City of York Council (202205355)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205355

City of York Council

19 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Insurance claim;
2. Subject access request (SAR);
3. Reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs;
4. Complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s insurance claim;
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s subject access request (SAR).

The insurance claim

The evidence shows that, in 2019 and again in 2021, the resident made a claim on the landlord’s insurance for damage to possessions caused by damp and mould growth. The insurance company responded to the first claim on 24 June 2020. It declined liability and stated that, according to the repairs log there had been no jobs raised since 2012 with regard to condensation and mould. In response to the resident’s second claim, the insurance company stated that the landlord had complied with its duties under the tenancy agreement and therefore did not accept liability for any damage.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that the landlord had rejected her claim for damages twice and denied liability. She stated that she had evidence to show that the landlord had failed to arrange follow up work in a timely manner, the work was “substandard” and that the damage had arisen due to “direct negligence and a breach of the landlord’s duty under the tenancy agreement”. The landlord stated that it could not consider a resident’s concerns about the outcome of her insurance claim through its complaints process. It then referred her to its Insurance team for further assistance. The resident remains unhappy about the landlord’s decision not to accept liability, and has referred the matter to us for further consideration.
It is acknowledged that the resident will be disappointed with the outcome of both of her claims. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causes of, or liability, for damage to a resident’s property. Such matters can only be decided by an insurer, or by the courts. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. It therefore follows that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her insurance claims falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact her local Citizens Advice to discuss her options further.

The subject access request

The resident also raised concerns in her stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s delay in processing her SAR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. Specially, the ICO can assess whether an organisation has responded to a request for information appropriately, and in line with the relevant legislation.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
It follows that, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her SAR falls outside of our jurisdiction. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her SAR, and the actions it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly.
While we have not investigated the matters relating to the SAR or insurance claim, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3 bedroom house that is owned by the landlord. She moved into the property in January 2011 and lives there with her children.
On 14 January 2020, the landlord attended to carry out repairs to the windows in the property, which included fixing hinges and handles. On 3 and 4 February 2020 it came to fix a draughty window in the resident’s downstairs toilet and install a new extractor fan in the bathroom.
On 19 March 2020, the landlord commissioned a damp specialist to inspect the property. It is not clear from the records what prompted the inspection. The survey report made the following observations and recommendations:
1. The gutters were noted as being in a poor state of repair. It said they should be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis;
2. The cavity walls were filled with insulation materials to improve thermal performance and had “changed the way the walls perform in respect to their resilience to water penetration”. It recommended that the landlord expose the timbers and carry out a further inspection;
3. The pointing was in a poor state of repair;
4. There did not appear to be enough sub-floor ventilation, which placed the timber floors at risk of woodworm and rot. The ventilation should be increased and maintained;
5. Areas of plaster had high excessive moisture levels and there was evidence of excessive moisture to the walls. It concluded that the dampness was due to “the apparent absence of an effective damp proof course” (DPC);
6. It recommended that immediate steps were taken to eliminate the source of moisture ingress;
7. It recommended several works including insertion of a DPC, re-plastering, installation of a cavity drain system, and renewal of the existing floor joists in the living room.
