Birmingham City Council (202108680)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108680

Birmingham City Council

31 July 2023

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 about:
1. repairs for front door seals and a living room door.
2. claims for compensation related to a kitchen cupboard falling off a wall and the condition external areas were left in after roof works.
3. repairs for a vent and a back garage door.
4. repairs for a disabled shower.
5. a kitchen cupboard falling off the wall.
6. a lack of major works.
7. multiple repairs.
8. windows.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (c), (g) and (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. repairs for front door seals and a living room door.
2. claims for compensation related to a kitchen cupboard falling off a wall and the condition external areas were left in after roof works.
3. repairs for a vent and a back garage door.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident complained about repairs for front door seals and a living room door. While the landlord addressed these in its final response, they involve historic repairs and it is not evident that the repairs were raised in a reasonable timeframe prior to the complaint.
Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident made compensation claims that the landlord responded to under its claims procedure. The resident has said he has since settled a claim directly with the landlord’s contractor for some issues for around £4,000. This investigation does not consider the outcome to the resident’s claims, but has considered the related complaints for a kitchen cupboard and roof.
Paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not determine complaints we have already decided on. The resident complained about repairs for an air brick vent and a back garage door. These were a subject of a determination by the Ombudsman in May 2021, and it is not evident that these repairs were reported again since the previous complaint and issues progressed to result in a different outcome.
Other complaints which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure individually, or were addressed in a final response in July 2021 about multiple repairs, are in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in 2017. The household includes a child with an auto-immune condition.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy confirms its maintenance responsibilities. The tenancy recommends insurance for accidental damage and says the landlord may use arbitration to resolve certain disagreements. The policy details repairs priorities timescales as emergency – 2 hours; urgent – 1, 3 or 7 working days; and routine – 30 days. It advises there are some larger repairs that may need special materials and arrangements and in these cases, tenants shall be advised of timescales.
At the time of the complaint the landlord would initially attempt to settle complaints on the spot. If this was not possible, the relevant department would investigate and respond within 15 working days. Following this, a customer could escalate their complaint for a response within 20 working days.
The landlord has a compensation procedure which deals with claims for compensation for alleged personal loss or damage to property or belongings, personal injury and negligence, which involves completion of a claim form by a resident and assessment of this by the landlord.
The resident has repeatedly complained that multiple repairs are outstanding as they are incomplete or have been poorly done, resulting in damage to belongings totalling £000s. He previously brought 2 complaints to the Ombudsman about outstanding repairs that were determined in January 2019 and May 2021. These found no maladministration for the repairs and service failure for complaint handling and recordkeeping. The resident subsequently made further complaints. Some complaints for individual issues completed the landlord’s complaint procedure separately in November 2020 and February 2021, while a complaint for multiple issues completed the landlord’s complaint procedure in July 2021.
The resident’s complaints were referred to the Ombudsman. He said that there was a large list of unresolved repairs and that their lack of completion had damaged belongings and affected his, his wife and his disabled son’s health.
In January 2023, the Ombudsman released a special report following an investigation into the landlord. This identified issues with its repairs and complaint handling; how it considered resident vulnerability; and its approach to compensation. Following this, in May 2023 the Regulator of Social Housing published a regulatory notice. This found that a significant proportion of the landlord’s properties did not meet the Decent Homes Standard; there were issues with its asbestos handling; and a high number of complaints were overdue.

Summary of events

Repairs for a disabled shower

In September 2020, an emergency repair was raised for a light switch in a bathroom. The same day, an operative attended and noted that the callout was for a shower head leaking from an electric shower, and that everything was left in safe working order. A week later, the resident said that he had reported a shower fault and the attendant operative had promised they would get it repaired, but he had found out that they had just been sent to check the shower was safe and no further repair had been raised. He expressed dissatisfaction with this and highlighted that the shower was for his disabled son.
A week later, a repair was raised for the shower. This was then cancelled after an operative attended and identified that the shower was fitted by social services and should still be under warranty. It was noted that enquiries were made about the relevant repairs process, and it is not disputed that an appointment was arranged for the relevant contactor to attend no earlier than 2 weeks at the resident’s request.
The resident complained that there was a failure to take responsibility for the repair and discrimination against his disabled son. He queried why it took 5 weeks to repair a shower for a disabled child and no one knew how to organise it. He also queried why 1 social services installed shower was not repairable by the landlord’s contractor, while another (which he said was non-functional) was.
In final responses in October and November 2020, the landlord noted that on 9 October 2020 its main contractor had confirmed the correct contractor had made an appointment with him for 19 October 2020. It noted that he had specifically requested this and the shower specialist would normally attend within 1 or 2 working days. It noted that an electrician had attended after the emergency repair report, and it was realised that the shower was fitted by a specialist on behalf of its repairs contractor’s adaptations team and was under a warranty that would be voided if they attempted to fix it. It said that the resident would have been told the shower had a 3 year warranty and to contact the specialist within this period. It explained that its main contractor carried out repairs after the first year or when the warranty ended, and it asked the resident to make a report if another shower needed repair.

