Southwark Council (202008030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008030

Southwark Council

9 May 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and various other repair issues.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was a secure tenant. His tenancy began in 2012 and ended in 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom studio flat in a low-rise block. From May 2019 the resident’s wife and 2 children lived at the property with him. In January 2021 the family moved to another of the landlord’s properties. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s family has a number of medical conditions. These include allergies, eczema, and respiratory issues.
4. The resident reported damp to the landlord in November 2018. It told him to make some lifestyle changes and monitor the situation. About 1 month later, it made an unrelated visit to the property. It found a leak and “serious cracks” in the walls. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear how it addressed these findings. In June 2019, the resident reported there were pests in the property. He complained soon afterwards. The landlord did not provide a copy of its stage 1 response. However, it awarded him £145 in compensation in July 2019.
5. In September 2019 the resident made a further complaint about disrepair. He subsequently raised a separate legal claim about the matter. The landlord inspected the property soon afterwards. It found the walls were “green and black” due to “extensive and severe” damp and mould issues. In October 2019, it moved the resident and his family into temporary accommodation. The following month, it offered to pay him £755 to settle his legal claim. Its contractor subsequently completed significant repairs to the property.
6. The family returned to the property in February 2020. The resident reported further repair issues at this point. The landlord said it was willing to complete some limited additional works. Around this time, relations between the parties deteriorated. Lockdown restrictions were subsequently imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Later, the landlord inspected the property in September 2020. It identified further works at this point. It said stain blocking works were required along with a specialist ventilation system. It made some repair visits to the property over the next few months.
7. In January 2021 the family were moved on health and welfare grounds. They subsequently complained to the landlord about conditions in their new home. That complaint was the subject of a previous report by the Ombudsman (our reference 202113463). In that report, we ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about the property through its complaints process. This was on the basis it had previously overlooked them. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in May 2023. While it partly upheld the resident’s complaint, it felt the £755 payment it had previously offered was enough to put things right.
8. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. He updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in April 2025. He largely reiterated his previous concerns. Overall, he felt the landlord’s stage 2 response was unfair. He also felt the landlord was reluctant to repair the block since it was due to be demolished.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. The evidence supports his concerns about the property’s condition. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal items.
10. There is evidence that some of the property’s repair issues began in 2017. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question. This timeframe can affect the amount of evidence that is available. Residents are also expected to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months after a complaint has exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process). Given these factors, any events that occurred before November 2018 are out of scope for this report.
11. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident asked to be moved on health and welfare grounds. The allocation of local authority housing stock in England is governed by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who are living in unsuitable conditions, or who need to move on health and welfare grounds. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications that fall under Part 6. Any concerns the resident has about his rehousing request are better suited to the LGSCO. As a result, they are also out of scope for our report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and various other repair issues

12. Repair records show the resident reported damp to the landlord on 5 November 2018. Its corresponding notes did not include any specific details about his report. Since damp has potential health implications, its record keeping was inadequate. The landlord wrote to the resident on the next day. It said he should make some lifestyle changes to address the problem. It also said he should report the damp again if the situation did not improve after 3 months. This was in line with the landlord’s damp process at that time. It is noted the landlord has changed its approach to damp and mould since then.
13. Damp and mould are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is a risk-based approach. It confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. Inspections are used to assess, monitor, and control hazards. Reinspection is recommended to ensure any potential hazards are avoided or minimised. A proactive approach is consistent with the HHSRS.
14. There is no indication the landlord had completed an inspection before it wrote to the resident. On that basis, its letter can be reasonably perceived as dismissive. Since the government’s HHSRS guidance was published in 2006, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have been aware of it. Ultimately, its approach was unfair and placed undue emphasis on the resident. This was inappropriate. It is noted the landlord’s current approach to damp and mould is more proactive. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
15. In mid-November 2018 the resident reported that water was leaking behind the bathroom tiles. Subsequently, the landlord made an unrelated visit to the property on 30 November 2018. Its corresponding notes said there were “serious cracks in the bathroom and kitchen”. They referenced “very large holes in the ceiling and walls”. The landlord suspected these issues may relate to subsidence. Its notes said there were large cracks around the bath and “the tiles [were] all coming off.” They also said a leak was affecting the kitchen ceiling. These findings show there were significant repair issues at the property. It is reasonable to conclude these were distressing for the resident.
