Colchester City Council (202321024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321024

Colchester City Council

26 July 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 the landlord’s response to various repairs within the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached house. The resident has advised that her daughter has asthma which is impacted by damp and mould. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a mental health disability.
The landlord’s repair and contact records show that the resident had raised repair issues related to her front door, a leak, and damp and mould prior to her complaint.
In relation to damp, mould, and leaks:
1. A work order was raised on 14 June 2021 following the resident’s report of an uncontainable water leak affecting her airing cupboard which had soaked the flooring. The landlord said this was resolved at the time.
2. A repair order was raised on 1 December 2021 to assess damp and mould in the resident’s boiler cupboard and wall at the top of the stairs.
3. A damp specialist completed an inspection on 1 March 2022 and a report was provided to the landlord on 24 March 2022. They identified that:
  1. There was a leaking mains water pipe just above the water meter which had caused excessive wetness to the floor beneath and surrounding floor area of the hallway and kitchen, and the plaster to perish.
  2. They had contacted the landlord to arrange for a plumbing engineer to resolve the leak (this was attended to on 2 March 2022 and resolved on 10 March 2022).
  3. They noted that a drying out period was needed and recommended that dehumidifiers and dryers were used. The wall plaster and floor coverings would need to be removed to allow the walls and floor to dry prior to installing any new floor covering and new render and plastering.
4. The resident called the landlord on 24 March 2022 about damp and mould in the property. Its internal records show that it would review the outcome of the recent survey and then update the resident.
5. On 20 October 2022, works were raised to replaster following the leak in the hallway, kitchen and lounge and to renew the floor tiles in the kitchen.
6. On 13 December 2022, the landlord’s records show it left a voicemail for the resident to clarify whether the plastering repairs and floor tiles had been completed.
7. On 6 April 2023, a plastering contractor said that they had received no access to the property despite confirming the appointment the previous day.
In relation to the front door:
1. A work order was raised on 3 May 2022 to renew the resident’s front door following forced entry by the police. This had been made safe on 23 April 2022. The work order was reported as closed on 30 May 2022.
2. The resident called the landlord to chase the replacement of her door on 26 August 2022 and on 8 December 2022 as she had heard nothing further.
3. A work order was raised on 13 December 2022 to ease the door so that it held until a replacement was carried out in the next few months. This was reported as completed on 22 December 2022.
The resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website on 19 June 2023. She said she had been waiting for works including new flooring and a new front door as well as decoration vouchers. The landlord responded on 21 June 2023 and said that it had previously posted a decoration voucher, but this had not been used so it would need to provide a new one. It asked the resident to call to discuss her concerns.
On 27 June 2023, a work order was raised to repair the lock on the resident’s door as she had reported difficulty opening this and a loose frame. The landlord’s records note this was following a further forced entry to the property by the police. This was completed on the same day.
On 21 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said that as it had not heard back from her, it assumed she no longer needed assistance. It said that if this changed, the resident could contact it in the future.
The resident called the landlord on 31 July 2023 and said she would be considering legal action due to the outstanding repair issues in the property. She said that she was waiting for a new front door after the police had mistakenly knocked down the previous one, there was mould and fungus in the property and that her kitchen cupboards were falling off.
A formal complaint was raised on the same day which the landlord acknowledged on 2 August 2023. It said it would arrange a visit to the property to inspect the repair issues and listed the complaint as:
1. Poor communication and delays in resolving repairs.
2. Ongoing problems with black mould in the kitchen, living room, and hall, with mushrooms now growing in some areas.
3. The radiator in the bedroom had not worked since she moved in.
4. The front door needed replacing – it was not locking correctly, the frame was loose, the plaster was coming away and the hinges were broken.
5. An ongoing leak had caused damage to the hallway flooring.
6. A leak from the toilet had caused damage to the kitchen, and the kitchen was in a poor state.
7. The windows needed replacing due to their condition.
8. A request for compensation due to the damage to the property and for the impact living in the property in its current state had on her family.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged that its service delivery had been poor. It admitted that there had been issues with its communication and a breakdown between its internal departments and its contractors. It said that a damp and mould contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment to assess the property. It had also ordered works to renew the radiator in the bedroom, renew flooring in the upstairs toilet, and had asked that work to renew the front door was raised immediately. It said that the windows and kitchen would be renewed in 2025 but had asked that the kitchen window was overhauled. It apologised for its poor service delivery and offered the resident £150 compensation for the frustration caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 and 17 August 2023 and said she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She said this was not enough to replace the damaged flooring and decorations, or personal belongings. She had increased gas usage over the winter due to the damaged front door. She said that the condition of the property was worsening her daughter’s asthma. She added that she did not feel the property was suitable for habitation and the landlord had been negligent in its handling of the repair issues.
The resident chased works on 21 and 31 August 2023, and 4 September 2023 as she had not heard anything further.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 18 September 2023, the landlord found that the works agreed at stage 1 were not actioned or progressed in line with its expected service standards for which it apologised. It upheld the complaint and increased its offer to £400. It said the resident could review contents insurance information on its website and provided a website link. It asked the resident to call, and it would update her on each part of the stage 1 complaint response.

