London Borough of Wandsworth (202441950)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441950

London Borough of Wandsworth

4 September 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.
2. The resident’s related concerns about unfair treatment by the landlord (including an allegation of bias).
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette in a low-rise block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives with his wife and their 2 children. Each member of his household has a vulnerability. The family’s vulnerabilities include Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), epilepsy, asthma, allergies, and mental health difficulties.
The resident’s tenancy began in November 2023. A gas leak delayed his move to the property. He reported other repair issues to the landlord around the same time. Subsequently, 2 leaks occurred within a short period after he had moved in. At this stage, the resident was in regular contact with the landlord about the condition of the property. It did not raise a formal complaint for him at this time. In February 2024 the resident made a legal disrepair claim against the landlord.
The parties agreed to settle the resident’s legal claim in mid-2024. As part of the settlement, the landlord agreed to pay him £1,000 and complete various repairs. Subsequently, the works did not progress and further repair issues arose. In November 2024 the resident made a homeless application to the local authority’s relevant department. He said the property was unsafe. After some interactions with the resident, the landlord raised a formal complaint for him later that month.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response in December 2024. It accepted there were repair issues at the property. However, it said these were outstanding due to the resident’s actions. It did not uphold his complaint. Soon afterwards, a legal representative escalated the resident’s complaint on his behalf. They questioned the scope of the landlord’s repairs. They also said the resident needed a temporary move to facilitate the works. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in January 2025. The response largely reiterated its previous position.
The resident remained unhappy subsequently. He updated the Ombudsman in August 2025. He told us there had not been any court action in relation to his disrepair claim. He also said 2 leaks had occurred at the property and the landlord previously resolved 1 of these. However, he said that the main leak was ongoing despite its investigations. He wanted the landlord to move his family. He felt it should improve its policies, procedures, and communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised that the situation is distressing for the resident and his family. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether a landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal items. Similarly, we cannot determine whether a landlord’s actions were negligent.
During his complaint, the resident asked the landlord for a permanent move on health and welfare grounds. The Housing Act 1996 governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. Part 6 sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who are living in unsuitable conditions, or who need to move for health/welfare reasons. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications that fall under Part 6. Since the resident’s related concerns are better suited to the LGSCO, this aspect of his complaint is out of scope for our investigation. It is noted that he has already complained to the LGSCO.
The resident also referenced a rodent infestation in his complaint to the landlord. From his correspondence, it is unclear if he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord did not address the infestation in its complaint responses. In general, we can only investigate issues that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. We also need sufficient information to complete a fair investigation. Given the above, the landlord’s handling of the infestation is also out of scope for this report. However, we have considered its related complaint handling below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition

The property was void (empty) before the resident’s family moved in. The landlord completed some checks during this void period. For example, its contractors inspected the property’s windows and central heating. We have seen some related records including a gas safety certificate. The records show that the landlord’s contractors did not identify any follow-up works to the windows or heating. However, it is noted that some of the inspection records are unclear and/or lack detail. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these partial records point to a lack of thoroughness. The contractors were acting as the landlord’s agents, so the landlord was ultimately responsible for their actions.
At this stage, the resident was living in another 1 of the landlord’s homes. He collected the property’s keys on 14 November 2023. On the same day, an engineer told him that the property was unsafe due to a gas leak. This delayed the resident’s move. He reported other repair issues to the landlord around the same time. These included inoperable windows and a defective front door. There is no indication that he complained about the property’s condition at this point. However, he felt the landlord should have identified the various repair issues during the void period. He asked it to raise the matter with its voids team. The resident’s request was understandable in the circumstances.
The landlord postponed the resident’s tenancy start date. It also replaced the property’s boiler and covered its rent for about 1 week (from 20 November 2023). These were reasonable steps. Subsequently, the resident moved to the property around 26 November 2023. On that date, he reported that water was leaking into 1 of its bedrooms. Records show that the landlord attended his report on the same day. Its repairs procedure does not include specific timescales for different types of repairs. Nevertheless, a swift response was appropriate in the circumstances.