A kitchen cupboard falling off the wall

In October 2020, a kitchen cupboard fell off the wall and the resident raised an emergency repair. The following day, a contractor attended and removed the cupboard. Within 5 days a new cupboard was fitted, and extra fixings were fitted to other cupboards after the resident raised concern about their stability. The resident subsequently made a complaint. He said over £1,000 damage had been caused. He felt the fallen cupboard had been poorly fitted originally. He was unhappy that the landlord did not attend to the report as an emergency. He was unhappy that it was originally going to take 30 days to fit a new cupboard and it was only replaced earlier due to dozens of calls and emails. He also raised concern about a call agent’s handling.
The landlord responded to the complaint in October and November 2020 and:
1. it acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by the incident and noted that the fallen cupboard was reported on the evening of 14 October 2020; an operative attended the next morning and removed it; the cupboard was replaced a few days later; and it had arranged for other cupboards to be checked and for additional fixings to be fitted if necessary. It said that an originally scheduled replacement in November 2020 was within a normal timescales, and the cupboard had been replaced earlier at its request.
2. it noted that concern was raised about the cupboard falling, and it said that it was not clear why it fell; adequate fixings were used; many cupboards were fitted annually without incident; and it regularly audited works by way of site visits. It noted that concern was raised that the fixings in the fallen cupboard were shorter than ones used for the replacement, and it explained longer and more heavy duty fixings were fitted due to the previous cupboard falling. It said that the effectiveness of fixings can be impacted by items stored in cupboards and the stress/force applied to them.
3. it noted concern about a call agent and said this was a training issue which would be addressed by a relevant team.
4. it noted that compensation for damage caused to items was requested, and it provided details of its claims procedure.
5. it noted that the resident said that the kitchen was unusable; his disabled son would not go into rooms due to the multiple issues; and requested for his rent to be reduced by 50% and backdated to 15 October 2020. It said that it was sorry his son felt that he could not enter rooms, but it said that the kitchen was still usable and regular rent payments should continue to be made.

A lack of major works

In January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and subsequently made a complaint. He said he had lived at the property for 4 years and queried if there was an update about when a survey would be done for works to the property under its capital investment programme. He was unhappy that there had been no progress since a previous enquiry, and he felt his property should be brought forward as it was not a traditional build.
In final responses in February 2021, the landlord explained that it was not possible to carry out major works to all its properties at the same time, and that it carried out rolling stock surveys based on priority. It noted that its records showed the property was a traditional house built after 1974, although this may not be confirmed until it surveyed. It explained it was currently targeting streets with inter-war properties, after which it would move on to pre-war and post-war properties, targeting those most in need first. It said that it was not possible to carry out surveys on request to ensure a consistent approach, and it noted that newer properties generally had layouts which allowed its repairs service to maintain them. It said that that due to a number of factors, including the impact of COVID-19 and the reprioritisation of its budget to meet government requirements for high rise blocks, it was not possible to predict when the resident’s property would be surveyed, but he would be notified when the survey was due.

Multiple repairs

Complaint chronology

In January and December 2019, the landlord carried out inspections. Following these, it explained it was not responsible/no further action was required for issues including rendering/pointing; warped bannister rail; bathroom condition; asbestos, including a ceiling coating; lounge window water ingress, which was not evident; condensation related bathroom mould; a cistern; and alleged damp, which was not evident externally or from internal damp readings. It agreed it would raise repairs including to repoint porch verge; repair cladding; and treat porch mould. The landlord’s records show, and the resident has not disputed, that repairs for these were done.
In March 2020, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint we determined in May 2021 about some outstanding repairs. Later in 2020, the resident continued to report that multiple repairs had been outstanding for 4 years and said half the property was uninhabitable. He requested the repairs to be done; a property renovation; compensation for the last 3 years; and an independent survey. In responses to a separate complaint, the landlord noted that historic repairs had already been addressed and noted that an inspection by an operative in October 2020 had found no works were required for multiple issues that had been raised. It noted the resident said he would have an independent survey done, and it said it had no objection to this and would respond to any issues they raised.
In early 2021, the resident raised dissatisfaction with delays to repairs including to the roof. He felt some repairs were not completed in line with the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations and that he should be automatically paid compensation. He again requested an independent survey and also submitted a ‘letter of claim’ under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (without legal representation). An MP contacted the landlord noting he listed 22 outstanding repairs and was distressed as he had a disabled son. The landlord noted that the resident was informed about the complaints procedure but that he was unhappy about logging a complaint and wanted to be referred to managers. The landlord informed the resident that a compensation form could be completed on its website, said it was unable to see any open repairs, and queried what repairs were outstanding.
In April 2021, the resident submitted a complaint about there being 22 outstanding repairs and the landlord not paying out compensation for delays in line with the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations. The landlord acknowledged this and said that it would respond in 15 working days. The resident subsequently chased a lack of response to complaints multiple times between May and July 2021.
In June 2021, the landlord scheduled an inspection which it then cancelled after the resident said he intended to record it as ‘evidence’ for this Service. The landlord said it could rearrange the visit if it was not recorded, otherwise it would provide a response that addressed the repairs raised. The resident restated his desire for an independent survey.
In July 2021, after the resident complained about the lack of response to complaints, the landlord sincerely apologised for the delay and inconvenience and said it aimed to respond by 20 July 2021.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint and again apologised for the delay.
1. It detailed multiple contacts that had been raised and set out how some had been addressed as complaints, some as liability claims, and some as general service contacts.
2. It noted that a visit in June 2021 was cancelled when it was going to be filmed. It noted that it had offered for the inspection to go ahead on a different date if he did not film it, and had also contacted him to arrangement an appointment after contact from this Service. It enclosed a repairs report which detailed its position on the repairs he had raised. The report concluded that in the landlord’s opinion, all issues had been actioned and dealt with appropriately. It acknowledged that some (historic) repairs were not within prescribed timescales, but said that the majority were and in line with the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations.
3. It said it would not respond to further correspondence and complaints about issues it had dealt with previously, said that any other repairs should be reported to its contact centre, and confirmed the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure.

