Bristol City Council (202222940)

Background

1. The resident contacted us as he had not received a reply from a complaint he said was made in May 2023. We wrote to the landlord in January 2024 about the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. The landlord thereafter opened a new complaint. The landlord attended the property on at least 3 occasions and extensive work was conducted. The resident was unhappy with the amount of time the work took and the lack of compensation for his personal belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord completed extensive works within the property to improve the home and reduce the chances of damp and mould. Although the identification of some of the work and its completion took longer this was not within the landlord’s control.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s complaint as a formal complaint after we advised it to do so in September 2023. This and its delayed stage 2 response led to service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

7. We have no power to consider complaints which are raised prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident received a stage 1 complaint response in December 2022 where it was concluded the home was fit for human habitation. There is no evidence the resident escalated this complaint within the 20 days stipulated in the landlord’s complaint procedure. Accordingly, these matters are not considered in this report, as it is important that the landlord has a chance to put things right prior to our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

8. The landlord had not disputed it was responsible for any damp and mould reported by the resident. Its damp and mould policy states it will check for damp and mould every 5 years. We saw evidence of checks in 2019 and again in 2022, where it found no damp or mould except in the bathroom.
9. The landlord’s file shows it identified work on 18 September 2023 to improve the resident’s home. Although we did not see a service request for this, the work assessment came 4 days after the landlord advised the resident to report any new issues, which could have led to a service request.
10. The landlord’s repair notes show it overhauled the property’s windows and improved draught protection on the back doors. It had previously identified that condensation moved from the bathroom and kitchen into all rooms because the resident removed all internal doors and stored them in the loft. The landlord replaced all these doors to reduce condensation flow within the property. This work aimed to improve the home rather than repair damage and was completed on 1 November 2023 which was a reasonable response. It also overhauled the front door on 22 November 2023. However, on 18 January 2024, it identified the repair was insufficient and ordered a new door, which it appropriately replaced under a programme of works in April 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to take advice from a professional contractor and attempt a repair before replacing the door.
11. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained the extensive work it undertook. Although its repair logs do not fully evidence the work, the resident did not dispute it. The landlord stated it had worked with the resident since his complaint was not upheld in December 2022. We saw evidence that the landlord offered a damp and mould inspection on 17 April 2023 which the resident refused. It is unclear why the inspection was offered and refused; however, it would have helped the landlord assess potential repairs needed sooner. The landlord also said the resident initially refused access to assess the bathroom for leaks and the extractor fan. When the landlord was given access, it discovered and repaired a major leak which was an appropriate response.
12. The landlord highlighted its previous decision regarding the resident’s request for cavity wall insulation and reaffirmed that his property was not suitable for the upgrade. It agreed to fit insulating board to retain heat in the home as an alternative. This was a reasonable response because the landlord relied on a previous professional report.
13. The landlord said it had to send the repair team instead of a surveyor because the resident told it he did not want them there, as he disagreed with their previous decisions. Although a full damp report would have been appropriate, the resident’s decision restricted the landlord from doing so, which was beyond its control. The landlord highlighted that it attended recently after the resident allowed access, as he had previously refused any work in June 2023 while his solicitor handled the complaint. This again restricted the landlord’s ability to complete work. The landlord stated it attended on several occasions and found no damp or mould except in the shower. It said it completed work to help manage moisture levels within the property, as listed above. This was a reasonable response.
14. Although the landlord did not provide all communication from the resident, it acknowledged that during this period, the resident made an extremely high volume of phone calls, text messages, and emails. The landlord explained it could not respond as frequently as the resident wanted. We saw some communication during this period where the landlord apologised for this. Its apology and explanation were appropriate and showed it understood it could have communicated better.
15. In its complaint responses, the landlord highlighted that it previously asked the resident to keep all photos and receipts since April 2023. It committed to working with the resident toward an award for personal belongings, as the resident requested £8,000 compensation. We saw the landlord request this information on more than one occasion, asking for details of what was damaged and any evidence. The resident was unable to provide this, and the matter was referred to the landlord’s insurance company, which was a reasonable step because it ensured independent assessment of compensation. We recommend the landlord write to the resident and explain exactly what information it requires to allow its insurance company to calculate suitable compensation.
16. In an email on 13 September 2024 the landlord thanked the resident for confirming he was happy with the completed work. The resident recently told us the work resolved the issues at the time. However, he remained unhappy with the time taken to resolve the issues. We saw above that the resident refused access at times, which reduced the landlord’s ability to assess the property sooner. The landlord’s overall actions to improve the property were reasonable as was its handling of the request for compensation. We therefore find no maladministration in its handling of reports of damp and mould.

17. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days of receipt. It will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident. It will aim to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident to a maximum of 20 days.
18. We have not seen any evidence the resident escalated his complaint from 2022 or that he raised a formal complaint with the landlord in May 2023, as he stated. It is unclear if the resident is mistaken as we have seen he did complain to his local MP in May 2023 but this was not a formal complaint to the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2023 and advised it if a complaint had not been received then it should treat it as a new formal complaint. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have opened a new complaint at this point and its failure to do so delayed our ability to investigate. It failed to provide a complaint response within the 10 working days allowed in its policy and the Code which was not a reasonable response.
19. We thereafter had to write to the landlord on several further occasions before it chose to investigate the complaint. We again advised it of the full nature of the resident’s complaint on 23 January 2024 which it investigated as a formal complaint. It thereafter replied within the total 15 working days allowed in its policy. Its stage 1 complaint response was detailed and answered the full complaint.
20. We have seen no evidence the resident directly escalated the complaint to the landlord, however after communications from the resident we requested a stage 2 complaint response on 22 April 2024. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged this within the 5 days allowed in its policy. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 12 June 2024 took 35 working days. This was 10 working days over the total 25 days allowed in its complaints policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have evidenced it had communicated the reasons for the delay and asked for an extension. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have apologised and explained the reason for the delay in its response.
21. The landlord’s failure to log the complaint following our initial contact and its stage 2 complaint delay was a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of this. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have also recommended the landlord provides refresher training to its relevant complaint handling staff to make sure their processes and actions follow its policy and the Code.

Learning

22. The landlord’s complaint handling did not fully follow its own procedures or the code and learning was not taken as it did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord has not provided all of its repair logs in a clear format. It would be appropriate for it to reflect on the issues raised in this report and consider how best to improve.

Communication

24. The landlord has not provided all of its communication logs in a clear format. It would be appropriate for it to reflect on the issues raised in this report and consider how best to improve.