A corresponding repair record shows the leak had stopped by the time the landlord’s operative had arrived. However, the operative noted a “small wet patch” in a corner of the bedroom. They noted that there was a balcony directly above the area. They said the balcony had a drain but it was clear and the surrounding area was dry. They felt that it would be easier to locate the leak when the water ingress resumed. Given his previous experience of repair issues at the property, it is likely that the leak was distressing for the resident.
Later, the resident said (through 1 of his legal representatives) that he complained to the landlord on 3 December 2023. We have not seen a corresponding complaint. However, the evidence does show that the resident continued to report repair issues at this stage. For example, the landlord’s repair records show that:
1. On 13 December 2023 the resident reported that the property’s toilet leaked whenever it was flushed. The landlord completed a repair on 14 December 2023.
2. On 8 January 2024 the landlord completed works to ease and adjust each of the property’s windows. Since the windows were inspected in the void period, the evidence suggests that it missed an opportunity to resolve similar issues before the resident moved in. It is reasonable to conclude that facilitating these works was inconvenient for the resident.
3. On 17 January 2024 the landlord raised a repair order to make the property’s electrics safe. This was following a leak which affected the property’s toilet, bathroom, and a bedroom. The landlord completed the works on the next day. Subsequent events show this was a different leak.
Ultimately, the resident raised a legal disrepair claim against the landlord. On 21 February 2024, his legal representative wrote to the landlord. They claimed that there were leaks and defective plasterwork throughout the property, there was damp and mould in several rooms, and external walls were defective along with fixtures/fittings in the bathroom and toilet. If it had raised a formal complaint for the resident, the landlord may have avoided a legal disrepair claim. We have considered its complaint handling in the relevant section below.
The resident has said that he complained to the landlord again on 24 February 2024. We have not seen a copy of his email. However, the parties’ subsequent correspondence shows that the landlord inspected the property 2 days later. It then emailed the resident on 8 March 2024. The email shows that the resident had reported another leak on the same date. In summary, the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the property was “not ready for occupancy” when the resident moved in. However, it was pleased that the “pre occupancy works” had since been completed.
2. The initial leak was ongoing and the source was unknown. The landlord had investigated 2 flats above the property. However, it did not find any issues.
3. The property’s main bedroom was still damp. This pointed to a “slow leak”. It had arranged for its contractor to complete a further investigation. The contractor would also inspect the property’s bathroom and toilet.
4. It had previously resolved the second leak. It had also offered the resident a dehumidifier to expedite the drying process. The resident had declined this because he felt it was unsuitable for his child with complex needs.
5. It believed the required repairs could be completed with the resident’s family in situ. The resident could submit a transfer application if he still wished to move (the landlord included a relevant link in its email).
Following the resident’s letter of claim, each party appointed an independent surveyor. The property was surveyed twice in mid-April 2024. We have seen copies of both expert reports. They confirm that several disrepair issues were identified. The findings were broadly similar. For example, each report said that the repairs would cost about £2,000. They also said the works were likely to take a few weeks and the family did not need to be moved to facilitate these. The landlord’s appointed surveyor specifically said that no category 1 hazards were identified during their inspection. Under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System, category 1 hazards are considered to present the highest level of risk. In summary, other key points from the expert reports were:
1. Damp staining and blown plaster were evident in the property’s main bedroom. Further investigation was needed to identify the source of the leak. Remedial repairs and redecoration works should be carried out after it was rectified.
2. Similar issues were evident in the second bedroom. The room had its own cupboard which was also damaged. Both the room and the cupboard needed repairs and decorating works. Each surveyor felt the cupboard had been damaged by a different leak that was already resolved.
3. There was cracked plaster above a window in the third bedroom. This should be repaired. Similarly, there were limited repair issues in other rooms. The living room and a lobby area required some remedial decoration works due to a previous leak. There was also a leaking radiator valve in the living room.
