Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202125602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125602

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

27 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repair issues at the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s insurance claim.
3. Staff behaviour.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s 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.
Although the resident raised the issue of staff behaviour with the landlord, this did not form part of her stage 1 or 2 complaints and was therefore not considered as part of the internal complaint’s procedure. Accordingly, the staff behaviour complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with a secure tenancy beginning March 2013 and the property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.
A complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs and improvement works to the property has already been investigated and determined by this Service. A determination on that complaint was made in September 2021, and covered the landlord’s handling of the matter up until July 2021. A new complaint was raised in January 2022, and the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure for that complaint in June 2022. As such, this investigation has focused on the events leading up to the new stage 1 complaint of January 2022, and earlier events have been included for context only. This investigation has not considered matters that have already been determined by this Service.
A historic internal email of 22 September 2020 says that:
1. The rainwater down pipe from main roof needed to feed to the gutter on low level and not directly to the roof.
2. The rainwater down pipe to low level runs to gully side, needed a bend and grill to match.
The repair log evidenced that on 18 February 2021 the landlord attended the property to rectify issues with the guttering. However, the notes go on to say a return visit was required on 19 February 2021 as it did not resolve the issue.
In November 2021 the resident made an insurance claim in relation to various items of furniture, outdoor furniture, clothes, and toys that were damaged during the course of work being carried out at the property by the landlord.

Summary of events

The resident said that woodworm had been identified in her loft following an inspection in April 2021. An internal email of 12 August 2021 confirmed this and explained that the inspection was in relation to a government grant for loft insulation.
On 4 August 2021 the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had made hurtful comments about her daughter and used foul language which she discovered after listening to her ring doorbell.
Internal email correspondence was sent the following day said, “this is not good” and requested “a quick chat”. Furthermore, staff discussed that the doorbell was “wired for video and sound” and it was “noted regarding the doorbell”.
On 24 August 2021 the repair log shows an inspection was carried out in relation to woodworm in the loft with a view to providing a quote for treatment.
The repair log shows that on 20 August 2021 a works order was raised to plaster patch repairs to the living room, kitchen and third bedroom. This work was detailed as complete on 27 August 2021.
On 28 August 2021 a works order was raised in relation to decorating where the new widows had been installed. The repair log evidenced this as complete on 3 September 2021.
On 16 September 2021 a works order was raised in relation to “fully decorating the living room”. The repair log evidenced this as complete on 20 October 2021.
On 20 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to outstanding works and a list of costs and damages. The resident said:
1. The front door let in water.
2. There was woodworm in the loft, as identified by previous contractors.
3. There was mould in the kitchen cupboard and bathroom.
4. The guttering overflowed when it rained.

Due to privacy issues, the fence was supposed to be replaced with a 6-foot fence, “years ago”.

