Sovereign Network Homes (202318203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318203

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

21 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs.
2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat, which she has occupied since January 2012. She is an assured tenant of the landlord. The records show that she was pregnant at the time of her complaints.
On 23 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in her property. She requested that it carry out an inspection. On 6 January 2023, she raised a stage 1 complaint (Complaint A), stating that the landlord had failed to attend. It responded on 23 January 2023 to say it had sent a member of its handy person team to inspect her property but that there was no answer. It offered £10 compensation for the missed visit and advised her that it had scheduled another appointment for 27 January 2023.
The resident escalated Complaint A on 23 January 2023. She stated that damp and mould was in every room and would cause more damage to the property “if not fixed promptly”. She added that her doorbell was broken, there had been no attempt to knock and nobody had left a card. She did not believe the landlord had attempted to visit and stated she was “not willing to accept £10 for taking a whole day off work”. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord attended on 27 January 2023. It issued its stage 2 response to Complaint A on 28 February 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of the correspondence. However, the evidence that is available suggests the landlord had agreed to carry out a damp and mould survey on 20 March 2023 as part of the resolution.
The inspection took place on 20 March 2023, as arranged, and concluded that the damp and mould issue “seemed to be” historical. It added that the resident had been wiping away the mould growth, which appeared to get worse during the winter months. It recommended the landlord carry out further investigation and complete various internal and external works. Following this, the landlord arranged for a damp specialist to inspect the property on 11 May 2023 and identify if any repairs were needed. The specialist found “unacceptably high moisture readings” and concluded that the property was “suffering from extensive damp issues”. It recommended a number of remedial treatments and investigation works to resolve the issue.
The landlord sent the resident the reports from both inspections on 14 June 2023. It then informed her on 10 July 2023 that, due to the cost of the quoted works, it was “obliged” to seek a second opinion. It arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property on 21 July 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of this report. However, the landlord told the resident on 24 July 2023 that, the “initial findings” were that the conditions within the property “did not show elevated moisture readings”. However, it added that these would increase during “colder weather”. The landlord concluded that conditions within the property were “suitable” while it sourced temporary accommodation for her to move into.
Following the survey, the landlord submitted a revised scope of works to its contractor. These included:
1. Repairs to the pitched roof over the French doors.
2. Reinstallation of gutters and cleaning of all soil and rainwater installations.
3. Repairs to cracked paving slabs.
4. Patch plastering and repainting of walls with anti-mould paint.
5. Installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) system.
6. Installation of new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
7. Checking effectiveness of the heating system.
On 27 September 2023, the contractor sent the landlord a revised quote. The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 6 October 2023 and the landlord told her on 9 October 2023 that the repairs were expected to take 3 weeks to complete. On 19 October 2023, it explained to her that the repairs would take place in 2 phases, “the first being the internal works”. The second phase would be the external works, which included “external wall insulation”, and it anticipated they would start in February 2024.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2023. She stated that she had gone to her property to find it was still not ready. She said that there were radiators on the floor and plug sockets hanging off the walls. The landlord responded on the same day to explain that the only thing the contractor was behind on was re-decoration of the bedroom. It said that this was because the “new boarding was not drying”. The resident moved back to her property on 18 November 2023 and raised a further complaint (Complaint B) on 20 November 2023. She stated that:
1. She was “struggling to understand” why she had to organise her own move back to her property.
2. The extractor fans had been changed but they were “not automatic as promised”. This meant having a shower and leaving the fan on all day while she was out.
3. The floor was wet in every room and peeling away. It needed to be taken up and replaced.
4. The operatives had taken her house keys off site since the beginning of the repairs. This had made her feel “extremely unsafe” in her home.
5. She had reported “numerous times” that 3 doors in the property were not closing due to water expansion.
6. The sealants on her bathroom and kitchen doors had not been changed.
7. There was still mould on the kitchen door and window sills.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to Complaint B on 4 January 2024. It stated that:
1. The damp specialist it had instructed recommended works costing “approximately” £39,000. As part of its procurement process, it had instructed an independent consultant to review the works recommended by the damp specialist.
2. It had also decided to complete some of the works as part of its Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) programme.