16. From the landlord’s repair records, it was unclear what actions it took in response to its inspection findings. Its repairs guide shows it is obliged to repair and maintain the structure of the property. It says the landlord should respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. There is evidence that, in December 2018, the landlord tried to rectify a leak in a flat above the property. However, its corresponding notes did not record the outcome of its efforts. This is further evidence of inadequate record keeping. There is no indication the landlord attempted to address the cracks it had identified during its inspection. This is concerning. There is a significant gap in the evidence after 19 December 2018.
17. In May 2019 the resident’s wife and 2 young children moved in with him. The parties agree the property was overcrowded after they arrived. It is accepted that overcrowding can contribute to condensation, damp, and mould issues.
18. In late June 2019 the resident reported there were pests in the property. Subsequently, the landlord completed a general inspection on 1 July 2019. Its corresponding repair note said “[the] overall condition of property is poor”. The note referenced leaks from above, damp problems throughout, and cracked walls. This was similar to the landlord’s previous inspection findings. However, the extent of the damp shows the property’s condition had deteriorated since then. Ultimately, the landlord’s note shows it had not taken appropriate action to address its previous findings. This was contrary to its repair obligations.
19. The resident complained to the landlord about pests around 1 July 2019. The landlord did not provide a copy of his complaint. However, it emailed him on the following day. It said it would inspect the property for pests in 3 days’ time. It also said any treatments for mice would be free of charge. However, it said it would charge the resident £136.08 to treat flying ants. Given there were significant holes and cracks in the walls, we consider it could have reasonably offered to waive this fee.
20. The resident has provided various images of repair issues in the property. Some of these appear to show large quantities of insects gathered around cracks and/or holes in plasterwork. The HHSRS says “walls and ceilings should be free from cracks which could provide harbourage for insect pests”. It also says insect pests can cause allergic reactions and respiratory issues. Subsequent events show the resident’s family experienced similar symptoms. Overall, the evidence suggests that the damaged walls may have contributed to the pest issues. They also understandably contributed to the resident’s concerns about health impact.
21. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 9 July and 19 September 2019:
    1. The resident supplied a medical letter to the landlord. It said he was experiencing allergies, rashes, and respiratory issues linked to mould in the property. It also said the property’s condition was having an adverse impact on his mental health. A subsequent medical letter said the repair issues were affecting his children’s eczema.
    2. The landlord raised a repair order for pest control works. It said a double sink unit should be removed so that proofing works could be completed. Subsequent events indicate the landlord did not complete these works.
    3. The landlord paid the resident £145. The evidence suggests this was a compensation payment that related to his complaint about pests. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s response. We have seen a solicitor’s letter (from November 2019) that refers to the payment.
    4. Around the same time, the landlord raised a repair order for extensive works to the property. It included works to supply a dehumidifier, renew blown plaster on walls and ceilings, and redecorate after the repairs. The notes said the works would address issues in the kitchen and bathroom.
    5. Subsequently, the repairs were delayed several times for different reasons. The landlord did not always record the reasons why they were delayed. However, its repair notes show the resident rearranged a scheduled appointment. They also show the landlord moved an appointment because its operative was sick. It completed some repairs on 19 September 2019.