4. A store cupboard in the property’s entrance hall was damp. Each surveyor felt this related to a leak in the property’s bathroom (above the cupboard). They said the landlord should investigate the bathroom before repairing the area. The landlord’s surveyor noted that there was staining to a soil pipe located in the cupboard.
The survey reports support some of the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition. They include images of various repair issues. Based on these images, it is likely that the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. Their vulnerabilities may have intensified this distress. However, both surveyors felt that the property was habitable and a temporary move was not required. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant specialists. There is no indication it was obliged to move the family. It is noted that it had previously signposted the resident to a rehousing process.
On 12 June 2023 the landlord offered to settle the resident’s disrepair claim. In summary, it proposed to pay him £1,000 for any damages which he had incurred since the beginning of his tenancy. It offered to undertake the required repairs (as specified by the landlord’s appointed surveyor) within 4 months. It said that if the works were not completed within the required timescale, then the resident should agree to a 3 month extension. The landlord also said it would assume responsibility for any legal costs which he had reasonably incurred. The evidence indicates that the resident agreed to the landlord’s suggested terms (through his legal representative). In the circumstances, we find that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer him a significant amount of financial redress.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred subsequently:
1. In July 2024 the landlord’s contractor inspected the property. This was to plan the recommended repair works.
2. In late August 2024 the landlord raised a works order for an asbestos survey. The survey was completed about 1 month later. We have not seen a copy of the report. Subsequent events show that asbestos was found in the property.
3. In early September 2024 the landlord raised a repair order to fix a leaking toilet. The record indicates that it completed a repair on the same day.
4. On 23 September 2024 the landlord discussed its asbestos report with the resident. Its notes show that he was concerned. The landlord said that its report had not recommended any immediate actions to address the asbestos. It said it had only been advised to “manage and inspect” it.
5. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 31 October 2024. It said that it had tried to contact him several times to arrange the repair works. It asked him to contact a named member of the contractor’s staff about these. It also said that it was willing to discuss any queries or concerns that he may have about the works. The letter was sent around 4 months after the parties had agreed to settle the legal disrepair claim.
6. On 7 November 2024 the resident reported that part of a ceiling had collapsed while he was bathing. The evidence indicates he also reported there were mice in the property. He subsequently made a homeless application to the local authority. Records show he referenced various issues including severe mould, sewage smells, leaks, and asbestos. He said the property was unsafe and highlighted his family’s vulnerabilities. Records indicate that they were placed in temporary accommodation for several days (by the local authority’s relevant department).
7. During internal correspondence on 12 November 2024, the landlord said the resident had reported that he would not return to the property. It also said that, “[the resident] advised he will only provide access when he returns the keys to [the property]”. There is some evidence that the landlord was unable to gain access to the property around this time.
On 13 November 2024 the landlord inspected the property. The inspection was completed by 1 of its area managers and a specialist from its maintenance team. Its inspection notes said there were “minimal mould patches” in 1 of the property’s bedrooms. They also said that there were repair issues in a small cupboard near the front door. They referenced mould and a hole in a wall. However, the notes also said that the walls in the main bedroom felt dry, there was no hole in the bathroom ceiling, and no smells were evident. The landlord noted that the family were not using some of the bedrooms. In its related internal correspondence, the landlord said the property was in good condition overall. It also said the cupboard door could be kept closed. It said it had told the resident that the landlord would not provide temporary accommodation during the repairs. The landlord emailed the resident about its inspection findings on the same day. Some key points from the landlord’s email were:
1. The property had a number of repair issues. These were largely in line with the previous disrepair survey. Much of the water staining was old and the marks had not changed significantly since the surveyor’s report.
2. The landlord would treat the mould in the bedroom. Its ventilation contractor would also survey the property with a view to improving its fans and ventilation. It had already raised a repair order to treat the property for mice.
3. There was mould in a small cupboard, along with a hole and a leaking pipe. The leak was minor. The landlord would rectify the issues in the cupboard. Since the area was “self contained”, these issues did not affect the rest of the property.