3. Following receipt of a revised quote, the internal works were due for completion at the end of October 2023. Its surveyor attended several times to monitor progress. However, concerns were raised that the contractor would not meet the October deadline.
4. It acknowledged it had failed to manage the process satisfactorily, which led to works not being completed until the end of November 2023.
5. It acknowledged that the temporary property had suffered from leaks. In addition, there had been some damage to her property.
6. It had learnt “a number of lessons” about how it managed its contractors and its communication with residents.
7. It had “failed” her and wanted to “sincerely apologise” for the distress it had caused when she was due to give birth. In recognition of this, it offered her £2,340 compensation.
The resident responded on 7 January 2024 to ask the landlord to escalate Complaint B. She stated that:
1. It had missed “a number of issues” from its response.
2. She had been impacted by the damp in her property for over 11 years and had “suffered” from ill health and loss of belongings as a result.
3. Her second bedroom had been “out of bounds for numerous reasons” and she wanted 50% of her rent refunded from November 2022.
4. The stay in temporary accommodation was “extremely strenuous” as she had been in her third trimester at the time. In addition, the temporary property had leaks and mould developing in the living room and kitchen.
5. The internal works had been delayed and, after packing all her belongings, she then had to unpack again and wait another week to move back in.
6. The contractors had been “completely disrespectful” in her property and caused damage.
7. The landlord did not carry out further work to address the draughts, which meant she had to spend “a large amount on gas and electric over the winter months”.
8. The mould had returned in 4 rooms and she wanted the landlord to place her and her newborn in suitable housing that did not have these issues.
9. The offer of £2,000 would only cover the cost of her flooring to be replaced and she wanted the landlord to review its compensation offer.
Between 23 February and 18 May 2024 the resident sent emails to the landlord asking for an update on the external repairs. On 3 June 2024, she contacted it again to say that scaffolding had been up since January 2024 and she had still not had an update. She added that her extractor fan in the bathroom was “still not adequate”. The landlord replied on the same day to assure her that the bathroom fan was “fully operational”. It carried out a further damp survey on 12 June 2024, which included a risk assessment. This found no areas in the property needing urgent attention. However, it identified a number of areas that required attention to “prevent unsatisfactory conditions continuing” and works to prevent damp and mould. On 17 June 2024, it told the resident that its roofing contractor was due to start the roof replacement that day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 19 June 2024. It stated that:
1. It understood that the draught was coming from the bedroom window and had carried out works to repair the window catches that did not lock properly.
2. The extractor fan it had installed was new and automatically turned on when the bathroom was in use.
3. With regard to damage caused, it understood that an insurance claim was in progress and it had asked its insurance team to make contact with her.
4. In relation to the kitchen and lounge doors that banged, these were “ordinarily” the resident’s responsibility. However, “as a goodwill gesture” it had agreed to replace these as they were potentially affecting her baby’s sleep.
5. The roof replacement was “slightly delayed” and the scaffolding had been left in situ. This was because, to remove and put it back up would have “cost too much”.
6. It offered an additional £250 for its failure to respond to her emails and acknowledged that its handovers could have been “much better”.
7. It wanted to offer the resident a revised total of £2,590 compensation.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 June 2024 and stated that, “aside from a mould wash” there had been no other work on the property to prevent the damp and mould. She stated that she had requested a housing transfer “numerous times” but had not had a response. She was “truly unhappy” with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said that she wanted a refund of 50% of her rent from November 2022 as she had been living in a property “unfit for purpose”. The landlord informed the Service that all the works recommended in July 2023 were completed on 11 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

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 and exterior of the property in good repair. 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 9a 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 outlines 3 categories of responsive repair. The landlord attends to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe. Routine repairs are those that are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems. It aims to attend to these within 2 weeks of the resident reporting the repair and to complete most repairs within a calendar month. Complex repairs are those that take longer to arrange, and where the landlord needs to use specialist contractors and carry out surveys. The landlord aims to complete these within 90 days.
The landlord has a damp, mould and condensation policy. It outlines a number of responsibilities. These include:
1. Investigating and diagnosing the cause of damp or mould and delivering effective remedial solutions.
2. Remaining in regular and effective communication with residents following a report of damp and mould being made, and providing progress updates from beginning to end.