22. On 26 September 2019 the resident complained to the landlord about disrepair. He said it had treated the property for mice in August 2019. However, he said rodents were still entering his home and the landlord had not completed any follow-up visits. He also said his children were frightened by the mice and insects. He has supplied images of dead rodents. He reiterated that damp and mould were impacting his family’s health. He said many of the required repairs were still outstanding. In addition, he said there were quality issues with works the landlord had completed. He also said that chasing it was inconvenient. Subsequent events indicate the landlord raised a complaint but later decided to close it. We have considered its complaint handling in the relevant section below.
23. The resident updated the landlord on 2 October 2019. He said a leak in the bathroom was getting worse. Call notes said he was “very emotional on the phone”. His distress was understandable in the circumstances. The landlord visited the property 4 working days later. It tried to visit the upstairs flat but it was unable to gain access. Around 2 weeks later, a solicitor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. This was to raise a legal disrepair claim. On 22 October 2019 the landlord’s disrepair team inspected the property. Two days later, the landlord approved a temporary move for the resident. It felt the property was not habitable on health and safety grounds. Its relevant form said:
    1. There was “extensive and severe mould and damp throughout [the property]”. Its walls were “green and black with mould”.
    2. There was “stagnate water on the window seals”.
    3. The landlord’s pest control team believed there was a “heavy infestation of mould/damp mites”.
24. The evidence shows the following events subsequently occurred between 25 October 2019 and 20 February 2020:
    1. The landlord arranged a temporary move for the resident.
    2. The family left the property around 28 October 2019.
    3. The landlord gained access to the flat above the property and repaired a small leak.
    4. The landlord’s pest control team told the landlord that its treatments would not work. It said there was deep mould penetration in the walls. It felt the property needed to be “completely replastered” to remove a mite infestation.
    5. On 22 November 2019 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident’s legal representative. It said the landlord had responded to his reports and complaints accordingly. However, it wanted to pay the resident an additional £755 to settle his claim (the solicitor noted it had previously paid him £145).
    6. Later, the landlord’s contractor completed extensive repairs to the property.
    7. The landlord reviewed its contractor’s works. It did not provide a corresponding inspection report to the Ombudsman. Its investigation notes show it was unable to retrieve a copy from its records.
    8. The landlord extended the resident’s temporary accommodation. This was to give his family more time to move their belongings. Around the same time, the resident raised concerns that the property was still damp.
    9. On 11 February 2020 the resident returned to the property with his family. On the same date, he reported that some of the repair issues had not been “resolved completely”. The landlord replied it had arranged an inspection. It told the resident it would not extend his temporary move again.
    10. The landlord inspected the property on the following day. Again, it did not provide a corresponding inspection report. However, it raised a repair order for “snagging works” on the same day as the inspection. These included works to make good a “hole to pipework”, patch repair some (unspecified) holes, and to make good the decorations.
    11. Two days later, the landlord raised another repair order. Its corresponding  notes said a double sink unit and a bath panel needed to be removed. This was to check if pest proofing works were required to the areas behind them.
    12. The landlord was unable to gain access to the property to complete the snagging works.
25. On 24 February 2020 the parties discussed the resident’s disrepair claim. In a subsequent email, the landlord asked him when it could complete the snagging works. It said these works were not covered by the legal disrepair criteria. This suggests it felt it was not obliged to complete them. This is concerning. In mitigation, there is no indication the resident replied to its request to supply a convenient appointment date at this stage. The evidence suggests he may have felt the landlord’s proposed snagging works were inadequate. It also suggests the relationship between the parties deteriorated at this point.
26. In late March 2020 lockdown restrictions were imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, there is evidence that the landlord was unable to access the property in May 2020 to complete the snagging works. The resident emailed the landlord around 2 months later. He wanted it to inspect the property. He said that damp and mould had returned and the windows were leaking. He also said pests were entering the property because cracks and holes had not been repaired. Ultimately, the landlord’s order for snagging works points to quality issues with its repairs. For example, it said a number of holes needed to be rectified using patch repairs. The quality issues are concerning.
