Clarion Housing Association Limited (202105436)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105436

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 October 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:
1. Handling of leaks and associated repairs, damp and mould.
2. Handling of the resident’s decant.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident was an assured shorthold fixed term tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in March 2021. The property was a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Policy and legal framework

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. Under section 9a of the Act it has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy at the time said it would attend to make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs would be offered an appointment within 28 days.
The landlord’s decant policy says that it will decant residents where the property is uninhabitable or unsafe. It will consider any vulnerabilities when deciding if a decant is necessary. It will consider meeting all reasonable costs incurred by the resident as a direct result of the decant. Where there is no statutory entitlement to disturbance payments, any financial assistance would be provided at the landlord’s discretion. It may reimburse laundry costs of up to £10 per week and food costs up to £15 per day where the resident has no access to cooking facilities or a meal provided with the accommodation.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint said that it would continue to manage issues through the complaints process until legal action had begun. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and peer review within 20 working days. If it was unable to respond within these timeframes it would keep the resident informed, explain the reasons for the delay and provide an updated timeframe for the response to be provided.
The landlord’s compensation policy at the time of the complaint said that the landlord could pay discretionary compensation in recognition of adverse effect on a resident. Awards between £250 to £700 could be made for cases where there had been considerable failure but no permanent impact on the resident.

Summary of events

On 20 May 2021 the resident reported a leak from the kitchen ceiling. The landlord noted that it told the leaseholder of the above property, who said they would arrange for a plumber to attend to trace the leak. It also raised an emergency job and attended the following day to make safe the electrics. Following this visit, it noted that a plumber had confirmed there were no leaks in the property above and that it was possibly from the pipes in the building and that a further appointment was required to trace the leak. On the same day the resident asked for action to be taken as the property was not safe because of the ongoing leak.
On 22 May 2021 the resident reported that the leak was coming through the light fitting on the ceiling. The landlord advised that it could not carry out works to the property above because it was leasehold and suggested she speak to the neighbour. Two days later the resident reported another leak behind a kitchen cupboard that had caused mould, which was affecting her health. She said this was caused by burst pipes in the building. The following day the landlord advised her that it would carry out an inspection of the property later that week. It also raised a job to make safe the electrics, which it noted that it did that day and it asked the leaseholder in the property above to check the pressure on their boiler for a possible radiator leak.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s property. It said that it did not identify any risk to health and that a decant was not required. It noted that it tried to gain access to the property above but had been unable to do so. The same day the resident told the landlord that she was more at risk due to her health and being on medication. The landlord responded that the mould could be isolated by closing the cupboard door and that the leak was in one corner of the kitchen only and not causing damp throughout the property. It said it would continue to try and source the leak but would not be decanting her.
The next day the resident reported that she had 4 leaks across the kitchen ceiling and asked how it had reached the decision that a decant was not required. The landlord replied on 1 June 2021 that a decant was not required because the leak was in one area only and was containable. It would attend that day to reassess the leak to check whether it had got worse. It would cover costs incurred as a result of the leak, if she provided receipts.
The landlord inspected the property that day and noted that the leak in the kitchen meant 10% of the room was unusable. Mould was only evident on wall cupboards and back panels and advised the resident to wash and wipe this down. There was no danger to life and no danger of the ceiling collapsing. It visited another property above and left a card as an inspection was required to identify the source of the leak. Follow on works were required to provide de-humidifiers, carry out an electrical inspection and mould wash. The same day the landlord updated the resident that the leak had not got any worse since the inspection on 28 May 2021. There was no justification for a decant as there was no immediate risk to health. It had checked the roof area the previous week and ruled that out as being the cause and would follow up with the other property above that day.