On 10 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident with details on how to make a claim via its insurance. It explained that the insurance company would review the details of her complaint and any information provided.
An internal email of 17 November 2021 said that the front door was “still leaking water over the threshold”.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord’s insurance company contacted the resident and requested evidence of her losses. It said that “the onus is upon you as the claimant to fully prove and provide evidence of your losses”.
The resident responded on 13 December 2021 saying that the information had already been provided to the landlord and to contact her once it had viewed the information.
On 29 December 2021 and 14 January 2022 works orders were raised in relation to removing the existing fence and renewing with 6-foot fencing. This work was evidenced in the repair log as complete on 18 February 2022.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2022 saying that despite an ombudsman investigation not much work had been progressed. She had provided a list of outstanding works in October 2021 with only electrical works being completed.
The repair log shows that on 19 January 2022 a works order was raised in relation to a mould wash to a cupboard and bathroom. The notes say that the works were completed on 11 April 2022 as “couldn’t arrange earlier”. No other details were provided.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 saying that she had not received a response to her stage 1 complaint and therefore wanted to escalate matters to stage 2. She said that:
1. Contractors did not attend her property on 31 January 2022 as arranged.
2. No information had been provided to her in relation to the replacement of the sash windows which did not fit the hole and were drafty.
3. The rear door and frames were damaged and there was missing render and vent caps.
4. She wanted to know if the damp proof course would be installed when the front door was replaced.
5. She had not been provided with a copy of the damp survey however another mould wash had been ordered which “solved nothing”.
6. She had not received a response to an email she sent to the insurance department and felt it was unnecessarily being dragged out.
The landlord responded on 2 February 2022 apologising for the lack of response and said it would be obtaining updates in relation to the outstanding works. Once it had an update it would contact the resident.
It went on to confirm it had contacted the insurance company that said it was still waiting for a response from the resident in relation to its email of 22 November 2021 whereby it requested evidence to support her claim.
The same day the resident responded saying all the information was available in her housing file and was unhappy that she would have to review the file to pass the necessary information to the insurance company.
The resident confirmed that on 7 March 2022 works to the front door were carried out which included changing a door handle and resealing under the front door.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident saying that it had hand delivered the information 11 February 2022. Therefore, she was in receipt of all the information needed to provide the insurance company as requested.
The landlord sent a reply on 25 March 2022, although this did not indicate if it was a formal response. It said that:
1. Works to the fence had been completed and the contractor who damaged her trampoline and shed had been advised it would have to treat it as a new for old replacement via an insurance claim.
2. The bubble gasket (window seal) had been installed to all windows.
3. It had not received written confirmation from her employer as to loss of earnings following the contractor’s failure to attend.
4. The resident had not provided electricity estimations of increased cost due to the draught issues with the windows.
5. The new air source heating system had been installed.
6. It was awaiting a price for the replacement rear door and frame, as the original door had been adjusted and was not sealing correctly.
7. It would carry out another damp survey to the property at the resident’s convenience.
8. It listed works that were due to begin “the week commencing before Easter”.
9. With regard to the front door, the letter box had been removed and resealed. It was water tested with a watering can and found no leaks if further leaks were found to make contact.
10. An alteration form would need to be completed in relation to adding a ring doorbell. However, alterations that require the door furniture to be disassembled to fit a camera were unlikely to be approved.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and advised its contractors would be in contact in relation to checking the gutters and downpipe.
The case notes for 7 April 2022 evidence that an inspection was carried out of the mould in the bathroom. It said there were signs of slight mould and meter reading was taken with no signs for concern. The resident was advised the extractor fan would be repaired and the damp and mould wash carried out. In addition, the resident reported a cupboard in the kitchen was colder than the others therefore a temperature reading was taken but did not show any signs of concern.
The repair log shows that a mould wash was carried out on 11 April 2022 to the “cupboard and bathroom”.
On 27 April 2022 the repair log shows an order was raised to carry out a mould wash to affected areas in the bathroom including the tiles and ceiling. This was evidenced as complete on 27 June 2022.
The resident responded on 8 May 2022 requesting her complaint be escalated to stage 3. She said that:
1. There were still a significant number of items not addressed.
2. The letter box had not been resealed so was not watertight and she could provide video evidence of this.
3. She was advised the rear door was being ordered on 2 March 2022 but still did not have a date for it to be fitted.
4. She was advised she could mount the ring doorbell on a frame and that every other tenant had them. She felt she was being victimised and wanted to know if other residents had submitted application forms.
5. She said the landlord did not “like” the doorbell as it had provided evidence on more than 1 occasion of contractors making comments and verbal insults about her.
6. She listed works that were still outstanding including:
  1. Water ingress to the front door
  2. Kitchen and bathroom extractor fans not working correctly.
  3. The guttering was still overflowing because all the water flows to a single gutter which could not handle it.
  4. Woodworm
  5. Not compensating for additional energy use as a result of ill-fitting windows and doors.
7. She said that a damp survey was carried out in April 2022, and she was waiting for the report and next steps to be confirmed.
8. The electricity company could not provide a comparison as there were too many variables therefore someone would have to work out the cost increase.
9. She had it in writing that the canopy was supposed to be fitted to the property and that staff knew this was the case.
10. As the decoration to the hallway was carried out before all the works were completed, there were chunks and scuff marks on the walls and woodwork.
11. It took from February 2021 to January 2022 for the doors to be replaced.
On 1 June 2022 a works order was raised to fit an extractor fan and external grill on the bathroom.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord sent its final response saying that:
1. It had not met its repair obligations to the resident in undertaking the works in a timely fashion.
2. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the planning of works and any delays.
3. It had not resolved any claims/compensation issues in a timely fashion.
4. Therefore, it upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint and offered its sincere apologies to her. It said the level of service that she received was wholly unacceptable and went on to outline a plan to resolve the matters.
5. It appreciated that there were a large number of actions to rectify the situation and therefore proposed a fortnightly call directly with the resident to monitor the progress of all proposed actions to a successful conclusion.
On 8 June 2022 an inspection was carried out in relation to “condensation and mould related issues”. The case said that damp readings were taken throughout with “all readings registered dry”. Also, there were high humidity levels, and no trickle vents open on the windows. It went on to recommend a further survey be undertaken later in October/November and recommended to install monitoring data logging equipment at that point.
The case notes of 13 June 2022 evidence an inspection was carried out in relation to water ingress to the front door. The case notes say the issue to the door was resolved and the ring doorbell fitted. Furthermore, the case notes say the landlord would update the tenant on the regular/ weekly basis to ensure things were moving forward as they should.
The case notes throughout June 2022 show that the landlord tried to liaise with the resident however the resident had been unwell I’m did not feel up to discussing the issues.
The case notes show the throughout July the landlord made various attempts to contact the resident.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and spoke with her partner as she was in hospital. It said it would “temporarily suspend the ongoing works” and suggested resuming the works from 1 August 2022.
It went on to say that in its response to the resident, it had made an offer of £250 of compensation towards energy cost incurred and requested the resident confirm if she accepted it.
On 6 July 2022 a works order was raised in order to carry out an inspection of the loft to quote for woodworm treatment. This was evidenced as complete on 23 August 2022.
On 24 July 2022 the resident raised concerns to the external contractor in relation to the work being carried out to treat the woodworm. She said that previous contractors had advised the need to remove and replace all loft insulation with new. The contractor responded advising the resident to contact the landlord.
The repair log says that on 12 August 2022 works was carried out to address the overflowing guttering.
On 23 August 2022 treatment was carried out in relation to the woodworm. A certificate of warranty dated 1 September 2022 was provided as evidence to this service saying the materials used in the treatment of the timber have an “effective life excess of 20 years and will prevent the recurrence of the “wood boring beetle”.
The case notes for 23 August 2022 say that a site visit was carried out in relation to the timber treatment and work done to the windows and doors (the rear door was replaced). The notes say the resident was happy with the workforce and the jobs undertaken thus far.
The repair log shows that following the resident’s reports of a noisy extractor fan, repairs were carried out on 13 September 2022. The notes say the fan was operating correctly however the ducting had come apart but was rectified at the time.
On 27 September 2022 all work to the entrance hall flooring and lobby was completed.
The repair log shows that on 4 October 2022 the missing screw caps to the windows were replaced.
On 18 October 2022 a site visit was carried out in relation to quotes for decoration works and the bathroom extractor fan. The resident explained she was unhappy with the external grills however the landlord explained it did not feel they were required but would supply them as requested. It demonstrated to the resident that both fans were operational and working correctly.
The case notes for 28 October 2022 show that the resident provided her bank details for a compensation payment in relation to a trampoline. The landlord confirmed that no further increased payment of £250 would be provided for electricity use unless evidence could be provided.
Following recent contact with the resident, she advised that the following items remain outstanding:
1. The guttering and overflows
2. The fence placed in front of old fence.
3. There is damp and mould in the bathroom.
4. The front door still lets in water.
5. There has been no contact in relation to the insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Policies