Events following the complaint

Following an inspection of the property on 5 October 2023, the landlord raised works to overhaul the stopcock, renew taps, clear a downpipe stack pipe, drain and gutters, renew a sink trap and waste pipe, overhaul the bedroom window and front door, and repair the bedroom radiator. They noted that there was not excessive damp or mould.
The door and window repair was cancelled after it was raised on 10 October 2023, with the operative noting that the door was beyond repair and was in need of replacement. The door was otherwise secure. The resident had said nothing was wrong with the bedroom window.
The resident called to chase the repairs on 17 October 2023. On the same day, contractors attended to bleed the radiators which the resident alleged caused water damage in her bathroom. The operative said that they could not reach a bedroom radiator due to items blocking access and that the resident said she would do this herself.
The landlord’s records show that it asked for a decoration voucher for £80 to be sent to the resident on 24 October 2023. The landlord and a damp surveyor visited the property on 31 October 2023 to test for damp, but none was found. Its records show that the resident did not agree with the diagnosis and asked for a second opinion. The operatives could not access the living room to check the resident’s reports of mould on this visit due to the number of possessions in the room. The landlord visited again on 23 November 2023 with its tenancy support team and the resident was made aware that excess possessions needed to be cleared from the room, which she agreed to. It also referred her for mental health support.
Several repairs were reported as completed on 24 November 2023. These included renewing the stopcock, taps and sink trap, and clearing the blocked downpipe, stack pipe, and gutters. The landlord approved the windows and door for renewal in November 2023. The landlord’s records from 12 December 2023 show that these had been manufactured and were ready to install.
The landlord arranged for the same damp surveyor to attend, however, the resident advised on 15 January 2024 that she did not want the same surveyor to attend and had been told in the stage 1 complaint response that a specific damp and mould contractor would visit.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s attempts to contact the resident and arrange access to the property for repairs in December, January, March, April, and May. Works were booked for 28 and 29 May 2024, for 6 June 2024 and then rearranged to 14 June 2024 by the resident. The works did not take place on that day due to access being refused. The landlord informed the Ombudsman in July 2024 that it had agreed to visit the resident on 18 July 2024 to discuss access for the remaining works, however, the resident needed to cancel the appointment.
When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation in view of the damage caused to her belongings and decorations. She listed the repair issues set out above and raised concern about how the damp and mould in the property were impacting her and her daughter’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the condition of the property has impacted her mental and physical health, and her daughter’s asthma. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to get independent advice on pursuing a claim should she wish to. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident is seeking compensation for damage caused to personal items, including carpets. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine liability for damaged belongings and these matters are usually best suited to be dealt with via an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about further repairs, including a lack of insulation and issues related to the guttering, fascia and soffits. These matters did not form part of her formal complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman is not able to decide on these matters at this stage as the landlord needs to have the opportunity to address these through its internal processes first. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint about these concerns directly with the landlord. If she remains unhappy following its final complaint response, she may then approach this Service for further investigation.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s conditions of tenancy document confirms that it is responsible for repairs needed to the structure of the property, including drains and gutters, as well as installations for the supply of space heating and water. It further states that the resident is responsible for allowing the landlord and its contractors entry to the property to inspect or do work with reasonable notice except in an emergency. The resident is responsible for insuring their personal belongings and decorations.
The landlord’s website lists its repair categories and response times:
1. Emergency repairs, including flooding or breaches of security to outside doors and windows, should be made safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs, including minor leaks, or roof leaks, should be dealt with within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs should be completed within 30 working days. These include plumbing repairs, easing doors and windows, repairs to gutters and downpipes and defective flooring.
4. Planned repairs, where additional planning is required, including the replacement of windows and doors, should be completed within 120 days.
5. The landlord completes improvements such as kitchen, bathroom, roof and window replacements as part of a planned programme to be carried out over a given financial year.
The landlord’s complaints process states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. The landlord should acknowledge and respond to the complaint within 15 working days at stage 1, and 25 working days at stage 2. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint, set out the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decision, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, and details of any outstanding actions.
The landlord’s remedies policy states that where it is necessary to refer a compensation claim to its insurer, these will be acknowledged and investigated directly by the insurers. It notes that customers are expected to have home contents insurance to protect their furniture, belongings and decorations against fire, theft, or water damage. Customers will be referred to claim on their contents insurance in instances where this is appropriate. The landlord has a household insurance scheme that its residents can apply for.

