strict time limits to make such claims.

Response to leaks, damp and mould

The timeline suggests the landlord eventually installed a new kitchen and bathroom in the property. It is reasonable to conclude these works were expensive. Though they were welcome, they were not a resolution to the resident’s complaint. In other words, they were not considered during the below assessment.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord as part of its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 must ensure the property is free from such hazards. The landlord was also under a statutory duty to ensure the property was not ‘prejudicial to health’ under s.79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 made several recommendations to landlords on how damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks. This included that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The timeline shows the landlord was aware of damp and mould in early February 2020. It suggests an initial inspection did not take place until late August 2020. The Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to address routine repairs. Given the above, the landlord could have reasonably inspected the mould, and applied treatment, before pandemic restrictions in mid-March 2020.
The landlord has asserted that an appointment was raised for 27 February 2020 and subsequently cancelled by the resident, there is no supporting evidence provided from the landlord which eludes to such appointment nor its cancellation by the resident.
In contrast, the timeline suggests treatment works were not completed until at least July 2021. There is, however, evidence to suggest the time to complete the anti-mould treatment took longer. In particular, the resident’s 19 October 2021 email said the landlord had failed to address mould. The landlord’s November 2022 correspondence also said damp and mould in a bedroom cupboard was treated around 3 months prior. However, sufficient the relevant treatment took place in July 2021 and therefore up to 16 months based on the period between 27 February 2020 and 9 July 2021. This was not acceptable.
The evidence suggests the mould was limited in this case. Nevertheless, either timescale was inappropriate, and the situation was distressing for the resident. Further, there was evidence of failure by the landlord in any case. For example, if the treatment did not go ahead, then the July 2021 date represents either a record-keeping failure or contractor supervision failure by the landlord. If the property was treated for mould in July 2021, the landlord either failed to implement ongoing monitoring of a potential health hazard or consider a programme of improvement works in 2022.
Both monitoring and improvement works were required by HHSRS. In other words, it is inappropriate for landlords to keep applying anti-mould paint to persistent damp and mould issues. Instead, landlords should investigate the underlying cause and consider alternative solutions including improved ventilation.
The timeline suggests the leak began in early October 2020 and external repairs were completed on 18 June 2021. This suggests the core leak timescale was around 8 months. During this period, the resident was concerned about the ceiling collapsing. Her correspondence suggests this was a source of considerable anxiety given her young children. Ultimately, her concerns were borne out when the ceiling did eventually collapse. This is evidenced in the landlord’s repair record entry dated 24 May 2021 which states the “hall ceiling has fallen through…plaster is covering the stairs”.
The evidence suggests the ceiling was made safe the same day. Still, it is reasonable to conclude the additional damage was unlikely to have occurred if the landlord had:
1. Responded to the leak in line with its routine repair timescale.
2. Listened to the resident’s safety concerns.
Ultimately, the landlord was ‘on notice’ that the ceiling could collapse and failed to take immediate action.
Given the above, the timeline points to an inappropriate delay. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord incurred additional repair expenses due to its failure to respond appropriately to the leak. In other words, adhering to its policy timescales would have been beneficial to the landlord. The timeline suggests the resident experienced additional impact from increased visits, more intrusive repair works, and poor communication. For example, she said scaffolding was installed while she was working without prior notice.
Following an inspection dated November 2022, quality issues with the leak repair works were found. The inspection noted that the architrave to bedroom one’s door was split at top, and may have been caused when the ceiling was replaced, as well as outstanding decorating. Despite not always being able to complete repairs correctly in the first instance, the landlord had addressed the findings within its stipulated repair guidelines, but the evidence illustrated inadequate post-inspection procedures resulting in additional inconvenience for the resident.
Overall, the evidence points to inadequate post-inspection procedures resulting in additional inconvenience for the resident. For clarity, where a landlord has an obligation to repair, it is also obliged to “make good” any damage to decorations resulting from the repair work.
In this case, leaving a damaged architrave and outstanding decorating was both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s obligations. It was noted the landlord’s repairs policy, around 6 years old at the time of this assessment, did not reference its responsibility to make good decorations. The landlord should review and update its policy to ensure it remains relevant. The landlord should also review its use of vouchers. From previous cases seen, most landlords opt to make good decorations through their own repair service, rather than issuing vouchers. Vouchers can be restrictive and may not be effective redress to give residents back what they had before the repair works were completed.
Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Contrary to its repair policy and HHSRS, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to reported damp and mould. Despite the resident’s safety concerns, it also failed to respond appropriately to a reported leak. This likely resulted in additional damage and distress. The landlord then failed to make good within an appropriate timescale.
It is reasonable to conclude the above identified delays and failures impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. Given the above, the Ombudsman will order compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various other repairs