It is not clear from the records what action the landlord took following the inspection. However, the resident wrote to it on 18 August 2020 and stated:
1. She and her children had endured “unacceptable living conditions” since moving into the property;
2. The inspection report of 19 March 2020 confirmed that the main cause of excessive damp, mould and bacterial growth throughout the property was the rising damp resulting from the pooling water under the property;
3. In 2019, she raised an insurance claim for loss of property due to excess mould and mildew but was informed that the landlord denied liability;
4. One recurring problem was poorly fitted and sealed windows, which allowed cold air and moisture to enter the property. She had reported this in November 2010, October 2011, November 2012 and December 2019. An inspector had informed her in 2012 that this was caused by condensation building up due to cooking, showering and bathing;
5. The bedroom was full of black mould before she had lived in the property. The only actions the landlord took was to install an air vent in the bedroom wall in 2012;
6. The rear facing bedroom had mould and bacterial build up on the walls and carpet. Her son was asthmatic and had been exposed to unhealthy conditions since living in the property;
7. In 2018, the adjoining property had a new roof fitted. However, the landlord did not carry out any repairs on her roof and daylight was visible when looking through the loft hatch;
8. In 2013, the council installed a loft mounted positive input ventilation system (PIV). It had been running for over 7 years without any inspection or maintenance being performed;
9. When the PIV was installed, a hole was cut into the ceiling. She raised concerns that there may be remnants of asbestos dust on the insulation materials but no tests had been carried to ensure the house was free of asbestos fibres;
10. The plaster under several of the window frames was cracked and missing;
11. The gaps between both outer doors were too wide and allowed cold air and rain water to enter into the property;
12. She was waiting for repairs to be carried out in her kitchen. The taps were broken, water in the sink was slow to drain away and the worktop had rotted away;
13. Some of the upstairs floorboards were loose;
14. The landlord should take prompt action to fix the problems that she had highlighted.
The landlord visited the property on 7 September 2020 to discuss the concerns the resident had raised in her letter. It advised her that roofing works would take place the following year but could not explain why they had not been done earlier. It also told her that there were a number of properties on the street that suffered from “standing water conditions” and it could be “several years” before it would undertake remedial works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 September 2020. She confirmed the roofing contractor had contacted her to say that roofing repairs would take place on 16 September 2020. She asked if it would test for asbestos around the PIV unit before starting the works.
The landlord tested the loft area on 14 and 15 September 2020 and found it was free of asbestos. Following completion of the roofing repair works, the landlord carried out a further air test on 12 November 2020, which again found no traces of asbestos.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 and 17 November raising concerns about the works and possible disturbance of asbestos. The landlord responded on the same day to reassure her that no asbestos had been disturbed. It also confirmed that it was due to start a PIV servicing programme from 7 December 2020 and said it would prioritise her property. It added that, if the PIV was not working, it would replace it.
Further correspondence took place between the landlord and resident between 9 and 18 December 2020 regarding ongoing works to the loft. The resident raised various issues regarding the jobs the landlord had completed, and the quality of the work. She raised concerns regarding holes that operatives had left in her airing cupboard. The landlord addressed her concerns with its contractor and completed loft insulation work on 11 December 2020. The landlord also completed damp work to the resident’s downstairs toilet on 15 December 2020.
Although a specific date was not given, the landlord inspected the property in January 2021. The surveyor made the following comments:
1. The kitchen replacement would not go ahead until after the impending damp works as part of its standing water programme;
2. The marks on the kitchen floor and damp to the downstairs cupboard would also be dealt with during the damp works;
3. Although the holes in the airing cupboard needed attention, it was agreed this could be included in the damp works;
4. A corner of the small front bedroom was prone to damp and mould due to the location of the radiator, and possible water penetration through the external wall;
5. Although the windows were old, the landlord would not be changing them until they were on a replacement programme. It would continue to repair or replace windows where necessary, and agreed it would replace any hinges and handles as part of its damp works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2021 to ask for a copy of the report from the January 2021 inspection. She stated she had not received any communication about it and was concerned because she had been told on 4 June 2021 by the contractor to contact its site manager to arrange a start date for the damp works. The landlord responded on 16 June 2021 and attached a copy of the damp survey from March 2020, along with a sketch of proposed works. It said that the works schedule would usually be put together after the property was vacated. It also said that its contractor had sent her 2 letters asking her to contact it but had not received a response.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 23 and 30 June 2021 to request a copy of the January 2021 inspection report and it responded on 13 July 2021 and gave her details of the inspection. It explained the survey was not in depth because the damp works contractor would carry out its own survey. It said that the timescales were dependent on the standing water programme. The landlord added that it would not start any work until it had confirmed a start date. It had explained that, due to the extent of the works required, the resident would need to be decanted. Once the property was empty, it assured her that the contractors would put together a scope of works and share it with the resident and asked her whether she was happy for the damp works to proceed.