The landlord’s response to various repairs within the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings

In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing repairs in the resident’s property. The landlord has acknowledged that there was poor communication regarding repairs prior to the complaint and a breakdown both internally and with its contractors. At stage 2, it acknowledged that it had failed to progress the agreed actions outlined in its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that this was partly due to factors outside of the landlord’s control. It offered a total of £400 compensation to the resident to account for her frustration and the delays.

Door and windows

The landlord evidently understood that there had been failings in its handling of the door replacement and acknowledged poor communication and a breakdown between it and its contractors at stage 1. However, it could have done more to demonstrate that it understood the extent of the failing within its complaint response. Its records show that it had initially asked for the door to be renewed in May 2022 following forced entry by the police in April 2022, however, there is a lack of evidence to show this was done. In addition, its records from December 2022 show that it had instructed contractors to ease the door, so this held until it was replaced in the “next few months”.
Given that this work had been outstanding for over a year at the time of the resident’s initial complaint in July 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it would ask for works to complete the renewal to be raised “immediately”.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident had raised any repair concern in relation to the windows of the property until her complaint in July 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the planned renewal date for the windows as 2025. Landlords are entitled to replace installations such as windows as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond reasonable repair. It noted that work was needed to overhaul the kitchen window in the meantime within its stage 1 complaint response.
The works agreed did not happen, and the landlord has taken reasonable steps to acknowledge the failing to progress works following its stage 1 complaint response. However, despite works to replace the door being agreed both historically and within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord raised a further work order to overhaul the door 10 October 2023 which its contractors confirmed could not be done as the door was beyond repair. In addition, works were raised to overhaul the bedroom window and the resident had confirmed there was nothing wrong with the window in this room. There is a lack of evidence to confirm that the kitchen window was addressed.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the work to renew the door at the time of the stage 2 complaint response once it was aware that the actions agreed had not been progressed. The door renewal, along with window renewals, were approved on 27 November 2023, 2 months following the complaint. This was approximately 18 months since the initial work order to renew the front door was raised and an unreasonable timeframe.
The landlord has confirmed that the works to replace the windows and door remain outstanding to date. The delay in completing the work to renew the door and windows as agreed was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control once works were approved and the items were ready for installation in December 2023. The landlord has provided evidence to demonstrate that it was proactive in its approach to progressing the work, attempting to agree a date, and arranging access with the resident.
It visited the resident on 23 November 2023 and noted that the areas of the property were blocked by the resident’s personal possessions. It referred her to its tenancy support team and for mental health support following the visit which was reasonable in an attempt to support her moving forward.
There was some delay due to the need for the resident’s personal possessions to be moved out of the way to allow works to progress. In January 2024, the resident confirmed that she was in the process of doing so and said she would make contact once she was ready. The landlord has provided record of its further attempts to contact the resident and visit the property. Its notes state that the resident had not engaged with the process or its staff. The landlord acted reasonably by attempting to contact the resident through different members of staff when it had not received a response from her.
The Ombudsman has seen record of attempts made to complete works in May and June 2024. However, the evidence provided notes that these appointments were not successful due to access not being provided to relevant areas of the property, incidents involving refused access, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the damages caused to her property, reports of unacceptable behaviour from the resident directed at contractors and concerns the resident had raised in relation to her mental health.
Ultimately, the landlord took reasonable steps to gain access to complete works following the complaint and there is no evidence to suggest that the work was unreasonably delayed on its part once the work was approved in November 2023. However, there were significant delays in progressing the renewal pror to the complaint in July 2023. It is noted that the door was secure during this period and there were no emergency repair issues related to the security of the property that were left outstanding. In line with the tenancy conditions, the resident would need to allow access for works to be carried out. The landlord has confirmed that it intends to continue to engage with the resident to allow works to progress.

