Citizen Housing (202226417)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226417

Citizen Housing

7 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to installations for the supply of hot water.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture and personal injury due to damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant at the time of the complaint. The resident lived at the property with his pregnant partner and their baby until 24 February 2022. The property was a 1-bedroom, first floor flat.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022. The resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s inaction to resolve damp and mould in the property for 2 years. The resident said the landlord ought to compensate him for the damage caused to his furniture and for personal injury. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement on 21 November 2022. The landlord said it would provide a full response within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 November 2022. It stated that its surveyor would attend the property on 30 November 2022, to carry out a damp and mould inspection. It said that it would issue the stage 1 response once it had received an outcome from the inspection.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 14 December 2022. The landlord:
1. Set out the history of the case, detailing the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and the action that the landlord had taken in response.
2. Said that it could only arrange compensation if it had failed to do something which it should have done that had resulted in a fault, or if it had been negligent following a report. The landlord said it found no liability for any damage caused to the resident’s belongings but conceded that it could have been more holistic in its approach.
3. Accepted there had been a delay in it responding to the resident’s request for a damp and mould inspection in December 2021. It accepted that there had been long waits for appointments and there had been a delay in it carrying out a damp and mould survey. It recognised that this was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience.
4. The landlord said it would attend the property on 15 December 2022, to complete a damp and mould treatment and install ventilation. It offered £2,040 in compensation, in recognition of the failings that it itself had identified.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 19 December 2022. The resident said the landlord had not addressed all the issues he had raised, and it should offer more compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication as a stage 2 complaint on the same day. The landlord explained that it would issue a full response within 20 working days.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 January 2023, to discuss the complaint. In summary, the resident:
1. Said that the landlord had not correctly investigated his complaint at stage 1 and had not completed all the repairs.
2. Confirmed that he was no longer in contact with his solicitor, despite his best efforts.
3. Said he was dissatisfied with the level of communication he had received from the landlord. He said that the landlord should compensate him for damage to his furniture and for personal injury caused by mould.
4. Mentioned that he had been without hot water since July 2022, despite previously reporting this to the landlord.
5. Agreed to provide access to the landlord, so it could complete outstanding repairs to the property.
The stage 2 response is dated 23 January 2023. However, the letter references events that occurred on 24 January 2023. This suggests that the stage 2 response may have been dated incorrectly. The landlord:
1. Noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communications, for which it offered an apology.
2. Confirmed the action that it had taken to fix the hot water supply.
3. Said it was committed to completing identified repairs to resolve the damp and mould. But commented that the resident had expressly stated, it should not attend the property until his solicitor had agreed the works. It noted that the resident was having difficulties contacting his solicitor. It clarified that it had not received any communication from his solicitor confirming that the disrepair claim had been withdrawn.
4. Noted that the resident had agreed on 23 January 2023, to provide access to the landlord’s operatives to complete the outstanding repairs. However, the resident had since stated that it should not attend, as he intended to escalate the matter to a solicitor or the Ombudsman.
5. Explained that its primary focus was on putting any service failure right. It said it was unable to consider awarding additional compensation until the outstanding repairs had been completed. The landlord said that the resident should direct any claims for personal injury towards its insurers. It clarified that the resident would be expected to claim for loss or damage to personal belongings through his own home contents insurance.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered. The resident told the Ombudsman on 24 September 2024, that the landlord did not carry out the repairs it promised, “conned” him into accepting the compensation it offered, and “lied” to him about the way the compensation would be paid. The resident clarified that he wanted the landlord to pay more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s own complaint investigation extended beyond this timescale. Therefore, to reflect the scope of the landlord’s own complaint investigation, this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions between October 2020 and 23 January 2023. For clarity, this report may reference events beyond this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould, impacted his health and the health of his family. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident also referenced being dissatisfied that the landlord had not compensated for damage caused to his furniture. For clarity, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged furniture. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, the Ombudsman may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth are considered as potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord will attend and complete repairs according to published timescales. The landlord’s website stated that the landlord will “complete emergency repairs within 24 hours or will make safe until a permanent repair is possible”. The Ombudsman was unable to identify the landlord’s expected timescales for completing non-emergency repairs from its repairs policy or from its website. However, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord would have been expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the repair.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.

The resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord in October 2020. It is understood that the landlord inspected the property to help diagnose the cause of the damp and mould and to take photographs. The landlord’s contact notes from 6 November 2020, indicate that the landlord planned to complete a mould treatment. It is unclear if this was progressed, which is a concern.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2020, asking the landlord to make contact because the radiators were not getting warm and there was damp. The landlord responded by making arrangements to inspect the property. However, when the landlord’s operative attended, the resident said he was going out. The resident told the landlord’s operative that he would contact the landlord himself to rearrange the appointment.
The landlord’s repair policy does not set out the landlord’s general approach when a resident fails to provide access for scheduled appointments. The landlord should consider making changes to its existing repair policy, so that its approach to non-access is transparent. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident ought to have contacted the landlord to rearrange the appointment if this was what he had agreed to do. But the landlord should have made further enquiries with the resident when he did not rearrange the appointment. Ultimately, the matter was left unresolved, which is troubling.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 December 2021, to report damp and mould. The landlord responded the same day, by carrying out a mould treatment. While the landlord’s prompt response was encouraging, the resident later complained about the quality of the work and branded the job as “totally ineffective”. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns, which left the matter unresolved. The landlord recognised this as a failing during its own complaint investigation, for which it offered an apology and compensation. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its previous inaction, which was fair.
The resident contacted the landlord again in January 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of what was discussed, but the resident told the Ombudsman that he reported an issue with mould in the bathroom. It is unclear if the landlord inspected the property before arranging any repairs. But the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its repair’s team when deciding on an appropriate course of action, which on this occasion was to install a new bathroom extractor fan. While the resident told the Ombudsman that the fan was never broken, it is unlikely that the landlord’s decision to renew the fan would have disadvantaged the resident.
The landlord’s operative attended the property in February 2022, to fit the fan. However, the resident did not provide access. It is unclear if the landlord left the resident a calling card asking him to rearrange the appointment. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord endeavoured to reschedule the appointment to install the fan. This is troubling, as it left the substantive issue unresolved.
The resident reported in May 2022, that the living room heater was not working. Along with adequate ventilation and insulation, ensuring that a property is adequately heated, can help to control condensation that can lead to mould. Therefore, it was positive that the landlord replaced the heater within 3 working days of the breakdown being reported.
A third-party advocacy service contacted the landlord on 14 May 2022, after the resident self-referred himself to their service. The resident’s advocate asked the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his concerns about damp, mould, and excessive dust in the property. The landlord contacted the resident 29 working days later, to discuss his concerns. The landlord’s failure to contact the resident in a timelier manner, left the resident uncertain as to how the matter would be addressed and led him to instruct a solicitor. It is noted that the resident told the landlord that it was not to complete any works to the property while his solicitor was investigating his case. It is unclear if the landlord engaged with the resident’s solicitor about this.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord continued to inspect the property, regardless of any potential litigation. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report. But according to a case note made by the landlord’s surveyor following its attendance, the level of dust in the property was “normal” and could be “controlled by regular wiping”. A commitment was made to discuss the findings of the inspection internally, before agreeing next steps. This demonstrates that the landlord was considering wider views on the best approach to take, which was reasonable.
According to the landlord’s complaint response, the landlord sent a list of proposed works to the resident’s solicitor for agreement following its inspection. This was in line with the resident’s expressed wishes. While this is not in dispute, the landlord ought to have provided evidence showing its actions to the Ombudsman. Either the landlord did not provide this evidence or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord received a letter of claim for disrepair from the resident’s solicitor on 4 July 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the letter of claim. The landlord’s records are silent on the action the landlord took in response, which has restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.
The landlord suggested in its complaint response, that it received a second letter of claim for disrepair on 2 November 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this. However, the Ombudsman understands that the resident had instructed more than 1 solicitor to act on his behalf. It is not disputed that there was confusion over which solicitor the resident was intending to use. This was likely to have created some uncertainty for the landlord, when trying to resolve the matter. However, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify what steps the landlord took to clarify the resident’s intentions.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 November 2022. The resident said the damp had spread to the hallway walls and the mould had damaged some of his personal belongings. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging another damp and mould survey for 30 November 2022. In the meantime, the resident’s advocate sent the landlord some photographs of the damp and mould. The advocate stated that the resident was particularly concerned for his baby and pregnant partner.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 November 2022 as planned, to complete the damp and mould survey. The landlord’s damp and mould report set out the landlord’s findings from the survey and recommended next steps. The report ambiguously stated the property was “in good repair, with some minor disrepair”. The landlord:
1. Commented that the mould on the living room wall was likely to be, in part, due to some “cold bridging” into the wall from the balcony (cold bridging is a weak point in the building envelope which allows heat to pass through more easily).