The resident responded on 14 July 2021 to state that she was waiting for a response to a subject access request (SAR). She added that once she had received the information, she would contact the landlord at a later date.
The resident received the information from her SAR on 2 March 2022. She responded on 7 March 2022 to state that some of the information she had requested was missing.
On 19 April 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, which stated:
1. The first issue was in regard to an insurance claim she had made through the landlord’s insurance company. The landlord had rejected her claim for damages twice and denied liability;
2. The damp works had been stalled due to the landlord’s delays in responding to her SAR and its failure to adhere to their own rules and regulations;
3. The landlord failed to keep a record of all the outstanding issues that needed repairing and failed to rectify problems as they had occurred;
4. It blamed her for holding up the damp works when it had taken the landlord 7 months to respond to her SAR.
The landlord sent the resident an automatically generated receipt on the same day. It stated that, as it was “facing unprecedented challenges” during the COVID-19 pandemic, it may take it longer to respond to her email.
It wrote to the resident again on 11 May 2022 to apologise for the delay in responding to her. It confirmed receipt of her complaint and said it would be able to provide a further update by 18 May 2022.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in providing an update. It stated that its complaints process could not consider the outcome of her insurance claim. The resident responded on the same day to say that the landlord had misunderstood her complaint. She said there were 2 parts to it and asked why the landlord would not address the rest of her complaint. On 25 May 2022, the landlord reiterated that it could not investigate the outcome of an insurance claim but would pass her information onto its head of building services to address her concerns regarding outstanding repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 June 2022 to say that, as she had not been provided with any information on the status of her complaint, she asked for it to be escalated to the next stage. On 1 July 2022, she wrote again to say it had been over 6 weeks since she raised her complaint. She added that the living conditions in her property were “disgusting”. Black mould continued to spread and her belongings continued to be damaged. She and her son both suffered with chronic health conditions, which the landlord was aware of but chose to ignore. She was requesting feedback and an update on her complaint letter.
The landlord responded on 11 July 2022 to say that, with regard to the repairs aspect of her complaint, it had passed this to the relevant manager to respond. It added that, due to the expiration of its current contract and procurement of another, a lot of the standing water work had been delayed. It assured her that she would remain a high priority.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated:
1. It was “at a loss” as to why she would not let the damp works start as she had indicated how damp her property was;
2. It had sent her the scope of works in July 2021. When the property was empty. A “destructive scope of works” would be undertaken by the contractor to see what further work was needed;
3. The resident would not “allow the work to start due to an outstanding” SAR request;
4. It was “happy” to add her onto the current priority list but work would need to start in the autumn. Otherwise, it would be put back onto its damp list until a new contractor was sought the following financial year.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2022 to say that it was “accusing” her of stopping the work and that “the sooner” her issues were acknowledged, the repairs could be undertaken.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to say it had decided to allocate a single point of contact (SPOC) to help coordinate how it could move forward with the damp works in her property. The SPOC would also be able to answer her queries. It added that it would be in contact with her in 48 hours to make an appointment to visit.
The SPOC visited the resident on 25 July 2022 and explained the standing water and decant processes to her, and told her what would happen prior to the commencement of works. It also provided her with a step by step guide about what would happen during the standing water works process. It added that the property would have a new kitchen, bathroom and flooring. It would be rewired and the heating system would be checked and renewed if necessary. The SPOC also explained the disturbance payments the resident would receive during the period of the works. She sent her the notes from the meeting on the same day. The SPOC had also made a note of some repairs the resident had asked the landlord to make so the property was “more comfortable” until the damp works started.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1, 8 and 11 August 2022 to ask if she could let it know whether she would like to be decanted in October 2022. The resident responded on 15 August 2022 to say that it was “too late and inconvenient” for her family to move out in October 2022. The landlord confirmed the following day that it would inform its Capital Projects team not to progress her move at that time.