27. The landlord replied on the following day (23 July 2020). It said it had agreed to complete the snagging works as a gesture of goodwill. However, it also said it had previously closed the matter and its contractor would not return to the property. It said the resident could report the snagging works to the landlord’s routine repairs service. However, the landlord also said it could not undertake routine repairs until further lockdown restrictions were lifted. It did not engage with the resident’s comments about renewed damp and mould problems. It is reasonable to conclude that it missed an opportunity to mitigate the effects of these issues. Arguably, its approach was heavy-handed and unsympathetic at this point. This may have caused further distress for the resident.
28. The contractor was acting as the landlord’s agent. The landlord was ultimately responsible for the quality of its works. It should have ensured the contractor fulfilled its obligations by completing them to a reasonable standard. The evidence suggests it did not do this. There was another issue with its approach. Specifically, landlords are obliged to ‘make good’ following repairs. This means they are responsible for rectifying any damage to decorations that resulted from their repair works. The landlord should have recognised its obligations and acted accordingly. On that basis, it was unfair to close the matter without notifying the resident in advance. The landlord’s approach was unreasonable. Overall, the evidence suggests it contributed to further delays at this stage.
29. On 11 September 2020 the landlord completed some pest control works. Records show it blocked 2 holes under the bath and near a sink unit. This was around 7 months after it raised the corresponding repair order on 14 February 2020. It is accepted that lockdown restrictions delayed these works. However, the restrictions were imposed on 26 March 2020. The landlord could have reasonably completed the repairs in the period before they were introduced (there were around 6 weeks between 14 February and 26 March 2023). Since mice are also a potential health hazard, it showed a concerning lack of urgency.
30. The landlord had also raised a similar repair order (to remove the sink unit) in July 2019. Its repeated works order points to problems with its general repairs service. These may have related to its record keeping, a lack of follow-up, or quality issues with its works. In any case, the evidence shows the landlord also made a significant contribution to the delays. Again, it missed opportunities to mitigate the impact of the pests and/or improve the family’s situation. This is concerning.
31. The landlord inspected the property on 18 September 2020. It is unclear what prompted this inspection. Within days, it had raised a further repair order. This was to fill a hairline crack, apply stain block, complete patch repairs, carry out remedial decorations, and install a positive-input ventilation (PIV) system. Where a property is overcrowded, a landlord should take reasonable and proportionate steps to mitigate any associated damp or mould issues. On that basis, it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend a special ventilation system. This suggests it recognised its related responsibilities at this point. However, it is noted the landlord was aware of overcrowding, damp, and mould in July 2019. It should have reasonably been more proactive at that time.
32. The evidence suggests the following events occurred between 30 September 2020 and 6 January 2021:
    1. The landlord’s pest control team completed a further visit. It said the property had been reinfested. It also said a kitchen unit needed to be removed to allow proofing works.
    2. The landlord completed some works linked to its most recent repair order. Its corresponding notes said it had not finished the repairs and another visit was required.
    3. The landlord delivered fan heaters to the resident. This was because the block’s communal boiler had broken down.
    4. During the landlord’s internal correspondence, its disrepair team disputed that there were ongoing disrepair issues in the property. It said the resident had “knowingly made [it] overcrowded” and this “sometimes caused …  excess moisture”. However, it said it had resolved this issue. It also said the resident had been “rude and aggressive” (the resident disputes this assertion).
    5. The landlord’s repairs team reported that it had been unable to install a PIV system in the property’s bathroom.
    6. The resident rearranged a repair visit because his son was in hospital.
    7. The resident supplied a further medical letter. It said his young children had medical needs. It also said his youngest child was experiencing respiratory issues and eczema linked to the repair issues in the property.
    8. The resident cancelled a repair appointment due to COVID-19.
    9. In subsequent internal correspondence, the landlord said there was “extreme condensation in the property”. It felt the resident’s lifestyle was “the main contributing factor”. However, it said it would “revisit the mould” when the PIV system had been installed.