On 2 June 2021 follow on works orders were raised to:
1. Carry out an electrical test, which it attended to complete on 10 June 2021. It noted that this did not go ahead as the cupboard where the consumer unit was located needed to be cleared and the resident said she could not be without power for the period of the test. The resident told the landlord the same day that this was inconvenient for her and she had not been told about this. It replied that additional time could be given to allow her to clear the cupboard and that while the electrics needed to be off for a period of time, this would not be the whole day.The records indicate that a further appointment for this job was booked for 5 July 2021 and a reminder sent the day before; however, from the records provided, it is not clear if this appointment went ahead and the works order was recorded as cancelled on 13 July 2021.
2. Provide de-humidifiers, which it recorded was completed on 21 June 2021.
3. Replace the backs of 2 kitchen wall units which were covered with mould and carry out a mould wash, which it attended to completed on 10 June 2021. It noted that the resident declined for the works to go ahead as it would not be able to match the units. When the resident queried this with the landlord it explained that it would only replace the backs of the units as this was the area that had been affected and all other areas could be cleaned. She was given the alternative option to replace the units with the closest match and advised these were the options to address her overriding concern about exposure to mould. The landlord noted that it called the resident on 14 June 2021 to rebook the works. When she reported that the doors were contaminated with mould, it said it could wipe clean the doors to remove the mould and transfer the doors onto the new units. The records indicate that a further appointment for this job was booked for 5 July 2021 and a reminder sent the day before; however, from the records provided, it is not clear if this appointment went ahead and the works order was recorded as cancelled on 13 July 2021.
On 2 June 2021 the resident reported that she was allergic to the mould and this was impacting her health. She asked where to send receipts for costs incurred for additional food as she had to throw away contaminated items. She said she felt that the landlord was discriminating against her. The landlord replied the same day and offered to seal the cupboard the mould was in to mitigate any health risks and confirmed it would replace this once the leak was resolved. Where the source of the leak was unclear it was a process of elimination to resolve, which could take longer than it would like. A leak had been identified in one property above and the leaseholder had been asked to repair this and it was investigating another property above to identify any other leaks. It agreed to collect receipts for reimbursement of additional expenses and denied that there was any discrimination.
On 7 June 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the lack of progress in identifying the source of the leak. The landlord responded on 30 June 2021 that the issues raised within her complaint formed part of an ongoing legal case following receipt of a legal letter of claim regarding a disrepair claim on 21 June 2021. It was limited in what information it could share outside of the legal case and advised any future correspondence would be handled by the parties legal representatives.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord advised its efforts to trace the leak were ongoing with several repairs raised for the flat above and works would be completed in the next few days. From the records provided, there appears to have been an inspection of the resident’s property on 23 June 2021 but no record of this has been provided.
On 23 August 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s property to draw up a specification of works required. It noted that it advised the resident to open windows and let fresh air in when the dehumidifiers were not on to help the property dry out. On 3 September 2021 it told the resident that investigations in the properties above had been completed but no leak had been identified. As the leak appeared to have stopped it wanted to progress with the works required and set out what works it would do. It could arrange a decant for 3 days while it did the most disruptive elements of the work.
In September 2021 the resident informed this service that the issue was not resolved and on 22 October 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to take action under its complaints procedure. On 11 and 12 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to understand her concerns in order to escalate her complaint and the resident agreed to provide this in writing, On 16 November and 2 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that the leak was not resolved and this had caused damp and mould all over the property, which had led to her being hospitalised. She had been given dehumidifiers but they used a lot of electricity and the additional costs had not been reimbursed. It had agreed to reimburse costs for food as the kitchen was unusable but there had been a delay in the money being paid and it did not cover the full amount. She had later been told there was a limit of £15 per day, but she had not been told this before. She asked to be decanted and for her costs incurred to be reimbursed. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 2 December 2021.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord confirmed a surveyor would be inspecting the property in 2 days’ time. She said she had a letter from her GP recommending she be moved and it said the surveyor visiting would make a decision about this. The landlord visited on 24 November 2021 and agreed a decant for the resident, which happened the following day.