On 11 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response, which stated:
1. In order to address the damp and mould, the landlord had placed the resident’s property on its standing water programme. It had planned to decant her to another property so all the works could be undertaken;
2. It had explained the process to her on 25 July 2022;
3. Until the works began, the landlord could not give her a definitive list of works that needed to be carried out. This was because standing water programmes were separate from housing repairs;
4. During a home visit, the resident initially said she would prefer to move the following year. This was because it was the beginning of the school year and therefore she would not be able to move within 6 to 8 weeks. However, she stated she would speak to her children about possibly moving in October.
5. The resident had told it that, if she decided she did not want the work done in 2022, she would be “able to manage for a year or so”;
6. In an email dated 15 August 2022, the resident stated that it was too late to be decanted. She confirmed she would be willing to wait until the following year for the major works to be done;
7. As she was not willing to move that year, the landlord was not able to start major works to address the root cause of some of her damp issues;
8. The resident had given it a list of repairs that would make her home more comfortable while waiting for major works to be started. It said it would contact her within 2 weeks to discuss the following work:
  1. Moving the fridge, fitting a dishwasher and making adjustments to the existing worktop;
  2. Making good the holes in the floor;
  3. Remedial work to the black mould in the bedrooms;
  4. Taping the windows;
  5. Repairing the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen;
  6. Repairing the light fixture in one of the bedrooms;
9. As there was no evidence the landlord had made contact regarding the list of repairs, it apologised for the delays and partially upheld this part of her complaint;
10. The resident had first contacted the complaints team on 24 May 2022 and it advised her that it could not investigate the outcome of an insurance claim. However, at the resident’s request, it had forwarded her correspondence to its insurance team;
11. It had also passed the resident’s subject access request to its Information Governance team;
12. It apologised for any confusion that had occurred and acknowledged it could have been clearer in its correspondence with her;
13. It had shared its response with its building services managers. It also asked that they attended the property within 2 weeks to confirm what action it could take to make the property more comfortable in the meantime.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2022 to request for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She stated that the landlord had failed to complete all the remedial works she had reported. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports that there was extensive damp and mould in her property.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response, which stated:
1. The landlord had offered to decant the resident so work could be carried out as part of its standing water project. This was because the property would become a “building site”, which meant health and safety procedures would need to be followed;
2. It was satisfied it had fully explained the reasons for the decant to her, both in person and in writing. Its letter set out the process and provided relevant advice;
3. It had reviewed information from its Repairs team and the following jobs had been booked or completed:
  1. To renew the kitchen worktop with sink to allow space for a dishwasher;
  2. To fill any holes in the kitchen to stop snails from entering;
  3. To create 3 steps at the rear access;
  4. To treat one of the bedroom walls for mould;
4. Although it had booked the works, it acknowledged that it had not updated the resident about them;
5. In response to the resident’s reports of extensive damp and mould in the property, it stated that:
  1. The heating was working correctly;
  2. The windows were the “first generation type” and it had added them to the impending window programme. The landlord confirmed that it had checked and repaired them;
  3. The roof void had been cleaned out and new insulation installed. The external wall cavities had also had insulation pumped in;
  4. There were extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom, and a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) has been installed in the loft. It had also given the resident advice on how to ventilate the property;
  5. The property had been upgraded over the years with the recommended alterations;
6. It was satisfied it had taken the appropriate steps to rectify the damp and mould that the resident had reported.
The resident contacted the Service to say she was seeking help “due to a continued lack of adequate feedback and answers” from her landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained that she had been experiencing the impact from damp and mould in her property since 2011, which is when she moved in. The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, residents are expected to raise their complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still “live”, and while the evidence is available to reach a conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation will focus on events from 19 March 2020, as thee were considered by the landlord during its most recent complaint responses.