The resident consistently raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of communication or follow-up. The timeline suggests her concerns were justified. For example, there was no evidence the landlord communicated the findings from its October 2020 or March 2021 inspections. While it was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant qualified specialists, there was no information to show it clarified its position around issues such as: the Artex, door frames, uneven flooring, or responsibility for decorations.
Given the above, it was unsurprising that the resident repeatedly raised the same issues during the timeline. If the landlord was declining to complete her requested repairs based on its obligations or expert opinion, then it should have made this completely clear. The landlord’s failure to clarify this key information represents an inappropriate level of communication. It was noted the resident asked for its survey findings on more than 1 occasion. That she repeatedly raised these issues evidences there was resulting inconvenience to the resident.
For clarity, no information was has been seen to show the property’s Artex or flooring were deemed hazardous by a suitably qualified professional. In contrast, the March 2021 inspection said there were no risks to the building or its occupants. Nevertheless, this information should have been communicated to the resident as soon as possible. It was noted, that in November 2022, the landlord eventually changed its stance on several items including door fixtures/trim and uneven flooring. It was unclear what prompted this change.
By listening to the resident and acting promptly in line with its obligations, the landlord could have reasonably avoided an internal door falling from its hinges. For example, it should have either assumed responsibility for door/frame repairs or pointed the resident to its relevant tenancy terms. The evidence indicates it effectively did neither until later in the timeline. This was inappropriate given the circumstances. The situation was likely distressing for the resident. Door frames formed part of her original complaint.
Overall, the above points to communication failures that impacted the resident from October 2020 onwards. The evidence indicates the landlord’s inappropriate lack of clarity left the resident uncertain about who was responsible for addressing several repair issues.
With regards to follow-up, the landlord’s repair records suggest it failed to repair a UPVC window sill following the March 2021 survey. Similarly, contrary to its June 2021 survey, there was no evidence it repaired sealant around a sink or the reported drain blockage. It was also noted the resident recently told us a replacement radiator was outstanding. The timeline suggests a replacement was agreed in November 2022. It points to overall delays of around 29 months. This was based on the period between mid-March 2021 and late August 2023.
Though the identified repairs were relatively minor, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was annoying for the resident. We will again order proportionate compensation based on the information seen. Overall, the above-identified delays and failures show there was maladministration by the landlord concerning this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s equality concerns

Whilst the resident’s concerns are serious and fully recognised by the Ombudsman as such, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the failures in this complaint were because of a protected characteristic.
From the information seen, the landlord responded to the resident’s equality concerns accordingly. Its stage 2 response suggests they were discussed with the resident in detail with several staff present. This was an appropriate approach given their nature. The landlord said modernisation was outside its repair team’s remit. It was noted most landlords operate a reactive repair service. That was not unreasonable.
The evidence indicates the resident continued to raise similar concerns after the landlord’s final response. It was unclear whether these were new allegations or a reiteration of her previous concerns. The landlord should respond to any complaints accordingly. If a specific allegation has already been addressed, the landlord should say so in a formal response. The response should summarise the relevant details or provide a copy of the original response.
Overall, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Complaint handling