In November and December 2021 there were a number of contacts between the resident and the landlord, including:
1. The resident asked to be moved from her current hotel as an ex-partner lived nearby and she had a restraining order against them. She had seen them but they had not seen her or approached her. The landlord advised there was no evidence of any risk as the ex-partner did not appear to know she was at the hotel and declined to move her immediately, but agreed to consider this if the booking needed to be extended in mid-December 2021. On 16 December 2021 the landlord confirmed the decant needed to be extended until January 2021 and agreed a new location with the resident.
2. The resident raised concerns about high laundry costs and the landlord advised it would pay up to £10 per week at the end of the decant. She also said the food allowance was not enough and the landlord advised this was to supplement what she normally spent on food.
3. On 22 December 2021 the landlord updated that the works were going well. The resident raised a concern about returning to the property due to her furniture being damaged by the mould. The landlord advised this would be her responsibility to remove any items. The resident asked on a number of occasions for the decant to be extended to allow her time to sort out the damaged items and the landlord replied that it could not extend the decant if the works were completed and was awaiting an update from the surveyor.
In January 2022 the landlord updated the resident that it would not be able to respond to her complaint within the 20 working day timeframe and provided an updated deadline of 1 February 2022.
On 6 January 2022 the landlord inspected the property and signed off the works, which included installation of a new kitchen and bathroom with upgraded extractor fans, mould treatment and redecoration. It advised the resident that the works were completed and the property would be ready for her to return on 10 January 2022 but the decant would remain in place until 14 January 2022. It agreed to remove damaged items from the property and replace the sofa, wardrobe and chest of drawers once she provided proof of purchase. She asked for all furniture to be replaced as it was damaged, including her bed and compensation for clothing.
On 9 and 10 January 2022 the resident raised concerns about the works carried following a visit to the property and said these were not complete and poor quality. The landlord reinspected the property on 10 January 2022 and advised the resident that additional works would be carried out to address her concerns, which included mould treatment, cleaning and redecoration to several areas. It also provided a timeframe for these to be completed. The landlord followed up 2 days later to confirm the resident was happy with the scope of works, which she did.
In January 2022 the resident reported there were missing items from the property and said she had reported this to the Police. The landlord confirmed the decant had been extended until the following month.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord inspected the property and signed off the works. It updated her the following day that she could return to the property but also agreed to move her to another property on a permanent basis. She said she did not feel safe moving back to the property following the break in and the landlord replied that it had not received any information to suggest she was in danger, so expected her to move back.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, which said:
1. Sourcing the leak had been difficult as it could have been coming from more than one property and it needed to go through a process of elimination to find this. It was made more difficult due to the mixed tenures and different repair responsibilities but said works had been delayed due to a change in contractors.
2. It acknowledged it could have done more when she told it that the mould was affecting her health and apologised that it failed to act sooner in relation to medical evidence provided. It recognised that had it done so, it could have resolved the issue more quickly. It had recently allocated a resident liaison officer to be her main point of contact and this had been working well. It had reviewed its vulnerable residents policy as a result of her complaint.
3. It agreed to contact the Police to confirm whether it was safe for her to return to the property. If the Police confirmed it was, she would need to return. It had agreed a permanent move to another property but could not provide a timescale for this.
4. It confirmed payments it had made to reimburse food costs up until that date. It apologised she had not been informed of the £15 per day cap on food expenses until 29 October 2021. This arrangement would be in place until she was decanted in November 2021. If receipts were provided that exceeded this amount, it would not be able to reimburse these.
5. It asked her to provide evidence of increased electricity usage because of the dehumidifiers within 28 days for it to reimburse additional expenses incurred.
6. It agreed to reimburse costs for damaged items (wardrobe, sofa and chest of drawers). As she did not have proof of purchase for these items, it had asked for the make and model, but had not received this information. It asked her to provide this within 28 days if she still wanted it to reimburse her for these costs. It advised she could make a claim for damage to her other possessions via its insurance and provided contact details regarding this.