4. The property was habitable and there were no significant damp or mould issues. The resident should confirm when he would provide access for the repairs.
5. The resident had advised that his wife was recently diagnosed with asthma. He had attributed this to damp and mould issues at the property. Based on his comments, the landlord would obtain a professional opinion about the property’s suitability from a specialist medical advisor.
The above information shows that the landlord promptly arranged another inspection after the resident reported further repair issues. It also arranged for a senior manager and a maintenance specialist to complete this inspection. This was a reasonable approach. There is no indication that the landlord was obliged to arrange another independent survey. However, it did offer a specialist survey of the property’s ventilation. It also obtained a medical opinion about whether the property was safe for the family. Given their concerns around damp, mould, and vulnerabilities, these were proactive and reasonable steps. It is noted that the medical specialist replied on the same date (13 November 2024). They advised that the property was suitable for the family.
Between 21 and 25 November 2024, the resident sent the landlord several emails. In these, he said that it had failed to prepare or inspect the property during the void period. He also said it had moved his family to an unsafe home, and its actions were negligent. In addition, he said he had made considerable efforts to resolve the repair issues and this was time consuming. He also said that he was vulnerable and the situation had adversely impacted his mental health. He wanted the landlord to review his case (presumably his request for rehousing). During a different email, he said there was a significant mouse infestation in the property and rodents were entering through various holes. He also said that 1 of his children had an eating disorder. He was worried that they may eat bait which had been placed in the property. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it raised a formal complaint for the resident on 25 November 2024. It was reasonable for it to engage with his comments.
The resident’s emails included various undated images of the property. Among other issues, they appear to show water droplets and a damp patch on a ceiling, water staining in various locations, limited patches of mould, and bait in several trays. From the information seen, it is unclear whether all of the images stemmed from this time period (late 2024). Nevertheless, based on the images, it is likely that the repair issues shown were distressing for the resident and his family.
On 2 December 2024 a specialist pest contractor updated the landlord following a visit to the property that day. They said that rodents were entering the property through holes. However, they also said that water damage was evident in the main bedroom, “mould and dampness” could be seen on the walls, the air smelled of mould, and a pipe was leaking in a cupboard. They encouraged the landlord to give urgent attention to these matters. It is noted that the contractor specialised in pest control works. However, it is also noted that they were concerned about the property’s condition and some of their comments differed from the landlord’s previous inspection findings.
The landlord issued a brief stage 1 response on 5 December 2024. It referred to its inspection the previous month. It accepted that there were some repair issues at the property. However, it said that the property was in “good condition” overall. It also referenced the resident’s legal disrepair claim. It said that he had “refused access” for repairs and “demanded” to be moved. It attributed the outstanding works to the resident’s actions. It said it understood that he had recently agreed to provide access. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
There were some issues with the landlord’s response. Some of these relate to procedural aspects of its complaint handling. We have considered these in the relevant section below. Arguably, there were also problems with the landlord’s approach and tone. For example, the resident was unlikely to agree that the property was in good condition given its various confirmed repair issues. It is noted that this description was previously used by the landlord’s senior manager (during internal correspondence). However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was insensitive for the landlord to use this in its response. Its approach may have added to the resident’s distress.
Similarly, the landlord blamed the resident in its response. It did not attempt to progress the outstanding repairs or improve relations between the parties. It could have reasonably asked the resident to confirm his availability for the works. It could also have offered to arrange these with its contractor. These would have been positive steps which may have prevented further delays. Overall, the landlord’s approach was arguably negative at this point. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was also unreasonable. The landlord may have caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship at this stage.
On 13 December 2024 a different legal representative wrote to the landlord. They wanted to escalate the resident’s complaint on his behalf. Their correspondence broadly reiterated the resident’s previous concerns about the property’s condition. In terms of new information, the representative said:
1. The resident had not heard from the landlord’s contractor after it had completed a pre-works inspection in July 2024.
2. The resident’s previous legal representative had chased the landlord in early October 2023. They alleged that, as the repairs were not complete, the landlord had breached the settlement which the parties agreed in mid-2024.