Roof

The resident has complained that the roof had had multiple repairs since 2018, and that one of these resulted in damage to a patio and garden in early 2021.
In October 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 response for a complaint. In this it noted that historic works had been addressed, and that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that there was no sign of roof damage.
In December 2020, a repair was raised for a leaking roof. It was noted that the resident reported that there was a hole in the roof, that he could see daylight from the attic, and that there were also some slates inside the roof. Following this, a contractor inspected and reported that works were required to ‘renew ridge’ and ‘point up ridges.’
In January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said he believed the roof should be repaired within 7 days due to the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations. On 29 January 2021, a contractor attended and stripped tiles, lath and old felt, then installed extra insulation, re-lathed and felted.
In February 2021, it was noted that the resident raised dissatisfaction with how external areas had been left after works. He was unhappy that operatives had made the area outside muddy, and left debris such as rusted nails and slate. He raised concern that the condition the area had been left in was unsafe for his son, a wheelchair user. The landlord discussed this with its contractors and arranged for them to return and clean a patio and remove debris. The resident subsequently made a compensation claim, which was declined after an investigation into the issue with contractors.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 2 historic and 1 recent repair for the roof, and noted that repairs were not identified as outstanding in a previous inspection in December 2019. For a recent repair for a leaking roof, raised on 23 December 2020, it detailed that a job to renew and point up ridge tiles was completed on 30 December 2020, and a job to strip back tiles and renew eaves, felt and insulation was completed on 29 January 2021. It noted that this was completed within timescales, as an additional 30 working days was allowed due to the access requirements of the works. It said that the repair did not fall within the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations as it exceeded £250. It noted that damage to the garden had been alleged, and scaffolders had left some nail debris which had been removed, and it noted that no further action was required.

Damp children’s bedroom

The resident complained that a damp bedroom had had multiple repairs since 2017 (which he said was caused by the cladding condition).
In October 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 response for a complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that there were no signs of damp on bedroom walls.
In December 2020, a repair was raised for damp and mould in a living room, child’s bedroom and bathroom. This was raised with a repair for the roof as noted above, which the resident said was probably the reason for the issue getting worse. In January 2021, it was noted that an operative attended, and that the resident declined offers to stain block or spray the ceiling, but accepted works to paint with antimould paint. Around this time, works for completed to the roof.
In March 2021, a further repair was raised for damp and mould, including on a bedroom ceiling, and it was then noted that more time was required. In April 2021, the contractors attended and completed mould treatment work which included removal of paper, washing and treatment of walls, and painting with mould paint.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 2 historic and 2 recent repairs for damp, and noted that there were no elevated damp readings at a previous inspection in December 2019. It detailed that a repair for damp and mould growth on a living room, bedroom and bathroom wall was raised in December 2020, and a job to paint walls with antimould paint was completed in January 2021. It also detailed that a repair for damp and mould growth on a bedroom ceiling was raised in March 2021, and mould treatment was carried out in April 2021. It noted that these were completed within timescales, the repairs were resolved appropriately, and no further action was required.

Cladding

The resident complained that cladding, which had had multiple poor repairs, was causing damp, allowing vermin in and shedding asbestos.
In October 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 response for a separate complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and no issues were found with the cladding.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord raised a repair to inspect and repair cladding boards to the front and rear elevations as necessary. It was noted the resident reported this was causing internal damp.
On 23 November 2020, the landlord provided a final response for a separate complaint. In this, it noted that the resident said the cladding at the property had holes in it which had let in damp, moisture and pests, including a hornet which stung his son. It noted that the cladding boarding was removed and the membrane was checked before a repair in December 2019. However, it said it had raised another works order and appointment for 1 December 2020.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord noted that more time was required as a carpenter needed to assess the repair. It was noted that the resident reported he had been going to buy the property and had received a survey from the landlord that said there was damage to the cladding, so he wanted it changing. Around this time, the resident raised dissatisfaction that a wrong operative was initially sent, which the contractors discussed and noted that this visit would have been an initial assessment anyway. Two panels were subsequently repaired on 9 December 2020.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the extent of the repairs. He said that damaged cladding and membrane had caused damp, an insect infestation and damage to possessions. He said previous repairs had been botched; the cladding did not meet building standards; and at least 7 panels required repair. He raised dissatisfaction that there had been 6 visits since November 2020, that different trades were sent, but no one had attempted to fix the membrane. He said that most similar properties around had had replacement cladding, and complete replacement of the insulation, membrane and cladding was required.
In December 2020 and January 2021, contractors attended for further repairs that were logged, however these were cancelled by a manager as they considered these to be duplicates and felt no works were required. In correspondence around this time, the landlord referred to photographs of the works and noted that its contractor reported that “there is no evidence that the internal wall is exhibiting dampness,” there was flaking paint not crumbling asbestos, and no repairs were required.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 3 historic and 4 recent repairs for cladding. It detailed historic repairs which noted the resident wanted all the cladding renewing. It detailed that a repair was raised in November 2020 to inspect and repair external cladding, reported to be causing damp internally, and that this was completed in December 2020. It detailed that a repair for the cladding membrane was raised on 11 December 2020, and closed on 16 December 2020 for being a duplicate. It detailed that a further repair for the cladding was raised on 23 December 2020, and closed on 21 January 2021 as nothing wrong was observed. It detailed that a further repair for the cladding membrane was raised on 22 December 2020, and closed on 23 December 2020, as the job was completed and no works were required. It noted that at the December 2019 inspection its staff had said only damaged cladding would be repaired or replaced. It said that suitable repairs had been done to the timber cladding, and no repairs were required to the cladding at the side elevation.

Damp bathroom and toilet cistern

The resident complained that a damp bathroom had been caused damage from leaks and window and cladding issues, and that this and a toilet cistern had had multiple repairs.
In October 2020, a repair was raised for a leaking toilet pan, and an operative attended the same day and noted that they searched for leaks and found no visible leaks anywhere. They noted that the cistern was dripping with condensation and they dried this off but the cistern stayed dry.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 8 historic and 2 recent repairs. It detailed that a repair was raised in October 2020 for a leaking toilet, and the same day an operative reported that there was dripping condensation but they found no leaks. It detailed that a further repair for a toilet leak was raised in January 2021, and after which it was noted that a leak was fixed and condensation was bad. It noted that the jobs were completed within timescales and that a previous inspection did not highlight any issues.