7. It apologised that the stage 1 investigation was not fair and said it should have provided details of its investigation into the handling of the repair from when she first reported it up until letter of claim received in June 2021. It acknowledged a failure in its complaint handling as the stage 2 response was provided over its target timeframe. It confirmed staff training would be carried out and that it had reviewed its complaints and compensation policies as a result of her complaint.
8. It offered £3835 compensation (£2835 for food costs for period May to November 2021, £700 for handling of repair and £300 for complaint handling).
9. Any impact on health would be regarded as a personal injury claim and not covered by the complaints policy. It provided contact details for its insurance team and information required to submit a claim.
In early February 2022 the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the Police and no information had been provided to confirm she was at risk in the property. It extended the decant by 2 days to allow her time to organise moving back and asked her to provide details of the furniture items so these could be replaced. She said she did not have a bed and the landlord agreed to provide one, which it did on the 15 February 2022. The day before she moved back to the property the resident reported there were still traces of mould and that she could not move back because of this and a lack of furniture.
On 15 February 2022 the resident moved back to the property. The landlord contacted her the same day and agreed it would carry out another inspection regarding the mould. In February and March 2022 the resident chased an update on this and stated that the property was uninhabitable. On 7 March 2022 the landlord replied that she had not provided access for the inspection to go ahead. An appointment was arranged for 14 March 2022 but later cancelled. The landlord said this was cancelled by the resident but she disputed this and said it had suggested cancelling this as she was unhappy about other issues.
In March 2022 the resident chased the replacement furniture items. The landlord asked for proof of purchase via receipts, bank statements or e-mail confirmation of orders. It later offered her financial reimbursement for these items and explained this was because she had not been able to provide proof of purchase but had provided details of the items and it had assessed the value, taking into account how these would have depreciated in value. The resident provided additional information about the cost of one of the items and the landlord increased the amount offered to reflect this, which the resident accepted the following month.
In March 2022 the landlord offered the resident a permanent move to another property. The resident accepted this and her new tenancy started in May 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that the damp and mould has had a negative effect on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of leaks and associated repairs, damp and mould

When the resident first reported the leak the landlord responded promptly and in line with its repairs policy. It made contact with the leaseholder above to ask them to identify and repair any leaks in their property and explained its limitations in carrying out these repairs to the resident; both of which were appropriate. In addition to this, it explored other avenues to identify the leak, including checking the roof and contacting another property above, which was sensible as it was not certain where the leak was coming from.
The landlord inspected the property a week after the make safe emergency job was completed, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion was a reasonable timeframe as it had already attended to carry out any emergency actions required. When the resident reported that the leak had worsened it carried out another inspection the same day to reassess the situation and provided feedback. This showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It provided de-humidifiers and identified reasonable follow on works, which it attended to in line with its repairs policy. While these works did not go ahead at that initial appointment, this was for reasons beyond the landlord’s control. From the records provided, it is not clear if these works were ever completed and if not, why not. This means that the Ombudsman cannot determine whether there was any service failure by the landlord in respect of this. It is important that landlord repair records are consistently updated with detailed notes and clear outcomes for all works orders. This is to allow the landlord to refer back to what it has done and account for its actions and decisions to both residents and this service. From the records provided, this was done in relation to some works orders but not others and so an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff refresher training on record keeping and the importance of keeping detailed records to ensure there is consistency in its approach.
In early June 2021 the landlord provided 2 updates to the resident regarding its progress in tracing and resolving the leak, which was appropriate and would have provided reassurance that it was taking the matter seriously. After 10 June 2021 there is no record that the landlord provided any further updates to the resident on its progress until almost 3 months later when it said it had completed its investigations. The landlord should have provided more regular updates to the resident during this period and its failure to do so amounts to maladministration. The lack of updates would have left the resident feeling ignored and like it was not taking the matter seriously. The landlord’s update provided in September 2021 explained that despite not being able to identify the cause of the leak, it was completing its investigations and would progress with works as the leak appeared to have stopped. It is understandable that this may have been a cause for concern for the resident as ideally it would have found the source of the leak and resolved this; however, this would have prevented it from starting the works to address the damp and mould. As the resident had told it about the impact this was having on her health and considering the leak had stopped, it is the view of the Ombudsman, that the landlord’s decision to complete its investigations and progress the works was reasonable.