3. The property had numerous repair issues that were not detailed in the expert reports. These included damaged flooring, exposed pipes, and paintwork that was suspected to contain lead (the representative did not mention the infestation directly).
4. The landlord should complete the necessary repairs immediately. It should also provide temporary accommodation for the family while the works were carried out.
In early January 2025 the resident told the local authority that he was living at the property alone. He said the rest of his family were staying with friends due to ongoing repair issues. Records show that the landlord liaised with the local authority’s rehousing department on 10 January 2023. During this interaction, the landlord said that the outstanding repairs were due to begin on 21 January 2025. It also said that the resident was worried about asbestos. However, it said that it had previously tested the property and no asbestos had been found. The above shows the landlord had taken steps to progress the repairs. This was a reasonable approach. However, its comment about asbestos was incorrect. Subsequent events suggest it made a similar comment to the resident around this time. The evidence points to a communication and/or record keeping failure.
On 13 January 2025 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. In it, the landlord largely reiterated its previous points from stage 1. It said the resident should allow the legal disrepair works to be completed. It also said that, if he felt the property’s condition had deteriorated since its last inspection in November 2024, the resident could request another inspection. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it adopted a more positive approach at this point. This is because it offered the resident a further inspection.
On 16 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord. He asked it to cancel the scheduled repairs. He said that he wanted it to provide a list of works beforehand (he felt that the property required additional repairs). He also said that he wanted it to arrange suitable temporary accommodation for his family. Subsequently, the landlord’s operatives were unable to gain access to the property on 21 January 2025. During internal correspondence on the same date, the landlord’s manager reiterated they did not believe that a temporary move was required. The evidence indicates that, by this point, the resident had requested a temporary move on a number of occasions. From the information seen, this was a key sticking point in the dispute between the parties.
The landlord has a process for “essential repair transfers” (temporary moves to facilitate repairs). Its process document shows it is for the landlord’s area managers (including deputy managers) to identify whether a short term move is required. In this case, it was an area manager who inspected the property in November 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord considered the matter at an appropriate level in line with its process. The manager decided that such a move was not required. Their decision was consistent with the independent surveyors’ reports and the medical specialist’s advice. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord considered the relevant information and made a reasonable decision.
On 1 February 2025 a contractor completed an asbestos survey at the property. The contractor was appointed by the resident. Its report said there were “very low” levels of asbestos in some flooring. The affected floors were in the hallway, kitchen, and lounge areas. The contractor said that the flooring should not be disturbed, its condition should be managed and monitored, and it should be removed by trained operatives if refurbishment works may disturb it. It is noted that the resident’s contractor did not recommend any immediate action to address the asbestos, or highlight any immediate safety concerns.
The evidence shows that the contractor’s recommendations were similar to those which the landlord received in September 2024. Overall, there is no indication of any related safety failures by the landlord. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is unlikely that the resident would have obtained a survey (which presumably involved a significant cost) if the landlord had given him correct information about asbestos in early 2025. In mitigation, the evidence suggests that it had previously given him accurate information in September 2024. However, the resident’s additional survey report is more evidence of a communication failure by the landlord. The resident was adversely impacted due to the inconvenience of arranging a survey and the related costs.
In early March 2025, the landlord took steps to obtain an injunction (a court order) against the resident. It wanted to use this to gain access to the property. If the landlord believed that the resident had breached the tenancy agreement (a contract between the parties), then it was entitled to seek a legal remedy. Around 1 month later, a contractor inspected the property on the landlord’s behalf. Subsequently, the landlord chased the contractor for its findings. It was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the contractor’s progress and chase it for any outstanding information.