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in good repair. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The landlord’s repairs policy lists 2 priorities of repair. A same day repair is an urgent/emergency repair, where there is a potential health and safety risk to the residents or potential serious damage to the building. A general repair is one that is classified as less urgent. The landlord aims to schedule these repairs at a time to suit the resident, and “usually within 20 working days of the repair being reported”. Where condensation, damp and black mould are reported, the landlord will carry out an inspection and give relevant advice. If necessary, it will arrange for repair work to be undertaken to alleviate the issues. Major damp works, including where standing water is present in the subfloor, are undertaken as part of a Planned Maintenance Programme.
The repairs policy also states that some jobs will require a pre-inspection before the repair appointment can be arranged, to establish what work will need doing. The employee carrying out the inspection will advise what work is required at the end of the inspection and the resident will be contacted by telephone by the landlord’s planning team to arrange an appointment for the works to be completed.
The landlord’s website provides details of its Standing Water Programme, which is a programme of remedial works to its housing stock that was identified as having major structural damp problems. It explained that the works would include remediation of the structural damp. It states that the majority of the properties would have a new kitchen, bathroom and electrical installation fitted. It added that additional works would also be required.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs

It is acknowledged that the conditions within the property have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family for a lengthy period of time. It is noted that the situation is likely to have been of further distress to the resident as members of her household suffer from health conditions, including asthma. While we cannot consider whether the conditions in the property has exacerbated or caused any health condition, we have considered whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the resident’s reports and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice. We have also considered whether the landlord gave due regard to the vulnerabilities within the household.
The Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a damp survey in March 2020. This found various issues, including “excessive moisture levels” to walls, and areas of plaster and poor sub-floor ventilation. The pointing and guttering was also found to be in a poor state of repair. It is noted from internal correspondence that “the gutters were cleaned some time in 2020”; however, the records do not give a specific date.
Following the survey, there is no evidence the landlord took any further action or made contact with the resident to explain what further steps it planned to take. The Service acknowledges the landlord would have been subject to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions during this period, and this would have impacted the progression of any works. It is also noted that the landlord may have experienced an increase in staff sickness and absence owing to the outbreak of the pandemic too. However, it is unclear why no contact was made with the resident during this time. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made contact to confirm the outcome of the inspection and what action it was likely to take. It would not have been necessary to provide a date for the works given the restrictions that were in place at the time. However, it would have been reasonable to provide some indication about how the landlord intended to manage repairs and reassurance that it would keep the resident updated. The landlord’s poor communication at this time would been the cause of uncertainty; and the resident was left in the dark about what would be done as a result of the inspection. That the landlord made no further contact until the resident wrote to it 5 months later, in August 2020, was a failure.
The landlord acted appropriately when it visited the resident on 7 September 2020, after she had raised concerns on 18 August 2020 about damp, mould and outstanding repairs to her property. It was also correct to try and manage her expectations regarding the timings of roofing and damp works. It was positive to note that the landlord took an urgent approach in arranging for roofing works to start shortly after the visit, on 16 September 2020. It could not provide an explanation of why it had not undertaken roofing works at the same time it had re-roofed neighbouring properties. There could be various reasons why this was the case, including budgetary constraints and the prioritisation of properties that were in more urgent need. However, the landlord did demonstrate a customer focused approach when the resident reported that daylight was “clearly visible when looking through the loft hatch”. It recognised that works were urgently required by ensuring they were carried out as soon as possible.
The landlord acted appropriately when it responded to the resident’s concerns about disturbed asbestos. The records show it had conducted asbestos testing immediately prior to and after it had completed works to the resident’s loft. The evidence shows it had also carried out further testing at a later date. This demonstrates it was taking reasonable action to ensure the resident and her family were safe, and to address the resident’s worries.
The records show that a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit was fitted in the property in February 2013. The resident reported on 18 August 2020 that the PIV manufacturers guidance stated the equipment was guaranteed for 5 years and was maintenance free for this period. However, the instruction was that the equipment’s filters must be changed after 5 years as the unit was out of warranty. Although the landlord should reasonably have followed the manufacturer’s instructions, the evidence shows it responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It arranged a PIV servicing programme and assured her that her property would be prioritised, and that the unit would be replaced it if was found not to be working. The records indicate that, although the servicing programme was delayed due to contractual issues, the PIV unit was serviced on 24 March 2021 which was reasonable.