Although the landlord has stated the complaint received on 15 December 2020 was addressed on 7 January 2021, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any supporting evidence, such as the response itself. The only record is from the landlord’s “Notepads for Business Actions” stating, “Response from Repairs Team emailed to customer on 07.01.21”. This note remains insufficient for the Ombudsman to determine how the complaint was addressed as no details around the response are contained.
The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it shows a tendency towards informal complaint handling by the landlord’s repairs team. This was inappropriate given the nature of the resident’s complaint. Her correspondence shows this caused the resident additional frustration in an already distressing situation. Further, various third-party interventions were needed to prompt a stage 1 response and a subsequent escalation. This should not have been necessary.
Given the landlord’s response timescales, the timeline suggests combined handling delays amounted to around 5 months in total. During this time, no information was seen to show the landlord kept the resident informed. On the contrary, it suggests she repeatedly chased the landlord for updates. When responses were issued, they lacked sufficient quality. Her correspondence shows the resident perceived an inappropriate tone and a lack of engagement.
For example, the landlord’s May 2021 response was contrary to sections 3.14 and 3.15 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020. 3.14 said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. 3.15 said, on completion of each stage, landlords must confirm: the complaint stage and outcome, the rationale, any remedy and escalation details.
In contrast, the response overlooked key issues, with potential safety and welfare implications, from the resident’s complaint. They included: mould, Artex, and unconscious bias concerns. It failed to confirm the complaint stage or provide a clear outcome. The resident was not told the complaint could be escalated or that she could approach the Ombudsman. Overall, only a superficial attempt was made to put things right for the resident. The response was therefore inappropriate.
Whilst the landlord’s stage 2 response was better, there were still significant problems. For example, it points to issues with the landlord’s approach to compensation. For clarity, where a resident alleges property damage or health impacts occurred due to a landlord’s failure, a landlord may refer them to its insurer or deal with the claims under its discretionary compensation policy. But it must make this clear. Landlords must still respond to concerns in the complaint procedure to say how the complaint issue will be dealt with.
In this case, the landlord’s approach was appropriate for the resident’s damaged carpet claim. Still, it would have clarified matters if its stage 2 response had mentioned the carpet. In contrast, an insurance claim is usually an inappropriate means to address distress and inconvenience arising from issues such as delayed repairs, missed appointments or complaint handling failures. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it can award compensation without an insurance claim.
Given the above, the landlord should have made some effort to identify and redress its failures. The resident articulated several issues clearly. Instead, the landlord’s approach was inconsistent with its objectives of fairness and proportionality in complaint handling. Neither response considered the landlord’s own complaint handling. The landlord therefore failed to redress the above identified handling delay. The stage 2 response also included incorrect referral rights, which could have caused additional delays and inconvenience. The above was inappropriate.
Further, there was no evidence the landlord attempted to learn from the resident’s negative experience. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude it could have reasonably extracted some broad learnings. For example, the landlord could have provided feedback to its repair operatives about rubbish left on site. Alternatively, it could have highlighted delays in completing repairs or damp inspections to its management. It was unable to do this because it failed to correctly identify its failures.
In summary, the above-identified issues represent an inappropriate lack of engagement on the landlord’s part. This lack of engagement impacted both parties. For example, based on the timing of this assessment, the resident did not obtain proportionate redress for around 32 months following her complaint. Given this was one of her preferred outcomes, the landlord was unlikely to improve its relations with the resident during the interim period.
Based on the above approach, the landlord will likely have difficulty resolving complex complaints through its own internal complaints procedure (ICP). The landlord should be capable of achieving fair outcomes and inspiring resident confidence, without external intervention. It was noted the CEO’s involvement was not sufficient to achieve fair redress for the resident. This indicates there may be a top-down issue with the landlord’s complaint handling culture. Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