In addition to providing updates, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to monitor the damp and mould within the property during the period it was investigating the leak. From the records provided it appears an inspection was carried out on 21 June 2021 but it is not clear the purpose or outcome of this. After this, there is no record that any further inspections were done until 2 months later. As the leak was ongoing for some of this period, it is likely that the damp and mould would have been getting worse and so it should have reassessed this. This would have allowed it to review the actions it had already taken to address this and identify any additional actions it could take. This was particularly important as the resident had told the landlord the impact this was having on her health and its lack of action would have left her feeling like it did not care about how this was affecting her.
A number of inspections were carried out by the landlord regarding this issue and while e-mail summaries have been provided for some of these, no formal records of these inspections have been provided. Landlord inspections are important actions when dealing with repair issues and so it should have a formal and consistent way of recording these, for example via a pro-forma inspection report. This would ensure it has a full and complete record of what was seen, discussed and agreed and any follow on actions required. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its record keeping arrangements in respect of inspections and implement a formal process for recording these, if it does not already have one.
The landlord inspected the property in August 2021 and drew up a schedule of works required; however, works did not start until 3 months later. There is no record of any updates being provided to the resident in this time to explain the reason for this delay. Within the landlord’s complaint response it acknowledged there had been a delaydue to a change in contractor but the timeframe for this was not clear. The delay and lack of updates amounts to maladministration and would have left the resident feeling ignored and like it was doing nothing to resolve the issue. This is particularly concerning as the resident had told the landlord repeatedly about the impact this issue was having on her health and so it should have taken steps to ensure the works were carried out as quickly as possible.
The landlord carried out works to the property between November 2021 and February 2022. Considering the scope of the works completed and the fact that the resident was living away from the property, the time taken to complete these was reasonable. The landlord post inspected the works and signed these off before advising the resident that she needed to return, which was appropriate. When the resident raised concerns about the works completed in January 2022, it carried out another inspection that day and updated her, which showed it was taking her concerns seriously. It agreed to carry out some additional works, which would have been reassuring for the resident. When the resident raised concerns about the works completed in February 2022, the landlord replied that it had post inspected the works and was satisfied that it was safe. While concerning for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its surveyor and arrange for her to return to live at the property. When the resident challenged this, the landlord agreed to reinspect the property, which again showed it was taking her concerns seriously.
Following the landlord’s commitment to carry out a further inspection on 15 February 2022, the records provided show that the resident chased the landlord twice regarding this but it was almost 3 weeks before it replied. When it did reply it said that she had not allowed access for the inspection. From the records provided there is no evidence to show the landlord made contact, or attempted to gain access to the property to carry out the inspection during this period. It is not clear whether the absence of records meant nothing happened or whether actions were taken and it failed to record these. Either way, this is a concern.
The landlord said in an e-mail that the appointment scheduled for 14 March 2022 had been cancelled by the resident; however, there is no record of the phone call where this was discussed. The resident disputed that she cancelled the appointment and so having a record of the telephone call would have been important to have a full understanding of the conversation. As this is not available, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion on this issue. From the records provided, it does not appear that an inspection was ever carried out in response to the resident’s concerns about mould after she returned to live at the property in February 2022. It is noted that in March 2022 she was offered alternative accommodation; however, she did not move until 2 months later. Considering she had told it the impact the mould had on her health, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection to assess this. This would have allowed it to identify any interim measures it could take to address this for the period the resident remained in the property.