The evidence shows that, while there were delays in completing some of the outstanding repairs, the landlord acted reasonably overall in ensuring it complied with its repair obligations. The records indicate that the landlord re-insulated the resident’s loft in a timely manner and it had completed several other repairs in line with its policies and procedures. Given some repairs would have been delayed due to the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord has demonstrated that it had generally taken a proactive approach in carrying out repairs to the resident’s roof and loft.
It is noted that the landlord had informed the resident in June 2021 that it was in a position to arrange a start date for the damp works. The period between the damp inspection in March 2020 and June 2021 was around 15 months. The evidence shows there would have been several factors that would have contributed to the delay. The COVID-19 restrictions and subsequent repair backlogs, the extent of the works that were required and the time taken for the landlord to commission a contractor would have added to delays. It cannot be disputed however that the landlord’s delay in following up on the March 2020 damp inspection would have also been a contributory factor. Considering the numerous reasons that would have held up the works the time the landlord took to offer a start date for the works programme was not overly excessive in the circumstances. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out remedial works in the meantime to lessen the impact of the damp while waiting for the damp works to start.
The records show that the works did not progress as the resident wished to postpone the start date. It is also noted that it had given her assurances that she would be prioritised on the following works programmes.
The landlord took a customer focused approach when appointing a single point of contact (SPOC). This was done to maintain a regular line of communication, help progress the works, provide updates and address any queries and concerns the resident may have had. The evidence shows that the landlord explained the decant process to the resident both verbally and in writing, and provided a detailed a step by step guide on what she could expect before and while the damp works took place.
It is positive to note that, from August 2020 to January 2021, the landlord’s communication improved and it responded to the resident’s queries in a timely manner. For example, the records show that the resident had sent the landlord 2 lists of queries on 16 and 17 November 2020. The landlord provided a written to response to both sets of questions within 24 hours. The landlord also addressed the resident’s queries about asbestos in a timely manner, demonstrating that it was taking reasonable steps to try and put her mind at rest. This shows it was taking a resident focused approach.
The records show that the landlord carried out an inspection in January 2021. However, it did not share the details with the resident until she chased it in June 2021, around 6 months later. It was not until the resident chased this up several times that the landlord shared its findings of the inspection with her. In addition, the records show that the contractor had asked the resident in June 2021 to contact its site manager to arrange a start date for the works. For the resident to arrange the works, the landlord should have provided some clarity around the scope of works and given her an indication as to how long they would take and the level of disruption they would entail. This is so the resident could have made an informed decision.
It was inappropriate for the landlord and it’s contractor to put the onus on the resident to arrange the works. It was correct for the contractor to establish her availability. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the contractor between February and June 2021 to ensure efforts were being made to progress the works, and to update the resident accordingly. While the works may have been contracted out, the landlord remained responsible for their completion and should reasonably have continued to monitor the situation. That it failed to do so demonstrates poor contract monitoring and poor oversight of repairs by the landlord.
This would have added to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty around what the damp works would entail and when they would take place. The landlord must ensure details of any inspection that it carries out are shared with the resident as soon as possible in order to maintain transparency and keep her updated. That the landlord failed to contact the resident following both the March 2020 and January 2021 inspections was a departure from its repairs policy and amounts to maladministration.
The records show that, in July 2022, the resident had asked for the damp works to be delayed due to their scheduling around the beginning of the school year. She gave the landlord a list of repairs she said would make the property “more comfortable” in the meantime. The evidence shows that, by the time it had issued its stage 2 response, in January 2023, the landlord had either completed or booked those repairs. It was appropriate that, in its complaint responses, the landlord had acknowledged its failure to action the repairs in a timely manner or to update the resident accordingly. Although it had apologised for the delays and lack of updates, it failed to offer any redress in recognition for these failings.