2. Suggested that the relatively high humidity in the rooms and the lack of regular cleaning, were likely to be the main contributory factors to the mould issues within the property.
3. Noted:
  1. That the resident and his family were living and sleeping in the living room due to the resident’s perception that the bedroom was dusty. The landlord did not consider the bedroom to be any dustier than the living room.
  2. That most of the resident’s furniture was stored in the living room, which meant there was little space between the furniture and the walls. It suggested that this might be contributing to condensation on the windows, which was running onto the floor.
  3. That only half of the trickle vents were open on the windows for ventilation.
  4. That the resident was drying clothes on the bathroom radiator, which was likely to be contributing to the humidity levels recorded.
  5. That there was no kitchen door to prevent condensation from cooking and boiling travelling to other rooms.
4. Recommended several follow-on repairs to address the damp and mould. While not an exhaustive list, this included treating the affected areas with a fungicidal wash, redecorating treated areas with a fungicidal paint, replacing the kitchen door, addressing ventilation in the bathroom, and testing the storage heater in the living room.
It is unclear what the landlord felt anything should be done to investigate or address the possible issue of cold bridging. It is unclear if the resident was given any advice about the steps that he might take himself, to help manage condensation and humidity levels within the property. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have considered involving its housing management team, to work in partnership with the resident to address the identified occupancy factors. However, it was encouraging that the landlord acknowledged itself, during its own complaint investigation, that it could have handled the substantive issue more holistically.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord started to make arrangements to complete the follow-on works identified. However, the resident told the landlord on 2 December 2022, that his solicitor wanted to inspect the property before the landlord completed any works. While this was understandable, this prevented the landlord from completing the identified works in a timely manner. It is unclear if the landlord engaged with the resident’s solicitor about this.
It is understood that the landlord completed the mould treatment and painted the walls in the bathroom and living room on 15 December 2022. This would have removed the immediate risk to the health of the resident and his family from mould spores. It is unclear why the landlord did not progress the ventilation works as planned. But it is noted that the resident’s solicitor had still not agreed the scope of the works by this date. It is unclear if the landlord had engaged with the resident’s solicitor about this.
The resident told the landlord on 23 December 2022, that the mould had returned in the bathroom, and he was still waiting for the landlord to complete works to address the ventilation. The resident mentioned that his doctor had put him on a ventilator due to the ongoing issue with mould. He expressed concern for the health of his pregnant partner and his baby. It is unclear from the evidence seen, if or how the landlord responded. This was troubling and may have added to the resident’s frustration.
In a phone conversation between the parties on 23 January 2023, the resident confirmed that he had been having difficulty contacting his solicitor and the landlord should complete the remaining repairs. It is understood that the resident later informed the landlord not to arrange any works because he was going to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman or via a solicitor. While this was the resident’s decision to make, this delayed the landlord from being able to progress the identified repairs.
The parties spoke again on 31 January 2023. According to the landlord’s records, the resident explained that he was about to move and suggested that the works would be too disruptive. But he agreed that the landlord could complete outstanding work, on the proviso that he and his family did not stay in the property and the landlord reconsidered its offer of compensation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2023, setting out its position on compensation and encouraging the resident to make an appointment to compete the outstanding repairs. The landlord said that it wanted to gain access amicably, to complete the repairs. But given that the resident had raised concerns that the property was not habitable, it would seek an injunction if agreement could not be reached. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response was reasonable given the resident’s reports about deteriorating ill health and the landlord’s statutory obligation to keep the property in repair and free from hazards.
The resident moved to new accommodation on 24 February 2023, which resolved the substantive issue of complaint.

Overall

The landlord was obliged to remedy reported issues with damp and mould in a timely manner, upon this being brought to the landlord’s attention.
The Ombudsman recognises that this was a challenging case for the landlord, due to difficulties gaining access to complete repairs, which prolonged the resolution of the substantive issue. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident’s own actions contributed to delays in the landlord diagnosing the cause of the damp and mould and completing essential repairs in a timelier manner.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord identified itself that there had been failings in its handling of the substantive matter of complaint. It attempted to put things right by apologising for the inconvenience this had caused, it arranged to carry out identified works, and made a reasonable offer of compensation. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord endeavoured to complete the work that it identified on 30 November 2022. While some of the work was completed, the parties were unable to amicably agree a date to complete the remaining work, prior to the tenancy ending.