Wet room

The resident complained that a damp wet room was unusable by his disabled son, had had multiple repairs, and had resulted in thousands of pounds of damage.
In October 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 response for a separate complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that there were no issues with a wet room.
In November 2020, the landlord provided a final response for a separate complaint, in which it noted the resident made reference to a wet room. It said that it was committed to providing necessary facilities to its disabled residents. It noted that the resident had previously reported a blocked shower waste and a toilet issue and in October 2019, no issues had been found with the shower and the toilet had been isolated at the resident’s request. It said that if he wanted the toilet to be reinstated he should call its repairs contact centre, although it noted previous inspections had identified that the wet room was not being used and being used to store belongings, and it asked for these to be cleared before any visit. It also noted that the resident said that his disabled son would not go into rooms due to the multiple issues and requested for his rent to be reduced by 50% and backdated to 15 October 2020. It said that it was sorry the resident’s son felt that he could not enter rooms, but it said that the bathroom was still usable and the resident should continue making regular rent payments.
The landlord’s 20 July 2021 final response detailed that there had only been 2 historic repairs reported, and it noted that there was no evidence of incompetent repairs or damage due to lack of repair. It noted that at a previous inspection the wet room had been full of belongings, and said that this was the reason why the room was unusable.

Central heating

The resident complained that the central heating had had multiple repairs but did not work 40% of the time.
In September 2020, a repair was raised for no heating and hot water, which was attended the same day. In February 2021, an issue was reported which was attended 2 days later, after an operative attended the following day and was asked to return by the resident. In May 2021, a further issue was reported which was attended the same day.
The landlord’s 20 July 2021 final response detailed 4 historic and 4 recent repairs. It detailed the recent repairs, noted that the jobs were completed within timescales, and noted that there was no mention of a heating issue at inspections that had been carried out.

Damaged internal and external asbestos

The resident complained that internal asbestos damage had had multiple repairs, and that there was external asbestos damage in respect to the cladding.
In October 2020, a repair was raised for a flaking textured surface ceiling, which was suspected to be asbestos. The same or the following day, an operative attended who noted that more time was required to scrape flaky artex, following which the repairs records indicate that a repair was scheduled to 27 October 2020 and then to 26 November 2020.
In October 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 response for a separate complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that there was no signs of asbestos crumbling away on the side of the house.
In November 2020, the landlord issued a stage 2 response to a separate complaint. It noted that the resident queried why, if there was no crumbling asbestos, 6 repairs had now been done, including on 16 October 2020. It said that the resident’s original complaint concerned alleged crumbling asbestos on the exterior cladding, and said that what he referred to now was works to make safe and repair flaking textured ceiling. The landlord’s repairs records subsequently show that there were internal discussions about the resident being aware that mould was on a textured surface, which could not be disturbed without being tested for asbestos.
On 8 January 2021, an operative attended to paint with antimould paint, and it was noted that there was a further appointment on 15 February 2021 to treat the asbestos inside the property. The same day, the resident emailed with photos of his son’s bedroom ceiling. He alleged that asbestos was crumbling on his son’s bed. He raised concern about his son’s lungs, and raised dissatisfaction with having to clean the ceiling and a manager at the contractors saying that an operative would not attend until 5 weeks later. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 11 January 2021 that it had passed this to relevant staff. The outcome to the February 2021 visit is unclear, although further damp works which included the bedroom ceiling were raised in March 2021 and completed by April 2021.
The 20 July 2021 final response said that no issues had been identified with asbestos internally or externally following inspections by it and its contractor. It noted that cladding at the side did have asbestos content, but said that this was ‘sound’ and only required decoration. It said this was done in a capital programme but it was unable to say when the property would be included in one.

Damp porch

The resident complained that damp had returned to a porch because exterior issues with pointing and the porch roof had not been addressed when repairs were done.
In December 2020, after the landlord’s repairs team asked the resident to advise what damp issues he had, he said this included damp in a porch.
On 22 March 2021, a repair was raised for damp and mould. On 31 March 2021, it was noted that more time was required for mould treatment work on the roof and walls of a porch. It was noted that wallpaper needed to be stripped back to carry out mould treatment, but the resident had said the work could not be done in the porch unless the contractors re-wallpapered, which they did not normally do.
On 28 April 2021, the contractors attended and completed mould treatment work which included removal of paper, washing and treatment of walls, and painting with mould paint.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 3 historic repairs for a damp porch which were completed within timescales, and it noted that no recent jobs had been reported.

Loose stair bannister

The resident complained that a loose banister had never had works completed.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 response for a separate complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that a bannister was fit for purpose and not loose.
On 18 January 2021, a repair was raised following a report from the resident about the bannister, and an operative attended the following day. On 28 January 2021, a repair was completed for the bannister, and on 22 February 2021, a further repair was raised which was cancelled the following day at the landlord’s request. It was noted that household members swung from the bannister when coming down the stairs, and that it was believed the repair was tenant responsibility. It was noted that the rail was recently repaired and that photos of this showed that the repair was solid. It was noted that the resident would need to be recharged if a further repair was done.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 1 historic and 2 recent repairs. It detailed that a repair was raised on 18 January 2021, and a newel post was repaired at the bottom of the stairs the following day. It detailed that a further repair was raised on 22 February 2021, which was cancelled due to it being identified to be tenant responsibility. It said it was of the opinion that the issue was resolved, and noted that some operatives who had inspected reported that the handrail was being used ‘inappropriately,’ causing damage.

Replacement of 2 kitchen cabinets

The resident complained that. 2 kitchen cabinets had not been replaced when another cabinet fell off the wall.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed events in respect to the cabinet falling off the wall in October 2020. It noted that an operative attended in November 2020 and installed extra fittings due to the resident’s concern about the wall unit fittings, and an operative who attended in December 2020 found no work was required as there was no movement on all the units. It said it was of the opinion that sufficient repairs had been carried out and no further work was required.

Loose worktop caused by the fallen kitchen cabinet

The resident complained that worktop was loose due to the fallen cabinet and had never been replaced. The 20 July 2021 final response noted that the landlord’s records showed the worktop was replaced on 16 October 2020 and no further work was required.

Damaged bath

The resident complained that a damaged bath had been reported multiple times and also been caused damage by a contractor.
In January 2021, a repair was raised for bath taps and these were renewed the following day. The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 3 historic and 1 recent repair. It detailed that a repair was raised for bath taps on 27 January 2021, and these were renewed the following day. It noted that the issue was not mentioned at a previous December 2019 inspection, and said it was of the opinion that no further works were required.