3. Providing residents with comprehensive and focused advice and guidance on how to manage damp, mould or condensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy separates the level of redress it pays into 3 categories. These are, £5 per week for low impact delays, £10 per week for medium impact and £20 per week for high impact. It pays the same weekly amounts as above for the varying levels of distress caused. For time and trouble, it pays from £1 to £5 per week depending on the seriousness of the issue. Furthermore, it pays between £20 and £50 for delays in responding to complaints.
The landlord has a complaints and service recovery policy. If it can resolve a concern within 2 “clear working days” from the initial contact it will treat this as a “service recovery request”. This would be dealt with outside the formal complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that if extensions to response times beyond 10 working days are required to enable the landlord to respond to complaints fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the Service that her health has been negatively affected by the landlord’s delays in responding to her reports. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident has requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact of the outstanding repairs, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about awards for damages. As above, this matter is better suited to an insurance claim or the courts. It is noted that the landlord has alluded to a claim for damages through its insurer being already underway.
The resident states that she had been reporting damp and mould to the landlord since 2012. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from November 2022 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint
The resident advised the Service that she had asked the landlord if she could apply to bid for a move to alternative accommodation on health grounds. The landlord had advised her that she did not meet the criteria for a managed transfer. It therefore signposted her to her local authority, which manages her local housing register, on 5 May 2023. On 11 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the local authority had rejected her application. The resident’s disappointment is noted. However, the assessment of applications for housing is carried out by a local housing authority under part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. Local authorities are required to give “reasonable preference” to certain categories of people – this includes where an applicant needs to move on medical, welfare grounds or due to disability. Complaints about the handling of an allocation under part 6 of the Housing Act fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, if the resident is unhappy with the decision, she may wish to make a complaint to the local authority in the first instance. She may then refer her concerns to the LGSCO if she remains unhappy.

Reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident has spent over a long period while reporting damp and mould in her property. However, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
The Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. 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 landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The evidence shows that the resident first reported damp and mould in her property on 23 November 2022. The landlord states it attended the property on 14 December 2022 to carry out an initial inspection but could not gain access. There is no indication it had tried to re-schedule the appointment with the resident until she raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not take ownership and rearrange the appointment. It should not have been necessary for the resident to prompt the landlord to do so by raising a complaint.
It is also apparent from the records that the resident chased the landlord for copies of inspection reports. It took it over a month for its surveyor to provide the report of its initial damp inspection. Given the time it took for the survey to take place, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure it did not delay when communicating the outcome of the investigations. That it did not promptly update the resident demonstrates a lack of customer focus.
Following its inspection of 20 March 2023, the landlord instructed a specialist damp contractor to carry out a survey on 11 May 2023. This was appropriate. However, this took place over 5 months after the resident first reported the damp and mould. The records suggest this was likely due to lack of the contractor’s availability. There is no indication the landlord had explored whether there were any other contractors available who could have carried out an earlier survey. Given the delays the resident had already experienced, and the history of damp in the property, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances. Taking steps to expedite the survey would have also demonstrated that the landlord was trying to deal with the matter promptly and proactively.
The evidence shows there was a further delay of around 5 months before the start of internal works. It is noted that this would have been the cause of frustration for the resident. However, it is noted that this was due to the landlord wishing to seek a second opinion from an independent surveyor. It is acknowledged that landlords are obliged to follow their internal procurement policies and manage their budgets responsibly. They are also entitled to request more than one independent survey in order to satisfy themselves that all recommended works are necessary. It is noted that there were discrepancies between the findings of the 2 surveys about the levels of damp in the property. It was therefore reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to seek a further opinion.
However, it should have been quicker to clarify its actions to the resident. This would have helped explain the reason for the further delay and given her some reassurance that the matter was in hand. That it took around 2 months after it received the first works quotation to inform the resident it was seeking a second opinion was a failing. This would likely have added to her ongoing frustration and uncertainty around whether the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the problem.
It was appropriate that the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation while the internal works went ahead. However, the records show that she had informed it around this time that she was pregnant. Despite the fact she subsequently made the landlord aware a number of times that she was in the various stages of her pregnancy, there is no evidence it had reasonably explored whether there was any specific support it could provide.
