Gentoo Group Limited (202301802)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301802

Gentoo Group Limited

8 May 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 handling of:
1. Plastering repairs to the resident’s bedroom and living room.
2. Repairs reported by the resident including repairs to the floorboards in the living room due to a woodworm infestation, repairs to the bathroom, repairs to the gutters and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen.
3. Reports that the resident had no heating or hot water for a significant period of time.
4. The resident’s reports of poor staff conduct and a lack of support from the landlord.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 13 July 2020.The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident is a disabled veteran. He has a brain injury, PTSD, tinnitus, anxiety and depression, and other medical conditions that affect his balance.
The resident first made a formal complaint to the landlord in April 2021, about delays to repairs in his property. As a result of the complaint a number of repairs were booked in for plastering works to the living room and bedroom; joinery works to the living room and bedroom floorboards, and front and back doors; fitting of a thermostatic valve to the bathroom radiator; and fitting of a meter cupboard door. Although the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he did not escalate the matter to this Service.
The resident continued to report repairs to the landlord in relation to uneven floorboards, a leaking wastewater pipe, guttering issues, mould, issues with the electricity being tested, and issues with the resident being able to use his heating as he did not understand how to use the thermostat. As the resident felt that the landlord was not responding in line with its repair obligations, he contacted the local authority environmental health team.
An environmental health officer attended the resident’s property on 13 July 2022. The officer identified the following issues and requested that the repairs were arranged and dates for all repairs were provided:
1. The floorboards near to the ground floor living room window were severely damaged by woodworm and the resident had covered a large hole with spare wood from the upstairs bedroom. The replacement boards were not secure nor fit for purpose and new floorboards were required. The floorboards near to the wall in the living room were springy and uneven in comparison to other areas of the floor. The boards should be replaced to provide a level and solid surface area.
2. The flooring was affected by woodworm which had caused the wooden panels to crack and splinter compromising the structural integrity. Woodworm was attracted to wet/moisture laden wood, which had likely occurred due to the front two vented bricks being partially blocked and the rear air bricks being totally blocked by rendering.
3. There should be air circulation below the flooring to avoid moisture issues, woodworm and rot. The front airbricks should be unblocked and new air bricks to the rear of the property installed. As the flooring had woodworm, to prevent any further damage being caused a specialist contractor was required to survey the flooring and carry out any recommended treatments the contractor deemed necessary. It could be necessary to remove and replace any wood panels severely contaminated with woodworm.
The environmental health officer reattended the resident’s property on 10 August 2022 and noted that the damaged floorboards had been replaced. New airbricks had not been installed, although this was a recommendation, and not a mandatory repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2022 in relation to the standard of his property. He reported further issues with the floorboards on his landing area and further issues with the guttering above his kitchen door. The resident said he was not happy with the landlord’s response to his concerns and that he had not been awarded compensation for the delays and lack of communication. The resident confirmed that he did not want to raise a formal complaint. He wanted a senior manager to attend his property and confirm his property was in an acceptable standard.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023. Due to the nature of the contact the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 27 March 2023. The resident outlined issues with his floorboards, exposed wires, and his inability to use the heating for 13 months. He said he believed that the landlord had been negligent, abusive and had harassed him. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 March 2023, and said it would respond on or before 11 April 2023. The landlord carried out a home visit on 29 March 2023 to discuss his complaint.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said:
1. The resident had made a previous complaint in April 2021, which it deemed to be “of a similar nature” and it had already investigated and responded through its complaints process.
2. It visited the resident on 29 March 2023 to identify any outstanding repairs, as all repairs on the account history were marked as complete following the replacement of the floorboards, and to offer support. It encouraged the resident to submit a public liability claim if he believed it had been negligent for the damage caused to his TV and stand, and it had arranged for a paper copy to be posted out.
3. During the home visit the resident informed the landlord that he had been having issues with his boiler, and that there were outstanding plaster repairs to the bedroom and a cupboard within the bathroom. Therefore, it had arranged for a gas engineer to attend on 13 April 2023, and the plastering repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
4. Its records showed that a joiner fixed the floorboards on 29 June 2021. A joiner also attended on 7 June 2022 to complete further work. An emergency repair was carried out on 4 July 2022 when the resident reported his foot had gone through the floorboards. Follow on repairs were scheduled for 11 July 2022 to replace the floorboards. However, due to no access, the job was rescheduled and completed on 3 August 2022.
5. It had acted promptly and in line with its repair timescales to address the repairs reported to its repairs team. Although it was sorry for the distress caused.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 April 2023 for assistance as he believed the landlord was ignoring him. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident.
An environmental health officer attended the resident’s property again on 6 June 2023, and sent a follow up letter on 13 June 2023. It said the property had undergone an electrical rewire earlier in the year and a new kitchen was in the process of being installed. The resident had repaired areas of the living room floor with leftover timber from work carried out the previous year. As such, any potential hazard relating to the living room flooring had been removed. There was no mould growth present during the visit. As such, no enforceable hazards were identified. However, it understood that the resident had submitted a formal complaint, and once he was in receipt of the final response, if he was still unhappy, he should forward the response to this Service for further investigation. Under the Housing Act 2004, it had the power to take action for any hazards identified as being rated as category 1 or high-banded category 2 hazards. As no such hazards had been identified the decision had been made to close the case.