The evidence shows that the landlord did take steps to respond to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs. However, it failed to follow up on the March 2020 and January 2021 damp inspections, delayed completing some repairs and there were instances where its communication was poor. It also failed to offer any redress for the failings it had identified. It will therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident some compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the above mentioned maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage process, which the landlord refers to as ‘Grade’ 1 and 2. For clarity, this report will refer to each step of the process as ‘stage 1’ and ‘stage 2’. The policy states that the landlord will let the resident know within 5 working days that it has registered their complaint. It will tell the resident how their complaint will be dealt with, and will provide the name, phone number and position of the staff member who is dealing with the complaint and the reference number. The landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet this timescale, it will explain why there is a delay and advise the resident when they can expect a full response. This will be no longer than 30 working days. The timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is 30 working days, and no longer than 3 calendar months.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2022, and the landlord issued its response on 11 October 2022, which was around 6 months later. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, this was an automatically generated response. The landlord wrote again on 11 May 2022 to apologise it had not made contact sooner. However, there is no evidence it had explained to the resident how it would deal with her complaint or that it provided her with the name, phone number and position of the staff member who was dealing with it. This was a departure from the landlord’s policy.
It was only on 24 May 2022, over 1 month after the resident had raised her complaint, that the landlord advised her that it could not deal with complaints about the outcome of an insurance claim. Although this was appropriate advice, the landlord should reasonably have informed the resident of this sooner. The landlord could also have informed the resident that she could seek independent legal advice if she was unhappy with the outcome of her claim.
In addition, there is no indication that the landlord confirmed which concerns it would investigate. This resulted in confusion and left the resident uncertain as to whether the landlord was investigating her complaint regarding its handling of damp, mould and outstanding repairs in her property.
It was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 May 2022 to apologise for the delay in providing an update. However, following this, there is no evidence it had provided any further updates or made any effort to explain why there was a delay, or to advise her when she could expect a full response. The records show the landlord was communicating with the resident about ongoing works over this period. However, this should not have prevented it from providing a timely response to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays or to offer any redress. Given the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 was excessively protracted and it had failed to provide proper updates throughout the 6 month period, it was inappropriate that it did not recognise this in its response. That it had departed considerably from its complaint policy and failed to acknowledge this in its response was maladministration.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaint handling improved when it dealt with the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It responded within 32 working days, provided a sufficiently detailed response and addressed the concerns she had raised. It should be noted however that there is no record it had provided a written acknowledgement of her stage 2 escalation request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the outcome of the resident’s insurance claim is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the outcome of the resident’s subject access request (SAR) is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate action to respond to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs. However, its communication was lacking at times. It delayed contacting the resident following the 2 damp inspections it carried out and delayed completing some of the repairs, or providing updates to explain the delays.
The landlord took around 6 months to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It failed to update her sufficiently during this time or agree any new timescales. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge its poor complaint handling or to offer any apology or compensation for its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to pay the resident £800, which is comprised of:
1. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its lack of follow up to damp inspections, and delays in progressing some repairs;
2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in the report;
2. Report back to the resident on the latest situation with regard the resident’s damp works and, if known, to advise of a date when the work is due to go ahead.
The landlord should carry out a review of the complaint handling from this case and identify any improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of training needs and compliance with policies and procedures. The landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the review, and share this with the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to review its policies and procedures around carrying out inspections to ensure it follows up with residents shortly after it carries out any inspections. It should stress to staff the importance of providing residents with the outcomes and recommendations from those inspections and details of any works it proposes to undertake as a result. It should consider setting a specific timescale by which to contact residents following inspections. The landlord to share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman 8 weeks after receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The records show that the landlord had provided the resident with a temporary dehumidifier in February 2021. The landlord to ask the resident if she is happy to provide copies of utility bills showing any increase in cost as a result of having to use the dehumidifier, and to offer to make a contribution towards the increased bills while the resident was waiting for the damp works to start.