However, the Ombudsman remains concerned by the lack of observable effort by the landlord, to rearrange inspections and repairs appointments when the resident did not provide access. Landlords must ensure that jobs raised to address damp and mould are not closed before they are fully resolved and that new appointments are booked quickly. The Ombudsman remains concerned that the landlord did not evidence that it was proactively engaging with the resident’s solicitors, which may have led to a timelier resolution. The Ombudsman would have found reasonable redress had the landlord been more proactive addressing the access issues.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.
The landlord is ordered to pay the £2,040 compensation that it previously offered, if this has not already been paid to the resident. No further award of compensation is made. This is because the landlord’s offer was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded for distress and inconvenience, based on the available evidence.
The resident may wish to consider making a claim for loss or damage caused to his furniture or personal belongings via the landlord’s insurers. He may wish to seek independent legal advice in relation to his claims about personal injury.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to installations for the supply of hot water.

The resident reported an issue with the boiler on 11 July 2022. The resident said the boiler looked swollen and dangerous. The resident expressed particular concern about this as he had a baby. The landlord attended on the same day, in line with its repairs policy. However, the resident did not provide access. This was unhelpful. However, there is no evidence that the landlord endeavoured to rearrange the appointment, which it ought to have done, given that the resident had suggested the boiler looked dangerous. This was a serious failing.
The resident phoned the landlord’s out of hours service on 23 December 2022, reporting that he had no hot water. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acted on this information. This was inappropriate and left the resident uncertain as to how the matter would be resolved.
The resident told the landlord on 23 January 2023, that he had been without hot water since July 2022. The landlord responded by arranging an emergency repair, in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s engineer attended the same day, which was within expected timescales. However, the resident did not provide access. Again, this was unhelpful.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was sorry if it had not given the resident prior notice of its engineer’s attendance. It clarified that its policy was to attend at any time within a 24-hour time slot, for emergency repairs. While this may have been the landlord’s policy, the landlord ought to have advised the resident of this at the time the appointment was scheduled, so he could make arrangements to let its engineer in. The Ombudsman had been unable to verify what the resident was told when the appointment was booked.
The landlord claimed that its engineer attended the property again on 24 January 2023, when the job was completed. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the evidence seen.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2023, after the resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident stated that he was still without hot water. This was troubling, given the landlord believed the job had been completed. However, when the landlord contacted the resident on 2 February 2023, the resident said he “did not want a repair raised for the hot water until other things are finalised”. The Ombudsman considers that the resident’s position was unreasonable and prevented the landlord from resolving the substantive issue. It is noted that the resident moved shortly after this, which resolved the matter.
In summary, the Ombudsman identified several failings, which were likely to have adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s handling of substantive issue fell short, resulting in the resident being without hot water for an extended period. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration had the resident not stopped the landlord from attending the property to complete the repairs.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to installations for the supply of hot water.
While the landlord did compensate the resident as part of its internal complaint process, it did not compensate for the loss of hot water. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation. This compensation reflects the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and had been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. In accordance with this policy, the landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. However, any extension beyond this would need to be agreed by both parties. The landlord aimed to provide a full response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, the landlord could extend the response deadline by a further 10 working days if the landlord needed more time. However, any extension beyond this would need to be agreed by both parties.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within expected timescales. The landlord emailed the resident when it determined that it needed more time to issue the full response. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with a specific timescale for issuing the response, which was inappropriate. However, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this because the stage 1 response was issued within expected timescales for complaint extensions.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response just outside of landlord’s the expected timescales for stage 2 responses. However, this was unlikely to have adversely affected the resident.
As referenced earlier in this report, the landlord accepted that it ought to have raised a complaint in December 2021, after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of works carried out to treat damp and mould. The landlord tried to put things right by offering an apology and compensation
In summary, the Ombudsman found evidence of some minor failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which were unlikely to have caused the resident significant detriment. The landlord acknowledged that it missed an opportunity to address a historical complaint from 2021 but took steps prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation to put things right.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture and personal injury due to damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaints policy and compensation framework, set out the landlord’s approach to compensation. The policy stated that the landlord’s primary focus was to “put right the service failure”. However, discretionary compensation may be awarded where there had been avoidable distress, inconvenience, or an unfair impact to a resident (between £1 to £250 for low impact, between £250 to £699 for medium impact, and £700 or above for high impact). The landlord would offset any compensation paid against any debt owed to the landlord, unless this would create serious hardship, or the resident would be left without fundamental facilities.