Poor or damaged insulation

The resident complained that insulation had been reported multiple times but not been assessed, and said this was poor and had been damaged by a leak. In December 2020, he noted in an email to the landlord that after snowfall, his roof was the only clear one in the area and that the insultation was poor (as heat was escaping through the roof and melting the snow more than other properties).
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 1 historic repair which noted that this was tenant responsibility. It said it was not obligated to upgrade loft insulation and explained this would be completed under a capital programme, for which there were no current programmes. It said that the loft insulation did not require replacement following a water leak, as the insulation would dry and not be adversely affected by water, and it was of the opinion that no works were required.

Brickwork

The resident complained that front brickwork had been repaired multiple times and was causing damp and damage along with the cladding and the roof.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 response for a separate complaint, and noted that an operative had inspected on 16 October 2020 and found that there were no signs of damp on brickwork.
The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 2 historic repairs (which pre-dated its December 2019 surveyor’s inspection). It said that it was of the opinion that the works undertaken had resolved the issue, and no further works were required.

Leaking radiator

The resident complained that a leaking radiator had caused damage to carpet and asbestos. In October 2020, a repair was raised for a leaking radiator in the living room, and an operative attended the same day and completed the repair. In May 2021, a leak was reported and an operative attended the same time and identified a slight leak on a valve which was renewed, leaving the heating working The 20 July 2021 final response detailed 1 historic and 2 recent repairs and noted that the leak reported was resolved within timescales.

Windows

The resident complained that window beading in most rooms had been reported multiple times without promised repairs. He has said that every time it rained water came in, and that there has been damage to clothes, furniture and bedding due to the damp caused by the faulty windows.
In December 2020, a repair was raised for windows being affected by condensation between the panes in rooms including a bedroom, bathroom and living room.
On 22 January 2021, a window specialist attended. They noted that there were no failures within the property; the windows had internal condensation which meant the issue was within the house, not with the windows, and was a ventilation issue they were unable to deal with. They also noted that their engineer said the lounge frame had some issues which was not a problem they could deal with. The same day, the resident complained that after waiting a month, subcontractors had attended and told him that the issues were not something they repaired. He said that water came in every time it rained and caused damp, and he queried what the landlord expected him to do. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond in 15 working days.
Following this, the resident emailed a photo of windows in a porch, which he said showed condensation ‘frozen’ between panes. He queried what he should do with belongings destroyed by damp that had been caused by the faulty windows. The landlord confirmed it had raised a works order for its contractor to attend on 2 February 2021, and said any damaged items should be kept as evidence for a compensation claim.
In February 2021, the resident emailed to raise dissatisfaction that nothing had changed in 3 visits there had been for the windows, apart from more damage to his son’s health and possessions. He said that at a first visit, the landlord’s contractor attended and said they would send their subcontractor; at a second visit, the subcontractor had said the issue was for the contractor; and at a third visit, the contractor had said there was nothing to repair and cancelled the job.
In July 2021, the resident chased for a response and on 20 July 2021, the landlord closed the complaint. The same day, its final response detailed 10 historic and 2 recent repairs for windows. It detailed that a repair for damaged beading in most rooms was raised on 23 December 2020, and an inspection by a window contractor on 25 January 2021 reported that condensation was the issue. It detailed that a further repair was raised on 25 January 2021, and an inspection on 2 February 2021 reported that condensation was identified and the resident was provided information about this. It noted that these were completed within timescales. It noted that a December 2019 inspection reported no issues with the beading and that the trickle vents to the windows were in the closed position, and it noted that no further works required.
The resident provides a photo of a window with discolouration and black mould around the beading.

Assessment and findings

Repairs for a disabled shower

The resident was unhappy with the level of support from the landlord and that it did not repair the disabled shower in a swifter timeframe. The initial repair raised says it was for a light switch so it is understandable that the issue was not repaired at this visit. It is also understandable for repairs under warranty to be referred to the relevant contractor. However, the landlord should have demonstrated that it investigated the raising of the original repair, to check that the repair raised for the light switch reflected what the resident had reported. It should also have investigated the operative’s attendance for the allegation that they promised to assist with the repair. This is not satisfactory given that these are service issues that may have impacted how long it took for it to be identified what action was needed.
There was a delay of a week from when the resident reported that no one had followed up for the shower repair, to when a contractor attended and identified the shower was under warranty. There was then a further delay of a week to when the landlord says it confirmed the right contractor had contacted the resident and arranged an appointment for 2 weeks later at his request. While the landlord says the resident would have been informed about which contractor to contact during the warranty period when the shower was installed, the 2 week period it took between 25 September and around 9 October 2020 for the right contractor to be identified and arranged to visit was too long. This resulted in an unnecessary delay. The information provided advises that the adaptations contractor is linked with the landlord’s main contractor. The landlord and its contractors should have joined-up processes to ensure that repairs for adaptations under warranty can be referred more easily. The landlord is ultimately responsible for repairs to disabled adaptations and ensuring these are repaired in a timely manner to minimise the impact on vulnerable residents. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure for this aspect.

A kitchen cupboard falling off the wall

The resident is unhappy that the landlord did not adequately answer the complaint; that it did not take any responsibility for the cabinet that fell being put up wrongly; and that it referred him to the contractor to pursue the issue further.
The landlord responded to this aspect under both its complaints procedure and its compensation claims procedure, and seems to have responded reasonably. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint, considered evidence for the cabinet being put up incorrectly, provided explanation about the length of new fittings and set out its overall position. The landlord also took action to check other cabinets which was appropriate given the circumstances.
It is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide matters of negligence or liability, and we cannot say that the cabinet fell entirely due to defects in the way it was put up. Given it did not accept liability, the landlord was reasonable to refer the resident to the contractor if he wanted to take the issue further, and he had the option to seek legal advice and take further action against the landlord if he considered it directly responsible. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.