Leak and reports of damp and mould

The landlord has provided evidence that the resident reported a leak in her airing cupboard which she could not contain and had soaked her flooring in June 2021. The landlord has advised that it resolved the leak at the time, however, its repair records state that the work order was cancelled, and no completion date has been provided. As such, it remains unclear as to whether the landlord adequately addressed the leak or whether there was a continuing leak.
Following reports of damp and mould affecting the cupboard and wall at the top of the stairs, a work order was raised on 1 December 2021. A damp inspection carried out on 1 March 2022, 3 months later, established that there was a leak from the pipe above the water meter, which was subsequently resolved around 10 March 2022. The damp report, issued to the landlord on 24 March 2022, stated that there was excessive wetness to the floor beneath the floor coverings and perishing of the plaster around the cupboard. It stated that drying out time would be needed with the use of dehumidifiers, and that the affected plaster and floor coverings needed to be removed to allow the drying process before a new floor could be installed and plastering could be completed.
There is no evidence to suggest work was progressed until October 2022, when the landlord raised works to renew the floor tiles in the kitchen, and complete plastering repairs to the hallway, kitchen and lounge. The landlord’s records show that it had asked the resident to confirm whether it had completed works in December 2022, and a subsequent no access appointment to “make good the plaster work” on 6 April 2023. There is no further evidence within the repair records to confirm the landlord addressed this.
In her complaint, the resident reported issues with ongoing mould in the kitchen, living room and hall which had been affected previously by the leak. It is of concern that despite agreeing to instruct a damp specialist, this did not happen. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord considered its previous actions when addressing the leaks to inform the steps that it needed to take or acted proactively. It remains unclear as to whether adequate steps were taken to allow the areas to dry out following the leak as instructed in March 2022.
Following the complaint, the landlord inspected the property on 5 October 2023 and determined that there was no excessive damp or mould. On 31 October 2023, it established there was no mould. While the landlord’s records show that it believed that works to clear the gutter, drains, downpipe and soil stack as well as other works to renew the toilet, taps, sink trap and waste pipe would resolve any damp and mould, there is no evidence that it had engaged with the history of the leak in the property.
In addition, the resident had asked for a second opinion following the inspection in October 2023 and expressed concern that an independent damp specialist had not been instructed as agreed in the stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman would have expected to see that the landlord communicated clearly with the resident in view of its previously identified communication failings. It would have been appropriate for it to have clearly set out what it intended to do to resolve the issues she had reported and explained why it believed the survey was not needed in order to provide reassurance that it was taking her concerns seriously, especially considering that it was aware of her mental health condition.
The reports on 5 and 31 October 2023 were contradictory. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to mould to resolve potential risks to its residents. Given the differing reports, with the first suggesting there was damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have gained a further opinion by making arrangements to complete a survey with a different surveyor. This would have allowed it to establish whether the report of no mould was accurate. It is noted that the landlord had asked the same surveyor to attend, and access was refused in January 2024.
The landlord’s failure to do what it said it would, or clearly explain its decision not to instruct the damp contractor as agreed was likely to cause the resident frustration and confusion. The resident maintains that the property is impacted by damp and mould, and that this is impacting her and her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord’s assessments and whether sufficient damp testing was completed. This would have been appropriate in view of the historic leak issues in order to provide reassurance to the resident and ensure the previous water damage had been adequately addressed. In view of the resident’s ongoing concerns and a lack of evidence to demonstrate the action taken to assess her reports, an order has been made below for a survey to take place.