    10. Around the same time, the landlord completed a further pest control visit. Its inspection notes said the resident should rearrange the visit. This was on the basis the property’s rooms were “too cluttered” to carry out any works.
    11. On 2 December 2020 the landlord completed a medical assessment form. It said the resident had a “severe medical [need]” for a move. It referred to “difficult circumstances” in his home. It said he needed a dry home with more space, and adequate heating. It also said this should be free from damp and mould.
    12. On the following day, the landlord failed to attend a prescheduled pest control visit. It subsequently issued a formal apology to the resident.
    13. The resident and his family moved to another of the landlord’s properties on 6 January 2021. This was around 26 months after he reported damp on 5 November 2018.
33. There were several ongoing repair issues when the resident moved out of the property. In mitigation, the evidence also shows the landlord’s works in early 2020 improved his situation for a period. For example, in July 2020, he told the landlord that damp and mould had returned along with some other repair issues. This was around 5 months after the repairs were completed. Subsequently, the landlord identified further repairs in September 2020. The extent of these works undermined its previous assertion that only minor snagging works were required. The landlord carried out further repairs subsequently. Some of these works were delayed for various reasons. The evidence suggests both parties may have contributed to delays at this stage.
34. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repair timeline can be separated into 2 different phases. The initial phase began on 5 November 2018 and ended on 28 October 2019, when the family moved into temporary accommodation. It lasted around 12 months. The second phase began on 11 February 2020 and ended on 6 January 2021. It lasted around 11 months. The evidence shows the impact to the resident was more severe during the initial phase.
35. Following a permanent move in January 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about similar repair issues in his new home. He subsequently brought a related complaint to the Ombudsman. We determined this complaint in November 2022. We found there was severe maladministration by the landlord. As part of our orders, we said it should investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 May 2023. It considered the service the resident had received from its disrepair team. It partly upheld his complaint. The landlord’s key points were:
    1. It had failed to resolve repair issues in the property. It was investigating these before its legal disrepair team became involved. It had deemed the property to be uninhabitable. This was due to “extensive and severe” damp and mould.
    2. The service it had provided did not meet expected standards. It had offered the resident a £775 payment (the amount was actually £755) to address this failure.
    3. When the resident returned to the property, it had agreed to complete some “minor additional works”. This was a goodwill gesture. It was unable to complete these because he did not provide access to the property. It had made reasonable attempts to complete the works it identified.
    4. It had reviewed the resident’s case along with its compensation policy. Having done so, it did not identify “a fault” with its previous calculation.
36. The landlord rightly acknowledged it had failed to address repair issues in the property. However, it did not accept that it was responsible for any delays or failures during the second phase of the repair timeline. Similarly, it did not acknowledge its own contribution to some of the repair issues that occurred during that phase. The evidence shows this approach was unfair. Given its overall failures and their corresponding impact to the resident, the landlord should have increased its previous compensation award by a proportionate amount. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
37. The parties updated the Ombudsman subsequently. In 2024, the landlord told us it had made a revised offer of £2,500 to the resident’s legal representatives. It also said it eventually awarded him a total of £20,000 in compensation to address repair issues that spanned 3 different properties. This assertion was not consistent with its case evidence file. The landlord did not provide any other information to support it. Subsequently, we called the resident in May 2025. He disputed the landlord’s comments about an increased compensation offer. His other key points were:
    1. The landlord knew the block would be demolished. It was reluctant to repair the property on that basis.
    2. The landlord had blamed him for various issues. He felt it had tried to provoke him so it could accuse him of being aggressive.
    3. The landlord had transferred his case within its disrepair team. He felt this was because he kept contacting its initial case handler with supporting evidence.