The lack of major works

The resident is unhappy that the property is not due to be surveyed for major works. The landlord seems to have responded appropriately, as it considered the resident’s complaint and provided explanation about how it prioritises its stock based on age. This is reasonable and it is understandable that the landlord may not get to the resident’s property as quickly as he would like, due to the landlord’s limited funds and inability to carry out works to all its stock at the same time. The landlord should ensure that a newer property in worse condition than an older property is prioritised, however it is not in the Ombudsman’s expertise to say this should be done in this property’s case. The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 could have been an opportunity for it to review this further and set out its position. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.

Multiple repairs

The resident is unhappy that the landlord’s contractors have not completed every repair he has booked, and he says most repairs were incomplete or had been done incompetently. He says there are dozen of issues and he is unhappy that the final response says many repairs do not need doing. He says that the lack of repairs he is entitled to has caused much distress. He says he wants an independent inspection and feels he should have a large compensation award.
The resident says there have been 5 roof repairs but it has not been repaired, as damp still affects his son’s ceiling (although no water is coming through it). He feels that the landlord has not adequately addressed delays, or issues caused to the garden when debris such as nails were left, and queries why ‘Right to Repair’ compensation was not paid. He does not feel that the contactor’s corrective action was adequate and feels that the entire garden needs to be rotovated and returfed due to concern that debris such as nails remain.
The information provided shows that roof repairs reported in December 2020 were completed in a reasonably timely manner. The landlord is only obligated to handle timeframes and compensation in line with the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations if the cost of the repairs are no more than £250. The landlord has not provided information for the cost of the roof repairs, however given the works required neither the timeframe or cost limits in the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations seem applicable. The information provided also shows that the landlord and its contractor took action in a timely manner in respect to the resident’s concerns about the condition external areas were left in after the works. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the landlord clearly reviewed this issue and took action it considered appropriate, and there is limited evidence that a rotovation and returf of the garden would be a proportionate response to the issue.
The resident says that damp is still in the bedroom of his son, who he says has an autoimmune disease, even though the roof has supposedly been repaired. He says that there is black mould that he has to clean weekly, although he says this is not to the extent seen in media coverage of similar issues. The information provided shows that works have been done to treat mould and paint with antifungal paint and the resident has also reportedly been provided advice about condensation and keeping trickle vents open. However, there is concern that this is a persistent issue which is apparent in the resident’s historic complaints. The Ombudsman would have liked to have seen the landlord demonstrate that it considered if it was doing enough to help address the root cause of the issue, as well as demonstrate that it monitored the issue, particularly given the vulnerability of the resident’s son.
The resident says that cladding is falling off the front of the house and he is concerned that he can see the inner wall of the bathroom from the outside. It is evident that he feels that the membrane and cladding should be replaced, while the landlord and its contractor has inspected and seen no basis for works beyond replacement of limited panels. The landlord’s handling of this aspect seems generally reasonable. It has noted assessments of contractors that there were no internal damp issues, and it is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors in its decision making. There is no professional view that supports the resident’s own views on the issue. However, there is concern that the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about the membrane being damaged or that he could see inner walls of the property from the outside.
The resident says a damp bathroom and cistern have had multiple repairs and the bathroom had been caused damage from leaks, windows and cladding issues. The landlord previously inspected the bathroom condition in December 2019 and found no issues. The repairs records indicate that there has only been one repair for a leak (in 2021) and that other visits have identified that condensation was the issue. The information provided says that the resident has been provided advice about condensation. However, there is concern that some repairs reports describe the condensation issue as bad. The Ombudsman would have liked to have seen the landlord demonstrate that it considered if it was doing enough to help address the root cause of the issue, as well as demonstrate that it monitored the issue, particularly given the vulnerability in the household.
The resident says the wet room is damp and unusable by his disabled son, has had multiple repairs, and resulted in £000s of damage. The records show that a contractor inspected in October 2020 and found no issues with the wet room. The resident was informed in November 2020 that he has the option to clear the wet room of belongings being stored there and to make a repair report for the landlord to attend. It is not evident he has attempted this and so this investigation cannot identify any specific service failings for this aspect.
The resident says that the central heating has had multiple repairs and does not work 40% of the time. The records show that in the timeframe of the investigation, 3 or 4 repairs that have involved some loss of heating were reported. These were attended in a timely manner and resolved on the same day or the day after. This investigation therefore cannot identify any specific service failings or confirm that the heating has not worked for lengthy periods.
The resident said that asbestos is crumbling on the inside, from a child’s bedroom ceiling, and on the outside, from cladding. The landlord has inspected in 2019 and considered no action was necessary for asbestos. It has also inspected external asbestos, including in October 2020, and said no action was necessary for external asbestos. The resident raised dissatisfaction in January 2021 that a manager said there would be no attendance about asbestos until the following month. A visit arranged in February 2021 seems to have been to ensure that operatives were able to carry out works to the bedroom ceiling it later completed in March/April 2021. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractors and staff and there is no clear evidence to show that there has been unsafe exposure to asbestos at the property (such as professional surveyor or medical reports confirming this).
However, it is not satisfactory that the outcome to the February 2021 asbestos visit is not evident. This Service would also have liked the landlord to have provided clearer information about its communication and approach when the resident was alleging asbestos falling from the ceiling. The landlord does not demonstrate what basis it had to not attend earlier than February 2021, nor does it demonstrate that it sufficiently communicated to the resident about this and reassured him about the nature of the debris falling from the ceiling and the risk from this. The landlord should have demonstrated that it addressed the resident’s concerns about crumbling ceiling debris, given references in the repairs records refer to the ceiling containing asbestos, and given the bedroom in question belonged to a vulnerable child.
The resident reported damp in the porch and confirms that there were works, but he is unhappy that wallpaper has been ripped off. In the timeframe of the complaint, the resident reported damp in the porch in December 2020, however a repair was not raised until March 2021 and a repair was not completed until April 2021. It is not evident that the landlord is responsible for wallpaper decoration and so it is reasonable not to have wallpapered after damp works. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that it took 3 months to raise a repair for the damp in the porch or that it took 4 months to complete this repair, which is longer than the 30 days for completion of routine repairs in its policy.