Other repairs

In her complaint, the resident raised concern that her bedroom radiator had not worked since she moved in (in 2005). The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this had been reported to the landlord prior to her complaint in July 2023. The landlord acted reasonably in its stage 1 complaint response by confirming that it would raise works to renew the radiator. This did not happen which the landlord has acknowledged.
Following an inspection of the property on 5 October 2023, after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s records show it had asked for the radiator to be attended to as it was not working. An operative attended on 17 October 2023 to bleed the radiators but could not access a radiator in a bedroom due to the resident’s possessions blocking access. The landlord’s notes state that the resident advised she would bleed this herself. It remains unclear as to whether this is the same radiator that had not worked previously or whether the issue reported as part of the complaint has been resolved.
The resident also raised concerns that a leak from the toilet had caused damage to the kitchen, the kitchen was in a poor state, and that cupboards were hanging off the walls. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that a toilet leak was reported prior to the complaint or that issues related to the kitchen had been reported. While the landlord confirmed that the kitchen was due for renewal in 2025 within its stage 1 complaint response, it is unreasonable that there is no evidence to suggest that the kitchen was assessed to determine whether repairs were needed in the interim period, or whether the kitchen cupboards posed a hazard in their current state.
The resident noted that the previous leak had caused damage to her hallway flooring. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that this was addressed at any stage by the landlord. In addition, despite assurances in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response that the bathroom flooring would be renewed, there is no evidence to suggest this was followed up or an explanation was provided to the resident as to why it would or would not replace the floor covering.
In its communication with the Ombudsman in July 2024, the landlord said that the only repair issues that remained outstanding following the complaint were the door and window renewals. However, its records from June 2024 indicate that it intended to review whether the repairs reported over the course of the complaint had been resolved once the windows and doors were installed. This indicates that there is a lack of oversight as to the repairs affecting the property and an order has been made below for the landlord to complete a survey to assess all repairs that need to be addressed.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident at each stage of its complaints process within its published timescales. It is noted that the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 June 2023, prior to the complaint under consideration. However, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that she engaged with the landlord regarding her concerns at the time and it was reasonable for the matter to be closed.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to engage with each aspect of the complaint or provide clear information to the resident within its subsequent stage 1 and 2 responses. At stage 1, the resident raised specific concerns about her kitchen cupboard doors hanging off. While the landlord said that the kitchen was due for renewal in 2025, there is no evidence to suggest that the kitchen was assessed to determine whether repairs were required prior to the renewal date. In addition, the landlord could have done more to acknowledge the extent of the failings, including the length of time the door replacement had remained outstanding. It would have also been appropriate for it to have set out any limitations it had faced in completing the work, including any no access appointments for works, for example for the flooring.
In her stage 2 escalation requests on 15 and 17 August 2023, the resident raised specific concern that she did not feel the property was habitable, that the landlord had been negligent in its handling of repairs, that it was liable for the damage caused, that the compensation offered was not sufficient to cover the cost of damaged belongings and replacing carpet, and that she had increased gas usage over winter due to the condition of the front door.
The landlord acknowledged that the actions agreed at stage 1 had not been progressed within its stage 2 complaint response on 18 September 2023. It noted that the resident could call for an update on each aspect of the stage 1 complaint, however, failed to suitably explain what it would do to put things right or provide reassurance as to how it would progress the repairs needed.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out its understanding of the repair issues, including the actions agreed at stage 1, and to have confirmed the actions it would take in view of its failure to progress the works. This would have provided some reassurance to the resident as to how it intended to resolve the repairs reported without the need for additional time and trouble being spent by her in seeking an update over the phone.
The landlord did not comment on the resident’s concerns that the property was uninhabitable, that she had experienced an increase in her gas usage, or that she believed the landlord was liable for the damage to her belongings and flooring. The landlord should have addressed these concerns within its response to demonstrate it had taken her concerns seriously.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the cost of damage caused to her personal belongings and floor coverings, the landlord provided her with a link to information about the home contents insurance scheme that it arranged for residents who had applied for it. The landlord did not provide any context as to why it had provided the link of offer any explanation as to why it would, or would not, compensate the resident for damage to her personal belongings through its complaints process. This was likely to cause confusion and lead the resident to feel that her concerns had not been addressed.
The landlord’s remedies policy states that residents would be referred to claim on their home contents insurance in instances where this is appropriate and where the landlord is not at fault. As set out above, matters involving liability, would be best suited to an insurance claim. As the resident had clearly advised that she believed the landlord was liable, it would have been appropriate for it to have referred the resident to its liability insurer and to have provided clear information and assistance in raising a claim.
The landlord’s response to this element of the complaint amounts to a failing. Insurance claims usually need to be made within a specific period of the damage being caused and it remains unclear as to whether the resident would be able to make a claim now given the length of time that has passed. This may have been prevented had the landlord provided clear information to the resident at the time of the complaint. An order has been made below for the landlord to address this.