The contractor replied to the landlord on 29 April 2025. Its email contained a list of repair works. The list included some additional items. These included repairs to some kitchen units and works to trace water ingress in a porch area. Significantly, the contractor felt that the landlord should “investigate [a] possible down pipe” before completing any internal repairs. It is noted that it did not raise any urgent concerns about the property. The landlord’s subsequent correspondence (from 13 May 2025) indicates that it took steps to investigate the down pipe and remove asbestos from the kitchen floor. It was reasonable for the landlord to engage with the contractor’s recommendation. It is noted that the above referenced steps may have hindered its progress with the outstanding repairs. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord could have reasonably avoided this. For example, there is no indication that it overlooked similar recommendations at an earlier stage in the repair timeline.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during an online meeting in August 2025. An advocate was present during the meeting. The resident told us there was a leak in the property’s main bedroom and it had been ongoing since the start of his tenancy. He said the leak was intermittent but he had stopped using the room around May 2024. He also said that he slept in the living room and his wife slept in a small bedroom with the children. He confirmed that he had withdrawn his legal disrepair claim. He said he was advised that the claim could not proceed due to his homeless application. His advocate (not a legal specialist) told us that they had experienced medical symptoms following a recent visit to the property. They felt that this gave an indication of its overall condition.
The resident provided further updates soon afterwards. He reiterated that he wanted a permanent move to another property. He also said that he wanted the landlord to improve its policies, procedures, and communication. He supplied a recent survey report from an independent damp specialist. The survey report shows the resident had appointed the specialist and they inspected the property on 22 August 2025. The key points from the survey report were:
1. During the inspection, all of the walls, ceilings, and floors in the property were dry (based on moisture readings). The specialist felt there had been no water ingress over the summer months.
2. However, there were “signs of long-term damp in the ceiling” near a down pipe. There was also a strong odour in the property’s main bedroom. The specialist had taken a sample to see if any harmful mould was present. They had not received the test results yet.
3. The specialist had tested the drainage system in a flat above the property and there were no signs of any related leaks. They had been unable to inspect a cast iron sewage pipe that was located in a sealed area outside the property’s kitchen.
4. There appeared to be some mould growth between the property’s bath and a down pipe. The mould was not visible until the specialist analysed an image that was taken during the inspection (this image appears to show an area under the bath). The mould could indicate a leak.
5. The specialist felt that the block’s roof, or pipework from the roof, was leaking.
The specialist’s interim report did not say that the property had urgent health or safety issues which required urgent remedial works. Similarly, it did not include any recommendations around repairs. It is also noted that the report only included 1 image of potential mould around pipework in the bathroom. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the report does not suggest that there are severe disrepair issues at the property. Instead, the findings appear to be broadly consistent with previous surveys that were completed by various parties.
To date, the landlord has offered to pay the resident £1,000 in relation to repair issues which occurred between 14 November 2023 and 12 June 2024. This was a period of about 7 months. The landlord’s offer was not made through its formal complaints process. Nevertheless, we have considered it out of fairness to both parties.
The landlord’s complaints policy shows that it uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to calculate its compensation awards. In line with our guidance, an award of £1,000 is consistent with cases where we have found severe maladministration on a landlord’s part. The evidence suggests this was a relevant category in this case. This is based on the distress and inconvenience that the resident was caused by the property’s repair issues during the above referenced 7-month period. The landlord has acknowledged that the property was not ready when he moved in. Its void records suggest it could have rectified at least some of the repair issues (such as defective windows) beforehand. If the landlord had not offered a substantial payment, then it is likely that we would have reached a severe maladministration finding in respect of this complaint point.
Its complaint responses show that the landlord believes it was not responsible for any failures during the second phase of the repair timeline. This lasted for about 15 months and ran from 13 June 2024 to date. The parties agree that necessary repairs did not progress in this period. They have blamed each other for the lack of progress. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor tried to progress the works in July 2023, but it was unable to contact the resident. It shows the resident subsequently cancelled works in January 2025 because he did not agree with the landlord’s approach. From the information provided, we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord or its agents were responsible for significant delays during this phase. It is noted that the landlord also took a number of positive steps. For example, it offered to arrange a specialist damp survey and obtained advice from a medical advisor.