    4. The landlord was often unable to refer to previous call and other records.
38. The evidence shows the landlord ultimately offered the resident a total of £900 in compensation (£145 + £755). Its related internal correspondence shows it based the £755 figure on a rent calculation. It has not explained how it arrived at this figure. Its case evidence to the Ombudsman included details of the resident’s rent payments in 2012, 2023, and 2024. From this information, we estimated that his weekly rent was around £100 during the period in question. The landlord also supplied a compensation policy from May 2021. We searched online and in our own records. Since we were unable to find a more relevant document, we used the policy it provided. It does not include any specific guidance about rent-based calculations or the landlord’s approach to them.
39. The policy says the landlord can award discretionary compensation for distress. It will consider various factors in its calculations. These include the severity and duration of its associated failures. In the event of a “major impact”, it can award up to £1,000 in compensation in a 12-month period. For medium impact, the relevant amount is £500. Separately, it can award up to £250 to address any time and trouble (inconvenience) that it has caused. Unlike its approach to distress payments, it does not apply a timeframe to its inconvenience calculations. In line with its policy, the landlord could have reasonably awarded  the resident a total of £1,750 in compensation for distress and inconvenience.
40. This is because the distress he experienced in the initial phase (as a result of the landlord’s actions) was consistent with the “major impact category” in its policy. In the second phase, it was more consistent with the medium impact category. The evidence shows the resident also experienced a significant amount of inconvenience throughout the overall repair timeline. He made repeated reports, there were repeated actions by the landlord, and a temporary move was necessary. As a result, his experience was consistent with the landlord’s maximum award level. It is noted there is a significant disparity between the above calculation and the landlord’s own offer of redress.
41. The evidence also shows the resident experienced a loss of amenity/enjoyment due to the severity and duration of the repair issues. The landlord rightly acknowledged this in its main calculation. The evidence suggests this was broadly based on 20% of his rent. In line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, our calculation includes a separate element to reflect the resident’s loss of amenity/enjoyment. It is based on the principle that he cannot fairly be expected to pay his full rent given his reduced enjoyment of the property.
42. Although it is not a rent refund, our calculation is broadly equivalent to 60% of the resident’s rent during the initial phase, and 30% for the subsequent phase. This is proportionate because, given the size of the property and the areas that were affected, it is reasonable to conclude that he had limited respite from the various repair issues. The resident was worried these would return during the second phase and a number of issues did eventually reoccur. It is acknowledged that overcrowding may have contributed to some of these. However, there is no indication the landlord completed any works to mitigate the impact of the overcrowding. While the resident cancelled some repair visits in late 2020, the landlord was aware of the situation from at least July 2019.
43. In summary, there were some contributing factors that were not in the landlord’s direct control. These included its access to the flat above the property, the overcrowding in the property, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence shows the resident also contributed to some delays throughout the repair timeline. It is also noted the landlord’s approach to damp and mould has changed since the events in question. Nevertheless, there were serious problems with its handling from November 2018 onwards. Its records were frequently inadequate. Its approach was contrary to the HHSRS at times. It allowed the property’s condition to deteriorate to an unacceptable level.
44. Later, the landlord arguably adopted a heavy-handed and unsympathetic approach to the resident. It did not acknowledge that it had contributed to some repair issues that recurred during the second phase of the repair timeline. There was a significant and prolonged impact to the resident and his family. The landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right for the resident. There was a significant disparity between the landlord’s redress calculation and the Ombudsman’s. Given the severity and impact of its accumulated failures, we find there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

45. The resident complained to the landlord several times throughout the repair timeline. The landlord did not provide copies of its relevant responses. This points to further issues with its record keeping. The lack of evidence made it difficult to assess its overall complaint handling. However, the information we have seen points to some significant problems. For example, given the resident’s prior complaints, it is concerning that it took a legal disrepair claim for the landlord to acknowledge the potentially hazardous condition of the property.
46. In an internal note on 5 November 2019, the landlord said it had logged 3 separate stage 1 complaints in response to complaints from the resident. It also said its repairs team would close a stage 1 complaint due to his legal disrepair claim. It is concerning that the landlord closed complaints due to a legal claim.