Summary

The Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to various repair issues in the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items. While the delay in completing the window and door renewal from November 2023 onwards was found to be somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, there were delays in its handling of the reported concerns prior to the complaint which were not fully acknowledged or put right through the complaints process.
Despite acknowledging communication failures within its stage 1 complaint response, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident was provided with clear information about the repairs that were needed, or an explanation as to why the landlord had changed its decision to instruct a damp specialist, although it is noted that it took proactive steps to engage with the resident following the complaint to attempt to arrange access.
There were also failures in the landlord’s responses to the resident, including its response to her request for compensation for damaged items. The lack of clear context, information and guidance may have prevented her from raising a claim at the time of the complaint. The landlord also failed to address each aspect of the concerns raised within its responses.
Overall the landlord’s offer of £400 compensation, along with a decoration voucher of £80, is not considered proportionate redress in view of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its failings in this case and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay increased compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its response to various repairs within the property and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this case. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £400 which should be paid if it has not already done so.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Arrange a survey to assess any outstanding repair issues within the property and give the resident the opportunity to raise any concerns that are outstanding. This should include but is not limited to:
  1. Plastering affected by the historic leak.
  2. Floor covering in the kitchen.
  3. The bathroom floor covering.
  4. The bedroom radiator.
  5. The kitchen and kitchen units.
2. Arrange a damp survey to assess the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This should be completed by a surveyor not involved in the assessments in October 2023. The survey should, in part, assess whether there is dampness in the flooring and lower walls due to the historic leak and determine whether this has been resolved.
3. The landlord should appoint a staff member to oversee and manage works through to completion, and act as a point of contact for the resident.
Within 2 weeks of the surveys, the landlord should write to the resident, setting out:
1. The findings of the surveys along with any related reports.
2. Its understanding of each repair raised including an explanation of whether works are needed or not, what work it intends to complete, and the expected timescale for the completion of works.
3. Any support it is able to offer the resident in view of the previous concerns related to providing adequate access in order for works to be completed.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to provide assistance to the resident in raising a claim via its liability insurer. If the timescale for raising an insurance claim has now passed, it should ask the resident to provide evidence of the damage caused and make an offer of redress.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord communicates with the resident and discusses any reasonable adjustments that can be made to support it in communicating with her and to support her in allowing access to the property.
2. The landlord considers the resident’s request for compensation for increased energy usage during the period in which her front door was in need of replacement between May 2022 and December 2023. The resident will likely need to provide evidence of increased usage in the form of energy statements for this to be considered.
3. The landlord considers providing training to staff responsible for responding to complaints to ensure that all aspects of a complaint are adequately addressed, and decisions are clearly explained. It may wish to consider using the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and Learning Hub to access guidance and resources.
4. The landlord reviews its processes for recording information relevant to repairs to ensure there is a clear audit trail of no access visits and notes confirming what works were completed on each visit within its repair records.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.