However, there is evidence that the landlord was responsible for other failures which adversely impacted the resident. Specifically, it gave him incorrect information about asbestos in the property. The evidence suggests the landlord had supplied accurate information to the resident in 2023, but it subsequently contradicted this. The resident was concerned about asbestos and he ultimately arranged a further survey. It is likely this was inconvenient for him. The landlord also adopted an insensitive tone in its stage 1 response. It blamed the resident without attempting to improve the parties’ relations or progress the repairs. Its approach was unreasonable and may have added to the resident’s distress. The landlord has not acknowledged these failures or attempted to put things right for the resident. This was inadequate. Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident. Our calculation replaces its previous offer. It reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s complaints policy and our own guidance on remedies.

The resident’s concerns about unfair treatment by the landlord

In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it would not engage with his (latest) legal representative about his disrepair claim. It said that he had previously instructed a different solicitor and that solicitor was still instructed to act in respect of the claim. It asked the resident to clarify the situation. Soon afterwards, the resident wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) about the landlord’s approach. In his letter, he claimed that the landlord had breached his rights to legal representation and fair process. He also said that its refusal to engage with his representative had delayed his case and created unnecessary complications. It is recognised that these are serious claims. It is unclear whether the EHRC has subsequently addressed these.
On 6 February 2025 the landlord reiterated its position to the resident. It encouraged him to liaise with his previous solicitor about the disrepair claim. However, it said that it was willing to engage with his legal representative about matters that did not relate to the claim. It is noted that it had previously allowed the resident’s representative to escalate his complaint. Since the Ombudsman cannot reach legal findings, we cannot establish whether the landlord broke laws such as the Human Rights Act. We can assess whether it considered its legal duties and treated the resident fairly. There is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord failed to give due consideration to its legal duties. Similarly, there is no indication that the landlord was responsible for an avoidable delay which adversely impacted the resident.
The resident raised similar concerns in his subsequent correspondence to the Ombudsman. He felt the landlord had shown “institutional bias” towards his family. There is no evidence to show he had raised these concerns with the landlord during the relevant repair and complaint timelines. Nevertheless, we checked the case evidence for any information to support his concerns around bias/discrimination. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had treated him differently to other residents. Similarly, there is no indication that it had overlooked any protected characteristics or related legal duties under equality laws. Overall, there is no evidence of any related failures on the landlord’s part. As a result, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident has said that his “original complaints” to the landlord went unanswered. This suggests he feels that it should have logged a formal complaint for him at an early stage in the repair timeline. One of his legal representatives has also said that the resident complained to the landlord in December 2023. We have not seen any direct evidence to show that the landlord failed to respond to a formal complaint around that time.
Ultimately, the resident made a legal disrepair claim in February 2024. The information we have seen indicates that he felt a claim was necessary to resolve matters with the landlord. Since it has a complaints process to resolve disputes, it is concerning that he felt this way. In general, if a landlord is unsure how to proceed then it should proactively ask a reporting resident whether they want to log a formal complaint or not. This approach may help landlords to avoid legal claims, which can be distressing and inconvenient for residents.
Later, following the resident’s emails between 21 and 25 November 2024, the landlord decided to log a formal complaint for him. It did this on 25 November 2024. There is no indication that the resident had asked it to raise a complaint at this point. However, it was clear from his emails that he was unhappy with the landlord’s actions/services. For example, he had expressed wider concerns about the property’s condition on letting, a related lack of inspections by the landlord, and rodents entering the property through holes. He also said that he had previously complained to the landlord a number of times. Since the courts were not involved in his disrepair claim, it was reasonable for the landlord to log a formal complaint for the resident. It was also a proactive approach on its part.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 November 2024. Its complaints policy says it should acknowledge complaints within 2 working days at each stage. The landlord adhered to its relevant timescale. However, it did not outline the proposed scope of its investigation. The landlord’s internal complaint handling guide (effective May 2024) says its acknowledgements should include the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and the outcome being sought. It also says that if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, then the landlord should clarify matters with the resident. In this case, the landlord did not adhere to its relevant guidance. This was inadequate. The evidence shows that it subsequently overlooked important aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 5 December 2024. This was 7 working days later. Its complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days of an acknowledgement at stage 1. The landlord adhered to its relevant timescale. However, its response focused on the resident’s disrepair claim. It did not address the wider concerns that he had raised. The landlord’s internal guidance says “you will need to ensure all points are answered and a satisfactory response is given”. The landlord did not do this. Its response was inadequate and the resident was impacted. For example, the evidence suggests that the parties’ agreed settlement (to the legal disrepair claim) did not cover any infestation-related issues. It is noted that the infestation issues arose several months after the settlement was agreed by the parties.