For example, it is evident that the communication around when the works would be completed was poor. The landlord gave conflicting information on whether the works were finished. This led to the resident undergoing the avoidable inconvenience of having to pack her belongings, only to have to unpack again when she was informed the works were delayed. It is noted that the resident stated she had to arrange her own move back to the property, and clean it after the contractors had left. There is no indication the landlord had checked whether the contractor had left the property in a reasonable condition. Had it done so, it should have made a record of its actions so it could demonstrate it had made adequate checks before the resident moved back. The landlord failed to properly recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities during this time or to explore whether there was any appropriate support it could provide. This was a failing.
There is no evidence to indicate the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, and in the landlord’s own damp, mould and condensation policy. There are no records showing the landlord gave any advice or support to the resident on how to minimise the impact of the damp until September 2024, nearly 2 years after she had first reported it. This was a departure from its policy.
The resident told the landlord she had to use dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp. It could have offered to contribute towards any additional costs of using them, or explored whether there were any works it could complete in the interim to make the property more comfortable. The lack of guidance it provided to the resident was a failing in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it has measures in place to provide residents with timely information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when it receives such reports.
Following completion of the internal works, the resident reported that some mould had returned. The records show that the landlord offered to carry out a mould wash of the property in response. This was appropriate. It is noted that the resident had concerns about the possible health effects of the materials used. Although her concerns are acknowledged, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded appropriately on this occasion, and that it also left its offer of carrying out a mould wash open to her in case she reconsidered.
The spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. The records show that the first time it carried out its own risk assessment was in June 2024, after it had completed the internal works. This consisted of a colour coding system in order to determine the levels of risk and urgency. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence any such assessment was carried out prior to this. The landlord should be able demonstrate that it has considered the risks of damp and mould to residents and properties at an early stage. This would help it promptly determine the urgency of any necessary repairs.
In some situations, it may take more than one inspection to establish the cause of a problem, and a remedy. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out more than one visit to resolve matters, particularly where the issue is complex and the root cause of the damp is unknown. It is evident that the situation was complex, and finding the root cause of the damp was difficult.
However, the number of inspections and visits, without notable progress being made, would likely have caused the resident significant disruption. This would have been particularly difficult for her while she was pregnant, and then when looking after a young child. There is internal correspondence showing that, once made aware of her frustrations about the number of surveys it had carried out, it made attempts to combine visits so as to keep them to a minimum. This was appropriate.
It is evident that, after completing the internal repairs, it took the landlord a further 11 months to complete the external repairs. It is acknowledged that it had decided to include those works as part of its SHDF programme, which resulted in further delays. It is reasonable for landlords to make use of available funding in order that it can make the best use of its resources. However, it had previously advised the resident that external works were likely to start in February 2024. There is no indication it took adequate steps to manage her expectations. This would have caused her unnecessary additional distress at having to face further unexpected delays.
The landlord’s communication was consistently poor. It did not make reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, particularly with regard to the external repairs. The evidence shows that she was left to contact it for up-to-date information. Despite her repeated prompting for updates, between January and June 2024, the landlord failed to respond. Its poor communication and failure to adopt a customer focussed approach, or provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether those works would progress. That the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to manage her expectations or update her about the external works was a failing.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report states that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. Although it provided the resident with single points of contact, these had sometimes changed without the landlord properly informing her. The lack of proper handover procedures demonstrates a ineffective internal communication. It was not until it issued its stage 2 response that the landlord explained that the delay in responding to her emails was due to a miscommunication around her new single point of contact.
The evidence shows that the landlord did make some effort to chase its contractor but this was usually when prompted by the resident. It has been unable to demonstrate it took adequate steps to monitor the repairs or ensure they were going ahead as planned. It is recognised that, due to the extent of the works that were needed, the landlord would likely have taken longer than usual to complete them. However, it could reasonably have kept a track of the contractor’s progress to ensure it complied as near as possible to the timeframes in its repairs policy. That it had difficulty establishing whether the works were complete indicates a lack of oversight. This was a failing.
The Service also acknowledges from internal correspondence that the landlord had some challenges with its contractors in terms of timeliness and quality of work. Furthermore, the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint that management of the external repairs had been transferred to a different team, which contributed to some of the delays. Although this is noted, the landlord should take all necessary steps to ensure internal issues do not impact on the services provided to residents. It has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to minimise any disruption. Its lack of any effective repair management and failure to put any contingency planning in place meant it failed to take reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum.