The resident raises dissatisfaction that the landlord has accused him of misusing a loose bannister. It is evident that the landlord has completed repairs on multiple occasions, it felt these were adequate, and it felt the way the bannister was being used was causing disrepair. However, the landlord’s handling of this is not entirely satisfactory. A loose bannister is listed in the ’Right to Repair’ regulations as something the landlord should repair within 3 working days, and therefore a main focus of reports of the loose bannister being loose in the timeframe of the complaint should have been whether it was loose or not and what the landlord’s obligation was. The landlord should have set out its position more clearly, and communicated that it was refusing to repair the bannister because it was not loose, or because it considered that the bannister had been swung from and it would therefore need to recharge the resident if it carried out the repair. This would have provided the resident with a clearer opportunity to discuss the allegation of misuse, and to consider his options in respect to whether he was willing to be recharged for a repair.
The resident felt that 2 other kitchen cabinets should have been replaced at the same time a fallen cabinet was replaced. The landlord’s contractors took steps to check and reinforce the fixings for other cabinets and ensure they had no movement. The landlord is entitled to decide not to replace the cabinets if they remain functional and fixed to the wall, and there is no evidence to show that its decision not to replace other cabinets was unreasonable. The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances and would have been an opportunity for it to review this further.
The resident says that loose worktop damaged by the kitchen cabinet was never replaced. The landlord says a repair for the cabinet replacement and worktop was completed in October 2020. The landlord has provided a photo around the time of the cabinet replacement, from which it is unclear if the worktop was replaced. The landlord should be accurate in its repairs records and responses, however it is unclear if the worktop required replacement and to what extent normal use of the worktop has been prevented. The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances and would have been an opportunity for it to review this further and set out its position.
The resident says a bath is damaged and some of this was caused by a contractor. In the timeframe of the complaint, a repair was raised for bath taps which were renewed the following day. The landlord notes the issue was not raised in a December 2019 inspection, and says in its opinion no works were required. The resident provides a photo of the bath, however from this it is not evident what issues there are with its functionality and what repairs obligations the landlord has failed to meet . The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances and would have been an opportunity for it to review this further.
The resident says that snow melts on his roof sooner than other houses on his street, and raises concern that this is indicative that heat escapes and that the property is badly insulated. He has emailed photos of this issue to the landlord. The landlord has said that major works to the property at some point has included loft insulation; it does not know when future major works will occur; and that water ingress from the leak repaired in January 2021 will have dried and had no lasting impact. However, the landlord does not demonstrate that it addressed the concerns that there may be energy efficiency issues with the property. This Service’s February 2021 spotlight report on heating says that the landlord should make sure it is aware of initiatives to make its stock more energy efficient, and also ensure that it makes residents aware of where to seek advice on improving energy efficiency in their home.
The resident says that brickwork was causing damp at the property. The landlord previously inspected in 2019 and did repointing. In the timeframe of the complaint, a contractor inspected in October 2020 and said there was no evidence of damp on the brickwork. The landlord’s handling of this aspect seems reasonable. It has noted assessments of contractors on the issue, and it is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors in its decision making. There is no professional view that supports the resident’s own views that there are issues with brickwork or damp. The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances and would have been an opportunity for it to review this further.
The resident said there were 5 radiator leaks, and leaking radiators had caused damage. In the timeframe of the complaint, the repairs records show that leaks were reported in October 2020 and May 2021 and resolved the same day. The landlord’s handling of this aspect seems reasonable, as it attended to the leaks in a timely manner.
Overall, it is evident that many repairs were completed within reasonable timeframes, and some complaints seem to be a disagreement about what level of repair constitutes fulfilment of the landlord’s repairs obligations. It is not in the Ombudsman’s expertise to decide on this, but we can assess if the landlord’s response was reasonable, and the landlord’s response for many aspects seem reasonable. There is no professional view that supports the resident’s own views on some repairs, and the landlord is entitled to rely on its staff and contractors in considering if it has met its obligations. It is noted that after the resident’s complaint in April 2021, the landlord scheduled an inspection in June 2021 which did not proceed, due to the resident’s desire to record the visit as evidence for this Service. While we understand his desire to collect evidence for his concerns, the Ombudsman does not require evidence of this nature. The landlord’s proposed inspection in June 2021 could have been an opportunity for it to review the current issues and set out its position (and actions where applicable) on them. The allowing of access for a landlord to inspect is an expectation in tenancy agreements and the pre-action protocol for disrepair. However, as has been noted above, there are some aspects where the landlord’s handling was not satisfactory.
The landlord has clearly carried out repairs to the cladding which it considered applicable. However, it did not specifically address the resident’s reports about the membrane being damaged, or his being able to see inner walls of the property from the outside, which is not satisfactory.
When the resident reported asbestos crumbling from the ceiling, the landlord does not demonstrate what the basis was for scheduling some asbestos work a month later, demonstrate that it considered the household vulnerability, or demonstrate that it provided sufficient reassurance about the nature of the debris from the ceiling and the risk from this. This was not satisfactory particularly given the occupant of the bedroom, the resident’s son, is disabled and has an auto-immune condition.
There was an unacknowledged 3 month delay in raising a repair for damp in the porch. This will have delayed the completion of the work longer than necessary and was not appropriate.
The landlord has completed multiple repairs for a bannister, however it is not clear that it fully considered its obligations for this under the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations, or communicated effectively about its position on future repairs or recharging the resident.
The resident has continued to report issues with damp, mould and condensation since at least 2019. While the landlord has carried out multiple inspections where it has set out its views, it does not demonstrate it reviewed the condensation issue sufficiently and in a holistic way. The evidence shows occurrences of mould in the bedroom, porch and under a sink; that contractors in their investigation of the bathroom have said condensation was bad; and as noted below, that contractors in their investigation of the windows have said issues with these was condensation. This shows that condensation seems to be a fairly widespread issue at the property. The landlord has ruled out damp at the property, and reportedly provided guidance about condensation. However, the repeated reports over 3 to 4 years about condensation and mould issues in multiple rooms should have prompted a clearer consideration of whether enough was being done to prevent the issues at the property.
The multiple repairs issues have clearly had an impact on the resident and his family, and the landlord’s handling of these will have caused significant distress and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration for the multiple repairs issues, and to make orders in respect to compensation and an independent inspection.