Multiple inspections occurred during the timeline. Nevertheless, records of key inspections were not available. For example, we were unable to view the findings from inspections in October 2020 and October 2021. Similarly, within the landlord’s repair spreadsheet, there were no records of inspections in March, June or August 2021. Overall, the evidence suggests the high number of inspections resulted from the landlord’s poor record keeping. It would have been distressing for the resident to have facilitated follow-up appointments that were likely unnecessary had the landlord retained adequate records.
The evidence also suggests the landlord had difficulty referring to previous repair reports, inspection results and agreed actions. Specifically, in April 2022, it told us it had no record of a damaged carpet and the Artex had not been previously reported. In contrast, both issues were raised in the resident’s initial complaint and on several occasions afterwards. Similarly, it was is noted the landlord’s case evidence did not include a complaint response from 7 January 2021. This suggests record keeping issues were not limited to the landlord’s repair operations.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
As shown in the previous sections, record keeping issues arose repeatedly during our investigation. The evidence suggests these issues undermined the landlord’s repair and complaint handling operations. Further, they added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. Her correspondence shows the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s inadequate record keeping, which also impacted the Ombudsman’s investigation. Given the failures identified, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various other repairs.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
5. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s equality concerns.

Reasons

Contrary to its repair policy, the HHSRS, section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to reported damp and mould. Despite the resident’s safety concerns, it also failed to respond appropriately to a reported leak. This likely resulted in additional damage and distress. The landlord then failed to make good within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord tended towards informal complaint handling prompting the resident to involve various third parties. Its responses lacked quality and were contrary to the Code. The landlord made little effort to identify or redress failures and learn from outcomes. The CEO’s involvement was not sufficient to ensure redress for the resident. Overall, this amounted to an inappropriate lack of engagement.
There was no information to show the landlord clarified its position around the Artex, door frames, uneven flooring, or responsibility for decorations. This likely left the resident unclear about who was responsible for door/frame repairs. Its inappropriate communication from October 2020 onwards prompted the resident to repeatedly raise issues. The landlord also failed to follow up on several minor repairs over 29 months.
Record keeping issues arose repeatedly during our investigation. The evidence suggests these issues undermined the landlord’s repair and complaint handling operations. Further, they added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. Her correspondence shows the resident perceived the landlord’s inadequate record keeping, which also impacted the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord responded to the resident’s equality concerns accordingly. Its stage 2 response suggests they were discussed with the resident in detail with several staff present. This was an appropriate approach given their nature. Ultimately, based on the information seen, we were unable to say the landlord’s handling of the above matters was because of a protected characteristic.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s CEO to personally apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should acknowledge: the landlord’s failure to adhere to its repair policy or HHSRS, its failure to make good the repairs within an appropriate timescale, its lack of communication and delays concerning other reported repairs, its inappropriate lack of complaint engagement and its poor record keeping. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter/call transcript.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient time to survey the property. The landlord must consider appointing an independent surveyor. The purpose of the survey will be to establish whether any repairs or risks are present in the property for which the landlord is responsible. The landlord must share the survey report with the resident within 5 days of receipt. The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure that any identified works in the survey are completed within the timescales in the survey report or within 8 weeks, whichever is shorter. The landlord must share the report with the Ombudsman together with any timescales to complete the works within 5 days of receipt of the survey report.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,945 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £145 for any related distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.
3. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above-identified issues with the landlord’s response to various other repairs.
4. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above-identified delays and failures relating to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to conduct an executive review of the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 4 weeks, it should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: process for responding to reports of damp and mould, use of decorating vouchers and approach to making good, tendency towards informal complaint handling, approach to redress, failure to learn from complaint outcomes and its record keeping. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for training purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord’s complaint response templates should be updated to include standard paragraphs with referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman in respect of housing management and the LGSCO, along with a brief explanation of both services.
With reference to its obligations to make good, the landlord to review its repairs policy to review its repairs policy to ensure its content remains relevant.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.