Following contact from this Service the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint on 5 July 2023, to address the additional complaint points raised by the resident. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident.
The landlord spoke to the resident by telephone on 19 July 2023 and agreed the complaint response deadline could be extended due to follow on work required for the damp.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It said it understood that he had contacted this Service to discuss his concerns and, although some of his concerns had been investigated within a separate complaint, it had raised a new stage 1 complaint in relation to the additional repair issues disclosed. It said it had aimed to respond to the complaint by 19 July 2023. However, the resident had agreed to an indefinite extension of the deadline. In response to the complaint, the landlord said:
1. Following reports of damp and mould on 13 July 2023, the damp inspector attended the resident’s home on 19 July 2023 and identified small amounts of black spot mould on the walls surrounding the back door and on the back door, damage from damp to the walls and back door, dampness to the party wall in the kitchen entrance lobby, and potential active woodworm in further sections of the living room floorboards.
2. The preservation team were due to attend to strip the wall around the rear door and the kitchen party wall back to the brick, apply treatment to the brick, re-plaster the walls, seal the door frame, and install 2 new sub floor vents to the front of the property under the living room window. Although the repairs were not yet scheduled in. According to its records there were no previous reports of damp and mould relating to the kitchen prior to the complaint being raised.
3. In relation to the resident’s complaint that he had no heating or hot water for 33 months, it said it attended on 9 October 2020 to replace the control valve missing from the bathroom radiator. It attended on 4 November 2020 to refix a loose condensate pipe and on 11 May 2021 to fit a thermostatic valve to one of the radiators. On 21 December 2022 it attended to assess boiler error codes and a leak from a pipe. On 13 April 2023 it attended to assess and repair the boiler due to the resident’s reports of intermittent heating and hot water.
4. In relation to the complaint of delays to diagnosing and carrying out bathroom repairs, it said it attended on 26 August 2020 to repair the basin pedestal which was dripping and loose. It repaired leaks on 21 February 2022 and 1 August 2022, and on 19 October 2022 it installed a new sink and taps.
5. It attended the resident’s home on 14 November 2021 to repair the rear guttering as it was blocked. On 6 September 2022 it attended to assess the rest of the guttering. On 30 January 2023 it flushed out and cleaned the guttering to the rear. There was a delay in completing the repair as scaffolding was required.
6. It had investigated the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct which left the resident feeling ignored. The landlord said the previous stage 1 complaint response had been sent via the post on 11 April 2023. It apologised if the resident had not received it.
7. It attended the resident’s property on 21 May 2021 to assess and repair the loose floorboards in the living room and bedroom but could not gain access. On 4 July 2022 it completed a temporary repair and arranged follow on preservation repairs. These were attempted on 11 July 2022, however, as the resident was not at home the joiner could not gain access. Once access was gained, the affected floorboards were replaced.
8. It had followed its policy and procedure and its repairs team had acted accordingly when issues had been reported.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 24 August 2023 and confirmed it would respond on or before 21 September 2023 if possible.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It said:
1. It was satisfied that it had acted promptly and in line with its repairs timescales to address the repairs reported in relation to the heating and hot water. It had carried out 3 annual gas service appointments in April 2021, February 2022, and December 2022, none of the appointments identified any issues with the heating and hot water system.
2. It was sorry that the resident felt ignored. It had provided support in managing his tenancy until July 2022. It offered further support during a home visit on 29 March 2023. Following the visit, additional support was offered via a referral to its internal support services which the resident declined. It had reviewed several calls with the contact centre and found all interactions to be pleasant. It was satisfied that there were no concerns regarding staff conduct.
3. It was satisfied that it had acted promptly and in line with its repairs timescales to address the repairs required to the bathroom as and when they were reported. It had listened to recent calls with its contact team and reviewed notes on its internal systems. Several visits had been carried out and it was unable to locate any evidence to suggest that it had not acted upon any reported repairs.
4. According to its records there had been no previous reports of damp and mould in the kitchen or bathroom. A stock condition survey was carried out on 28 October 2021, and the report stated that damp and mould was “not present”. As soon as it was made aware, the relevant repairs were completed.
5. It was satisfied that it had acted promptly and in line with its repairs timescales to address the guttering repairs as and when they were reported.
6. When colleagues visited the resident in March 2023, they could see where newly installed floorboards had been fitted and confirmed that the repair had been completed upon their visit. It was satisfied that this issue had been responded to in the complaint response dated 11 April 2023.
7. It acknowledged and appreciated that since the tenancy began in July 2020, several repairs and inspections had been carried out, which it acknowledged could be distressing and unsettling. However, it maintained it acted promptly and in line with its repair timescales to address any reports of repairs. However, to ensure all repair matters had been addressed, both historically and recently, it had requested a further inspection to be carried out by the repairs and maintenance manager.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of plastering repairs to the resident’s bedroom and living room sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the landlord has not investigated these matters within its stage 1 response of 22 August 2023 and its stage 2 response of 20 September 2023.
This complaint involves a large volume of correspondence and other documents. Both the resident’s and landlord’s efforts in compiling evidence in support of the matters raised are recognised. Whilst not all documents and events are explicitly referred to, all have been examined and taken into account during this investigation.
The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on his health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Repairs reported by the resident including repairs to the floorboards in the living room due to a woodworm infestation, repairs to the bathroom, repairs to the gutters and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen

S11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to:
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes).
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity); and
3. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
The landlord has 4 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs are completed within 7 calendar days, routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days, and planned maintenance is completed within 180 calendar days.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will aim to prioritise repairs for vulnerable tenants where the nature of their vulnerability means the repair has serious implications for their health and safety.

Repairs to the floorboards

The landlord was contacted by a housing advice charity on 19 January 2022 about issues of disrepair raised by the resident, this included uneven floorboards. The landlord carried out a property inspection on 3 March 2022, and identified all outstanding repairs. The evidence provided suggests that the landlord deemed the living room floorboards to be in an acceptable condition at the time of the inspection.
The landlord visited the resident again on 13 April 2022, and identified all outstanding repairs. It is unclear from the information provided why a further inspection was necessary, although the evidence suggests it may have been due to the cost of the required work.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a further update in relation to his repairs until 9 May 2022, following contact from a veteran’s support charity. The landlord told the resident it had requested a further inspection of the living room floorboards. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether this had taken place prior to the resident putting his foot through a woodworm infested floorboard on 4 July 2022. It is also unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord had not noted the woodworm infestation during its inspections on 3 March 2022 and 13 April 2022.
Following the incident on 4 July 2022, the landlord did carry out a temporary emergency repair in relation to the affected floorboard and referred the matter to its preservation team, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, following the inspection by the environmental health officer (EHO) on 13 July 2022, it should have been clear to the landlord that the living room floorboards required further investigation due to the confirmation of a woodworm infestation that was “compromising the structural integrity” of the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to instruct a specialist woodworm company at this point, as advised by the EHO, to inspect/survey the floor and treat the woodworm. It is unclear from the information provided why the landlord did not follow the recommendations or advice of the EHO. However, its decision not to do so was unreasonable in the circumstances. Particularly as it was aware that the resident had medical conditions that affected his balance, and he was more prone to tripping over uneven or unsafe floorboards.
In its stage 1 response dated 22 August 2023, the landlord did not make any reference to the woodworm or its lack of action in relation to the recommendations made by the EHO. It did not demonstrate that it understood the serious or progressive nature of a woodworm infestation, and the likelihood of further issues as it had failed to involve a specialist company to inspect and treat the infestation.
Following a further report from the resident of the living room floor not being “fit for purpose” on 15 September 2023, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 11 October 2023, and deemed the floor to be of a “lettable standard”. However, the EHO attended the property again on 14 November 2023, and identified further woodworm infestation and raised concerns that the floorboards and joists had not been treated for woodworm, as advised on 13 July 2022.
The landlord did replace all the floorboards and treat the floorboards and joists against woodworm on 15 January 2024 and 16 January 2024. However, this was 18 months after the resident initially raised concerns of woodworm in his living room floor. This was significantly outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for completion of repairs and was not in line with its aim to “prioritise repairs for vulnerable tenants where the nature of their vulnerability means the repair has serious implications for their health and safety”. Therefore, the landlord’s actions/inaction following confirmation of a woodworm infestation in the floorboards of the resident’s living room were inappropriate in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord failed to act upon the recommendations of the EHO, failed to apply its own repairs and maintenance policy and delayed unreasonably in rectifying and treating the woodworm infestation.