47. The Ombudsman considers correspondence from the courts to represent legal proceedings. Our approach is that landlords should not disengage their internal complaints procedure on receipt of correspondence that initiates the pre-action protocol (a claim). This approach has benefits for both parties in a dispute. For example, residents may avoid legal costs and the legal costs for landlords may be reduced. We explained our approach in detail in November 2021. Our  document was called “New guidance for landlords on disrepair claims”. Our basic approach to legal proceedings had already been in place for some time. The landlord’s decision to close the resident’s complaint was contrary to this.
48. There were problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response in May 2023. It addressed the service the resident had received from the landlord’s disrepair team. As a result, it focused on events that occurred between October 2019 and February 2020. This was a narrow view of the resident’s complaint. The landlord overlooked significant failures because it did not consider the events before or after the above period in sufficient detail. The landlord showed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. Its approach was unfair to the resident.
49. There were also issues with the contents and tone of the response. It said the landlord “has agreed to pay you £775 which you deemed insufficient although you declined to state a figure you considered reasonable”. It also said “I have reviewed the amount and believe it is in line with our compensation policy”. The figure the landlord quoted was incorrect. Given its emphasis on the resident, its tone could be perceived as defensive. In addition, the landlord did not clearly explain why it believed its previous redress calculation was fair. The above is further evidence of an unreasonable lack of thoroughness.
50. If it was unsure, the landlord could have asked the resident why he felt its previous calculation was inadequate. This would have been a proactive and reasonable approach. It may have highlighted some important issues which it had not considered during its own investigation. There is no evidence to show the landlord did this. An open and exploratory approach may have helped to improve relations between the parties. In contrast, the landlord’s response may have caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
51. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the severity of the repair issues in October 2019. However, there is no indication it attempted to learn from the resident’s complaint. This is concerning. As indicated, it could have tried to establish what had gone wrong prior to his disrepair claim. Its findings may have helped the landlord to improve its services for other residents. Its incurious approach was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle “learning from outcomes”. It was also unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to show the resident it had taken his negative experience seriously.
52. It is noted the landlord’s stage 2 response was prompted by the Ombudsman’s  report in November 2022. As mentioned, we had already reached a severe maladministration finding in relation to the resident’s other complaint (about his subsequent home with the landlord). The landlord was aware of this. It made significant efforts to comply with our orders in that case. It is unclear why it appeared to adopt a different approach to the resident’s second complaint. There is some evidence that it may have felt the resident would bring his complaint to the Ombudsman in any case. Regardless, it should still have made a reasonable attempt to investigate his concerns. It should also be capable of resolving complaints fairly without our involvement.
53. Overall, the evidence shows there were various complaint handling failures throughout the resident’s complaint journey. The landlord has not acknowledged these or the corresponding impact to the resident. Its complaint handling likely added to his overall distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s accumulated failures suggest it was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve his concerns. As a result, we find there was severe maladministration in respect of its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. It comprises £200 each (£400 in total) for the resident’s related distress and inconvenience.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and various other repair issues.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

55. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must acknowledge the key failures that are identified in this report. It should also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
56. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £6,350 in compensation within 4 weeks. Our calculation replaces its previous redress offer. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct the £900 which it previously awarded him (or any part of it that has already been paid). The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £1,750 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the various repair issues (£1,000 for the initial 12 month phase, £500 for the second phase of 11 months, and £250 for inconvenience across the whole repair timeline).
    2. £4,200 for his related loss of amenity/enjoyment (60% x £4,800 = £2,880.00, 30% x £4,400 = £1,320.00)
    3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
57. The Ombudsman orders the relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to review this report’s key findings within 6 weeks. They should check to ensure that the main failures could not recur under the landlord’s current approach to repairs and complaints. This is to ensure that the landlord embeds any critical learning that has not been addressed by its previous updates to its policies and procedures. Any identified improvements should be cascaded to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord must share a summary of its findings with the Ombudsman within the 6 weeks.