Windows

The resident said every time it rained water came in via the windows. The landlord has previously inspected in December 2019 and found that window water ingress was not evident. The landlord has said major works done to the property at some point has included the windows, and contractors who attended in early 2021 have identified that moisture is condensation. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractors in such decisions.
However, in February 2021 the contractor (which appears to have been a glazer) said the lounge frame had some issues which was not a problem they could deal with. The landlord and its contractor do not demonstrate that any action was taken to follow this up, which is not satisfactory. The continued occurrence of condensation to the windows should also have prompted a clearer consideration by the landlord of whether enough was being done to prevent this issue, along with the other mould and condensation issues reported in multiple rooms at the property. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s handling about the windows issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided a timely response for a number of complaints, however the handling of others was not in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This Service notes that issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation approach have been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s January 2023 special report and the Regulator of Social Housing’s May 2023 regulatory notice.
The resident made a disrepair claim in January 2021 and there is no indication that this was effectively considered, managed and responded to. While the logging of a complaint was reportedly offered in January 2021 and declined, it is not satisfactory that dissatisfaction from the resident in January 2021 was not being responded to via either a legal or complaint route in any substantial way. This led to inappropriate delays – the landlord did not respond to a request for an inspection until 5 months later, and the landlord did not respond to the substantive complaints until 6 months later.
The resident made a complaint about the multiple repairs in April 2021, and the landlord did not respond until its July 2021 final response, 3 months later, after much chasing. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the complaint, but not its lack of a stage 1 response in accordance with its policy.
The resident made a complaint about windows in January 2021, which the landlord logged and acknowledged as an individual complaint shortly after, but it did not respond until July 2021, 6 months later, when it provided a final response to the multiple repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge the specific delay in responding to the window complaint, or its lack of a stage 1 response in accordance with its policy.
The resident sent a relatively high volume of emails about the complaints, and it is evident that correspondence for some issues were mixed with others, so it is understandable the landlord may have found it difficult to manage all these. However, this does not reasonably justify all the issues and delays seen in the case, and a repeat pattern whereby the landlord acknowledged a complaint, then failed to respond for lengthy periods while the resident repeatedly contacted about his complaint.
The landlord’s handling would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, undermined his confidence in the landlord and unnecessarily protracted matters. There was no appropriate acknowledgement or compensation for these. The landlord should consider compensation when responding to a complaint, including for distress and inconvenience, which was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report. In addition, while input on the multiple repairs was appropriately gained from the landlord’s repairs department, there is concern that this was accepted at face value and that there was limited further consideration and investigation of this. The above was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, and leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Following our special report, the landlord has confirmed it is taking steps in respect to its complaint handling and compensation approach, and so no orders are made for these.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraphs 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. repairs for front door seals and a living room door.
2. claims for compensation related to a kitchen cupboard falling off a wall and the condition external areas were left in after roof works.
3. repairs for a vent and a back garage door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. repairs for a disabled shower.
2. windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. a kitchen cupboard falling off the wall.
2. the lack of major works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident about multiple repairs.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The issues are outside jurisdiction.
There were unnecessary delays during repairs for a disabled shower and insufficient investigation of an initial report. The landlord does not demonstrate that any action was taken for issues identified with a window frame. The continued reports for condensation to the windows should have prompted a clearer consideration by the landlord of whether enough was being done to prevent this issue.
The landlord took timely and appropriate action for a kitchen cupboard falling off the wall, and provided a reasonable response about concerns for this. The landlord provided a reasonable response about how it prioritises major works.
The landlord did not satisfactorily address reports about cladding membrane being damaged or being able to see inner walls of the property from outside. It does not demonstrate it responded in a timely manner to reports about asbestos in January 2021, considered household vulnerability or provided sufficient reassurance about the issue. It did not acknowledge a 3 month delay in raising a repair for damp in the porch. It is not clear that it considered its obligation for the bannister or communicated effectively about its position for future repairs for this. It does not demonstrate that it reviewed the condensation, mould and window issues sufficiently and in a holistic way, and the repeated reports over 3 to 4 years about condensation and mould issues in multiple rooms should have prompted a clearer consideration of whether enough was being done to prevent the issues at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £800 compensation. This comprises:
1. £400 for the repairs issues identified.
2. £400 for its complaint handling.
The landlord to, within 6 weeks, take steps to arrange an independent survey of the property. This should particularly assess the condition of the asbestos in the bedroom ceiling; the condensation issue in the property; and the concern that inner walls of the property are visible from outside. The landlord should then write to the resident with the findings and any actions it is taking. As part of this, the landlord should use the findings to review if the property should be discussed with its capital programme department with a view to prioritising a survey.
The landlord to, within 4 weeks, review the issues identified with its handling of the bannister, and set out its position to the resident about future repairs and recharging.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within the timeframes stated.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, and take steps to implement the learning within this in its processes and handling of the issues by relevant staff and contractors, if it is not doing so already.
The landlord to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on heating and consider the resident’s report that snow melts on his roof and heat escapes from his property more quickly than other houses due to the poor roof insulation. It should then review what further assistance it can provide for this issue, and provide guidance to the resident about where to seek advice about replacing the insulation and improving energy efficiency in his home.
The landlord to review the issues with the repairs for a disabled shower and consider if there are sufficient, joined-up processes in place for relevant staff to refer adaptation repairs to the correct contractors in a timely way.