Repairs to the bathroom

It is unclear from the information provided exactly which bathroom repairs the resident was not satisfied with. In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023 the landlord confirmed it attended the resident’s property on 26 August 2020 to repair the basin pedestal. It repaired leaks from the bathroom on 21 February 2022 and 1 August 2022, and on 19 October 2022 it installed a new sink and taps.
The local authority installed a wet room in the resident’s property, under its disabled adaptations scheme, and it is understood that there were some outstanding issues in relation to the installation of grab rails and other minor defects. However, the adaptations were not the responsibility of the landlord and, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for the associated delays.
In summary, there is no evidence of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.

Repairs to the gutters and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen

The resident first raised issues with his guttering and mould in his property via a housing advice charity on 19 January 2022. Although the landlord carried out property inspections on 3 March 2022 and 13 April 2022, it is unclear from the information provided why it took the landlord until 6 September 2022 to determine that scaffolding was required to complete the work to the guttering.
The job to renew/clear the guttering was completed on 30 January 2023. However, this was over a year from the date of the initial report. This was significantly outside of the timeframe of 28 days for the completion of routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Therefore, the landlord’s inaction following the resident’s reports and its delays to complete the appropriate repairs to the guttering were inappropriate in the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 April 2023, to report that there was black mould on the silicone on the inner kitchen door frame, mould on the wall in the kitchen, and a strong smell of damp in his property. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord arranged an inspection or raised any repairs in line with its repairs and maintenance policy, which was inappropriate in the circumstances. It should be noted that the EHO mentioned, during the visit on 6 June 2023, that there was no mould growth present. However, the evidence would suggest that the resident had been actively cleaning the mould to minimise the effects.
The resident informed the landlord on 13 July 2023, that he wanted the damp in his kitchen to be inspected and resolved. He described the long term issues with water penetrating through his kitchen wall from the old guttering, which had rotted one of the skirting boards. He said the guttering was rectified on 30 January 2023, but the resulting damp and mould had not been resolved. The landlord’s damp inspector attended on 19 July 2023 and identified required works to the kitchen entrance lobby. Small amounts of mould on the walls around and on the back door were noted, and the walls and door were noted as being damaged. An appointment was made for plaster repairs and an inspection for the back door. The damp proofing works were completed on 8 September 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023, said there had been no previous reports of damp and mould in the kitchen or bathroom prior to the 13 July 2023. Yet the evidence shows that the resident reported mould initially on 19 January 2022, and again on 17 April 2023.Therefore, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it acted upon the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his kitchen within the timeframe of 28 calendar days for routine repairs, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord failed to apply its own repairs and maintenance policy and delayed unreasonably in repairing/replacing the resident’s guttering and rectifying and treating the damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen.
As a result of the landlord’s failings in relation to repairs to the floorboards, repairs to the gutters, and the delays in rectifying damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen, and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Reports that the resident had no heating or hot water for a significant period of time