The policy stated that the landlord will not pay compensation where there had been a loss, which was or should have been covered by insurance. This included claims that ought to be made on the resident’s own home contents insurance, or claims made for personal injury. The landlord would consider reimbursing a resident for loss or damages incurred, where the loss was due to the landlord’s negligence. The landlord would always take into consideration the actions of the resident or the landlord, which mitigated or contributed to the financial loss. It would pass any claim to its insurer, where the loss was above its policy excess, or where it may be beneficial to engage a loss adjuster.
The landlord offered compensation at stage 1, in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, due to the failings it itself had identified. The landlord set out its policy in relation to offers of compensation, which was good practice. Ultimately, the landlord did not offer compensation for any loss or damage to the resident’s furniture, as it did not accept liability for this. The landlord’s approach was in line with its policy.
As a learning point, it may be helpful to future complaint handling, if the landlord were to provide a full breakdown of any compensation offered and its rationale for arriving at that offer. This would allow both the resident and the Ombudsman to better assess, whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and proportionate when considering all of the circumstances of the case.
The landlord acted fairly after the resident made representations at stage 2, by reviewing its position on compensation. It is noted that the landlord did not change its view. But to help the resident’s understanding, the landlord reinforced its policy on compensation, suggested that the resident claim under his own home contents insurance regarding damaged furniture, and provided him with the contact details for its insurer so he could progress a personal injury claim. The landlord’s response was in line with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord said that it could not consider making a further offer of compensation until the outstanding repairs had been completed. The resident suggested that this was unfair. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have considered making a further award of compensation at any time, if the landlord felt that was appropriate. But the landlord’s approach would have allowed it to form an overall view on its handling of the substantive issues, which was likely to have led to a more considered compensation offer.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2023, after the resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman, which was encouraging. The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction about the landlord’s decision not to compensate him for damage to his furniture. The resident mentioned that he was about to move house and could not afford to replace what had been damaged. The landlord showed fairness, by asking the resident to send in detailed information about the losses he had incurred. It is unclear if the resident provided the landlord with the information it requested, from the evidence seen. The landlord showed empathy concerning the resident’s reports about ill health but remained firm that personal injury claims were a matter for its insurers. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the landlord’s position, as this was line with its policy.
The resident told the Ombudsman that he believed the landlord had “conned him” into accepting the compensation it originally offered. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord coerced the resident into accepting the offer made.
The resident also said that the landlord had “lied to him” about how the compensation would be paid. He explained that the landlord did not pay him all of the compensation that it offered. According to the landlord, the parties agreed that the compensation should be paid in phases and that some of the compensation would be paid onto the resident’s rent account to clear a debt. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify that this was expressly agreed by the resident from the evidence seen, but there is no evidence that the resident challenged this arrangement after this was communicated in the stage 1 response.
It may have been helpful if the landlord had considered paying all of the compensation directly to the resident after he later explained that he had no furniture and could not afford to replace it. Since the resident was claiming exceptional hardship, this would have been in line with the landlord’s compensation framework. But the Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s primary concern at the time was with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, not how the compensation was being paid. The Ombudsman would always prefer a landlord to pay compensation directly to the resident. However, there was no fault in the landlord’s decision to use some of the compensation to settle the resident’s debt, because this was the landlord’s policy.
Overall, the landlord approached the resident’s requests for compensation in relation to damaged furniture and personal injury, in line with its procedures. Any failures identified were minor and were unlikely to have caused detriment to the resident.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation, in relation to damaged furniture and personal injury due to damp and mould.

The landlord’s record keeping and information management.

The resident has told the Ombudsman that he made “thousands” of phone calls to the landlord, which the landlord did not record or were recorded incorrectly by the landlord. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the resident’s account from the evidence seen. However, the Ombudsman did notice gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, the landlord should have kept a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to the case. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate.
When considered cumulatively, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to installations for the supply of hot water
3. The landlord’s record keeping and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture and personal injury due to damp and mould.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £2,140 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £100 if the landlord has already paid the compensation previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £2,040 compensation, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould, and for landlord’s complaint handling.
2. £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience caused to resident by failures in the handling of repairs to installations for the supply of hot water.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must consider:
1. Its approach to non-access. The landlord should satisfy itself that it has adequate processes in place to follow up with the resident and rearrange appointments promptly, where the resident does not or refuses to provide access for essential repairs.
2. Revising its existing repair policy, to provide transparency for residents and staff in its approach to non-access.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider amending its existing repairs policy and the information held on its website, to include its expected timescales for completing non-emergency repairs.