In summary, the evidence shows that it took the landlord over 22 months from when the resident reported damp and mould on 23 November 2022 to when both the internal and external works recommended in July 2023 were completed. In terms of the delays, it took the landlord:
1. Nearly 4 months after the resident’s initial report to carry out the first damp inspection.
2. Around a further 4 months for the damp specialist and then the independent consultant to complete surveys.
3. Over 4 months to then complete the internal works after agreeing the scope of works in July 2023.
4. Over 10 months from completion of the internal works to completion of the external works.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord’s attempts to put things right are noted. Furthermore, its offer of redress is in line with its compensation policy, and what we would award for distress and inconvenience for similar failings. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing repairs and for the impact this has on the resident. It recognised its failure to properly consider her vulnerabilities during this time and gave details on how it learnt from the complaint. It also offered her £2,340, in recognition of the detriment caused by its failings. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged its poor communication and made an increased offer of £2,590 in recognition of its failure to properly hand over the case to a new single point of contact.
For the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman will not order that the landlord pays any additional compensation. However, considering the extent and frequency of the delays, the resident’s vulnerabilities at the time, and time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure. This is because, although the landlord made an offer of compensation, not all of its failings were appropriately acknowledged during the complaints procedure. Its failings left the household to live with the impact of ongoing delays in completing repairs, and potentially higher heating bills. The landlord should apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings now. We have also ordered the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for any additional energy costs she incurred as a result of its delay in completing necessary repairs. This will be subject to the resident providing the appropriate evidence.
It is noted that the resident has requested a 50% refund of her rent for the period from when she reported damp and mould in November 2022, to when the landlord completed the repairs recommended in July 2023. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the risks and discomfort of living with damp or mould, we have not seen any evidence to suggest that the damp was so significant that the resident could not use the rooms, or live in the property. Furthermore, the landlord did arrange for a decant to limit inconvenience and disruption to the resident while the works were underway. It is noted that the decant in itself would have been the cause of some inconvenience. However, the landlord had appropriately moved the resident to a suitable alternative property while the works were underway. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that the resident was caused distress and inconvenience as a result of the required repairs, the evidence does not suggest that the property was rendered uninhabitable, or the rooms were unusable, at any time. It follows that there is no basis for a rent based compensation offer to be made.

Complaint

The evidence shows that the landlord took 31 working days to issue its stage 1 response for Complaint B. Furthermore, after she escalated it on 7 January 2024, it was not until 19 June 2024, 115 working days later, that it issued the stage 2 response. There is no indication it had tried to explain why its responses were delayed or that it had made any attempts to agree new extension times with her.
It is noted that the landlord was communicating with her about ongoing works over this period. However, this should not have prevented it from providing timely responses to her complaint, or to send holding responses. This was a departure from both its own policy and the Code. It is also noted that neither of the 2 complaint responses for Complaint B acknowledged or apologised for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. As part of her complaint, the resident raised a concern that the property she was decanted to had leaks and mould in 2 of the rooms. Although it is noted the landlord briefly mentioned this in its stage 1 response for Complaint B, there is no indication it made any attempt to properly investigate the matter or to provide a response. This is a further departure from the Code and as a result the resident’s concerns were left unanswered. That the landlord failed to fully address the resident’s complaint or make reasonable attempts to follow its own complaints policy amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £2,790, which is calculated as follows
  1. £2,590 it offered to her in its stage 2 response to Complaint B, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether she wishes to complain about the condition of the decant property. If so, the landlord should ensure that it investigates her concerns and responds in line with its policy.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord to
1. On provision of relevant evidence from the resident, assess whether she has paid higher heating bills due to the condition of her property prior to repairs being completed. If she has, the landlord to offer reasonable reimbursement for any additional energy costs she incurred as a result of its delay in completing necessary repairs.
2. Review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord should also consider putting a mechanism in place that alerts it when complaints are likely to get overlooked or are due to be subject to undue delays. This way it can contact residents in good time, agree new timescales and reassure them that their complaints are being properly monitored.

The landlord to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above within the timeframe stated above.