The resident informed the landlord, via a housing advice charity on 19 January 2022, that he was having issues with his heating as he did not understand how to use his thermostat. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concern or raised an inspection to ensure the thermostat was working correctly.
However, the resident’s boiler was serviced on 16 February 2022, and a follow on repair was also completed on 17 March 2022. The resident would have had the opportunity to raise his concerns with the engineer at this point. In addition to this, following their attendance at the property, the gas engineer did not raise any concerns with the landlord in relation to the performance of the thermostat. The landlord’s records show that there were no further reports relating to the resident’s heating until the thermostat was replaced on 7 December 2022, following an annual service on 1 December 2022.
The resident did raise further issues relating to his inability to use his heating on 24 March 2023. Following a home visit on 29 March 2023, the landlord arranged for a gas engineer to attend and inspect the resident’s boiler on 13 April 2023. The gas engineer changed a part on the boiler and the resident reported that this was the first time his heating had worked properly since the start of his tenancy. There were no further issues reported in relation to the boiler until a further gas service took place on 3 October 2023.
The resident was in regular contact with the landlord during this period and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised concerns about his heating between 18 March 2022 and 24 March 2023.
In summary, there is no evidence of service failure in relation to the resident’s reports that he had no heating or hot water for a significant period of time.

The resident’s reports of poor staff conduct and a lack of support from the landlord

The resident has raised allegations of harassment and abuse by the landlord. He has also raised concerns around negligence. The Ombudsman is unable to determine such allegations as these are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. The Ombudsman is, however, able to assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
The resident has not provided any specific examples of poor staff conduct within his complaints. Therefore, this Service has looked at the landlord’s general conduct and support throughout the period from 19 January 2022 until the stage 2 response was provided on 20 September 2023.
The resident was supported by the landlord’s internal support team from the start of his tenancy until 6 July 2022. The case was closed as the landlord deemed that there were no further actions it could take and the resident also had support from the brain injury clinic and a veteran’s charity in place. The landlord’s records show that the resident agreed that he would contact the landlord again if he felt that further support was required. This course of action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, given that the resident had support in place at the time from external agencies more suited to his specific needs.
The evidence provided by both party’s included correspondence by email, call recordings of conversations between the resident and the landlord’s staff, and internal emails between the landlord’s staff from various departments. Following a thorough review of all the relevant evidence, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s conduct towards the resident was poor or unreasonable. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord’s contact with the resident appears to be polite, professional, empathetic, fair and reasonable.
In summary, there is no evidence of service failure in relation to the landlord’s conduct towards the resident, or in relation to the support provided to the resident by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 5 July 2023, following contact from this Service, as the resident had raised additional complaints that were not included in his initial stage 1 complaint. This is in line with paragraph 5.7 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) which states “where resident’s raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with the Code when raising a further stage 1 complaint and its action were appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 July 2023 and agreed that the complaint response deadline could be extended due to follow on work required for the damp. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. This was 34 days from the date the complaint was raised.
The Code states at paragraph 5.1 that “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”. This Service does not consider the fact that follow on work was required in relation to the damp as a good reason to delay the complaint response. The Code states at paragraph 5.5 that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code, when it extended the timeframe for the stage 1 complaint response, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2023. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy and its actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and delayed unreasonably in providing a stage 1 complaint response. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of plastering repairs to the resident’s bedroom and living room is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs reported by the resident including repairs to the floorboards in the living room due to a woodworm infestation, repairs to the bathroom, repairs to the gutters and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports that the resident had no heating or hot water for a significant period of time.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct and a lack of support from the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident, in writing, to enquire as to whether there are any further outstanding repairs or issues within his property. The landlord should provide a copy of the correspondence to this Service.
3. Carry out any work identified and provide both the resident and this Service with a schedule of works, including completion dates.
4. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,100 made up of:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident including repairs to the floorboards in the living room due to a woodworm infestation, repairs to the bathroom, repairs to the gutters and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within eight weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Instruct a specialist woodworm infestation company to conduct a full survey of the ground floor floorboards and joists to ensure the infestation is no longer active. The landlord must provide both the resident and this Service with a copy of the report.
2. Carry out any work or treatments required in line with the survey/report. The landlord should provide both the resident and this Service with a schedule of works, including completion dates.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.