The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident additional expenses incurred for food because of the leak, which was appropriate. It asked for receipts to evidence the expense, which was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay of around 5 months in it telling the resident about the daily cap for food costs, which would have been frustrating for her and left her expecting that she would be reimbursed the full costs incurred. Within its complaint response, the landlord apologised for this and offered backdated compensation for the full 189 day period, in addition to amounts already paid, which totalled over £1500. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £2835 compensation offered, if it has not already done so. When the resident raised concerns about increased electricity charges from the de-humidifiers, it agreed to reimburse her after evidence was provided, which was reasonable.
When the resident first reported that her furniture had been damaged by the mould, it advised her it would be her responsibility to remove these items, which was accurate. However, the following month, it agreed to remove the damaged items. While under no obligation to do this, it was appropriate that it did as she was decanted from the property and would have been difficult for her to arrange this while staying away. Also, it was sensible to remove any items with traces of mould to ensure this did not spread further after the works were completed.
The landlord agreed to replace 3 of the damaged items, which again, it was not obligated to do, but showed that it was trying to support the resident to resolve the issue. It asked for proof of purchase to replace the items, which was reasonable as it would be fair to provide like for like replacements. When the resident could not provide proof of purchase but did provide the make and model of the items it offered her financial reimbursement instead of a replacement, taking into account the reduction in value over time. As the landlord was not obligated to provide replacement items, it was within its right to change its approach; however, it only communicated its reason for doing so, after the resident had challenged this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why it changed its approach at the time as this caused confusion and upset to the resident. When the resident reported that other items of furniture had been damaged and needed replacing, it advised her that she would need to make a claim via its insurance department. This was reasonable and the records show that it provided her the details of how to do this.
The resident said she could not move back to the property in February 2022 because the landlord had not replaced her furniture. The records provided show that the landlord asked her to provide proof of purchase or make and model information on a number of occasions since January 2022. It explained that it had not been able to progress the replacement because she had not provided this information; which was reasonable. When the resident reported she had no bed, the landlord ordered her one and arranged for its staff to visit to put it together for her. It was not obligated to do this and again, shows it was trying to support her to resolve the issue and be able to return to the property comfortably. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about the quality of the item provided; however, as the landlord was not required to provide this, it was entitled to set a limit on the type and expense of the item it would provide.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and associated repairs, damp and mould. It provided updates to her in the early stages of its investigations but there was a 3 month period with no evidence of any updates, which would have left her feeling ignored and like it was not taking the matter seriously. It also failed to monitor the spread of the damp and mould during this time or consider any other actions it could take to address this. When it concluded its investigations into the leak, it explained its reasons for this and provided a schedule of works it needed to complete; however, there was a 3 month delay in it progressing these, with no clear reason or explanation given. This was particularly concerning as she had told it that she had been hospitalised because of the impact the mould was having on her health, and so it should have done more to progress the works as quickly as possible. There is no record that the landlord carried out the inspection committed following her return to the property in February 2022, which meant it did not properly address her concerns or have the opportunity to identify any interim actions it could take while she remained in the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and offered the resident £700 compensation for its handling of the repair. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the amount offered was reasonable considering the resident’s circumstances and the level of distress and inconvenience caused. The amount was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The landlord’s offer of compensation indicated that it identified service failure in its handling of this issue and while appropriate, it did not say this or explain where the service failure occurred within the complaint response. It is important that where landlord’s identify service failure, it explain this and consider any learning as it has done in relation to other issues within the resident’s complaint. Had the landlord provided a more detailed response and explanation in relation to this issue, it is likely that the Ombudsman’s determination would have been reasonable redress rather than maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £700 compensation already offered, if it has not already done so.

Handling of the resident’s decant

The landlord agreed to pay the resident £15 per day for food and £10 per week for laundry costs during the period of the decant, which was reasonable and in line with its policy. When the resident raised concerns about these amounts not being enough, it explained that this was to supplement what she normally spent, which was reasonable and appropriate.