On 16 December 2024 the resident’s legal representative escalated the resident’s complaint on his behalf. The landlord issued a formal complaint acknowledgement on the next working day. Subsequently it issued a stage 2 response on 13 January 2025. This was 17 working days later. The landlord’s policy says it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. It adhered to its relevant timescale. However, there were similar problems with its complaint handling at this stage. Again, the landlord did not outline the scope of its investigation or address the resident’s wider concerns from stage 1. Its approach was not consistent with its internal guidance. This was inadequate.
In mitigation, the resident’s legal representative did not restate all of the resident’s previous concerns in their escalation request. Instead, they broadly focused on events from February 2024 onwards. However, the escalation request did mention rodents entering the property through holes and the amount of pest control visits that had occurred. This is more evidence that the resident may have been unhappy with the landlord’s related handling. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord missed opportunities to address some of his key complaint issues at each stage of its process. If the resident felt that key points had been ignored, then it is likely this was distressing for him.
The resident had raised some understandable concerns about the landlord’s processes (including void inspections and overlooked complaints). A legal disrepair claim was not likely to explore these issues. In contrast, the landlord’s complaints guidance shows it aims to learn from complaints and tell the resident what it has done to ensure that similar issues will not recur. The landlord did not apply the above approach in its investigations. This was unreasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion. It missed an opportunity to learn from the resident’s negative experience and show him it had done so. Similarly, it may have missed an opportunity to improve its services for other residents.
The resident replied to the landlord following its stage 2 response. He repeated some of his wider concerns at this point. For example, he mentioned overlooked complaints during an email on 15 January 2025. This is further evidence that his concerns were important to him. The evidence indicates that he may have concerns about the rodent infestation which have not been addressed to date. From the information seen, there is no indication the landlord has acknowledged the above identified complaint handling issues or attempted to address these.
In summary, there were problems with the landlord’s handling at each stage of its complaints process. Significantly, it overlooked key issues because it departed from the approach in its internal guidance. Since it took a narrow view of the resident’s complaint, it missed important opportunities to learn from his negative experience. Its inadequate approach may have added to his overall distress. There is no indication that the landlord has acknowledged its handling failures or attempted to put things right for the resident. Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant complaints policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.
  2. Complaint handling.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
1. £1,000 which the landlord previously offered the resident to settle his legal disrepair claim. If it has already paid the resident, then it should deduct this figure (it should not pay the same amount twice).
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the property’s condition.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant senior manager to update the resident about any outstanding repairs or ongoing leak investigations. We encourage the manager to confirm that they will remain the resident’s key point of contact in relation to these issues. The landlord must share a copy of its update with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to log a new complaint to address the rodent infestation. This is because there is no indication that it considered this matter as part of the legal disrepair claim or during its subsequent complaint responses.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct an internal review into the key issues that are highlighted in this report. The review should include the steps the landlord will take to ensure it can identify and address key repair issues during the void period and its records are thorough. It should also include the steps the landlord will take to ensure it learns from the complaint handling issues that we have identified. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present its findings to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The landlord should also cascade its improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord to signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. This is so that, if he wants to, the resident can pursue a liability claim against the landlord for any alleged health impacts. It is noted that he recently appointed a damp specialist and they are still investigating the possibility of harmful mould.