In December 2021 the resident asked to be moved to another hotel. While it was under no obligation to do this, it was appropriate for it to consider her request as she believed she may be at risk. From the records provided, the landlord asked the resident for additional information regarding her concerns and consulted with another department who had dealt with the issue at the time to help inform its decision. It is noted that the resident disputed that it did this but the evidence provided indicated that it did. The landlord declined the resident’s request and explained how it had reached its decision. It is not the position of the Ombudsman to say whether the landlord should or should not have agreed the request, but to determine whether the landlord took appropriate steps to consider this and provided a reasonable response. It is the view of the Ombudsman that it did appropriately consider the request and while frustrating for the resident, its response was reasonable. It did agree to revisit her request if the decant needed to be extended, which was appropriate. It did this a few weeks later and subsequently agreed to move her, which would have been reassuring for her.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for a decant at its initial inspections on 28 May and 1 June 2021 and provided feedback to her in relation to this. While appropriate that it did this, there is no record that it considered the resident’s specific health concerns in relation to this. The records provided show that she told the landlord she was more at risk because of her health and that she was allergic to the mould. After being told this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to reconsider a decant in relation to her individual circumstances and its failure to do so amounts to maladministration. The resident provided medical evidence several months later; however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask for this at the time she raised her concerns. As it did not, it was a further 6 months before she was decanted and she said that the exposure to mould during this time resulted in her being hospitalised. As part of its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it should have acted sooner and done more in response to her concerns regarding her health. The landlord apologised and identified learning as a result of this but there is no record that it considered whether any other form of redress was required, which would have been appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation in relation to this issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 18 days and the peer review in 55 days, which was over its committed response times. The landlord provided 2 updates that the peer review response would be late but the first one was not until day 33, when the response was already overdue by 13 days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the issue as it said this formed part of a legal disrepair claim. While a letter before claim had been received, no legal claim had been made and it is the view of the Ombudsman that it could and should have addressed the resident’s concerns at stage 1 and its failure to do so went against its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code at the time of the complaint said that landlords should take steps to ensure that residents are not left without a response for lengthy periods of time where a letter before action has been received but no court proceedings are started or settlement agreement reached. While the landlord provided a response, it did not address any of the issues, which meant it missed the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in respect of its complaint handling including the delay and its approach to the stage 1 complaint. It apologised, offered £300 compensation and identified learning as a result of this, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. While the landlord’s complaint handling would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord’s response is considered reasonable redress. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered, if it has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and associated repairs, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide updates on its progress of investigating the leak for a period of 3 months. When it concluded its investigation and identified the works required there was an unexplained 3 month delay in it starting these. This was particularly concerning as the resident had told the landlord she had been hospitalised because of the mould in the property. When the resident moved back, the landlord committed to reinspect the property, but there is no record that it ever did this, which meant it failed to properly assess the issue or identify any actions required. The landlord offered appropriate compensation, but it did not acknowledge the service failure or explain how it reached its conclusion.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s individual health circumstances when deciding whether a decant was required. Despite the resident telling the landlord repeatedly that she was more at risk from the mould because of her health, it was not until 6 months later that it considered this and agreed to decant her. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its final response, apologised and identified learning but did not consider any other redress required.
The landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in its complaint handling and took appropriate steps to put this right by apologising and offering compensation. It also identified learning and reviewed its policy as a result of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £2385 compensation already offered for reimbursement of food costs between May and November 2021, if not already done so.
2. £700 compensation already offered for its handling of the repair, if it has not already done so.
3. £500 compensation for its handling of her decant.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this service within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide staff refresher training to staff and contractors on record keeping and the importance of keeping detailed records.
2. Review its record keeping arrangements in respect of inspections and implement a formal process for recording these, if it does not already have one.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this service within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

Pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered for its complaint handling, if not already done so.
The landlord to provide an update to this service on its intentions regarding the above recommendations within 4 weeks.