The tenant handbook says that the landlord is responsible for maintenance of the structure of the property such as roof, walls, doors, window frames and glazing, ceilings, and plaster work.
It notes that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.

The resident’s reports of Damp and mould and outstanding repair issues at the resident’s property

Under the Housing Health and Safety rating system, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its properties are free from hazards, such as damp and mould. It outlines preventative measures for mitigating any such hazard, including:
1. Properly installed rainwater goods, including gutters and rainwater pipes capable of removing rainwater from the roof and carrying it away from the property into proper means of disposal.
2. The external fabric of the building should be kept in repair to prevent rain penetration.
3. There should be provisions for the removal of moisture-laden air. For example, extraction during cooking or bathing, either by mechanical means, or passive stack ventilation.

Damp and mould

It had been evidenced that there were historic mould issues in the property, with the resident reporting more recently that there was mould in the bathroom. Furthermore, the resident reported issues in relation to the guttering, front door leaking and issues with the extractor fans in the property. All disrepair items that can impact damp and mould. This report will address those items individually, with an overall assessment at the end.
The resident had said in her formal complaint that the mould washes were not resolving the issue. However, 2 further mould washes were carried out but no meaningful investigation as to the cause of the problem, which was not appropriate.
The resident reported mould in the bathroom and cupboard on 19 January 2022, however, this was not addressed until 11 April 2022. The case notes said that it could not be arranged earlier but did not provide any further details as to why. It is not appropriate that there was a delay of 58 working days in carrying out the works to address the mould.
An inspection was carried out on 7 April 2022 in relation to the mould growth in the bathroom. The case notes say there was slight mould growth and meter readings were taken demonstrating no cause for concern. A works order was raised on 27 April 2022 for a mould wash to be carried out. This was completed until 27 June 2022, 40 working days later. The delay in treating the mould was not appropriate.
In its complaint response of 25 March 2022, the landlord said it would carry out a damp survey. This was carried out on 8 June 2022, 49 working days later and 5 months after the resident reported the mould issues. The delay was not appropriate.
This Service’s spotlight report outlines that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
Despite the survey of 8 June 2022 recommending further investigation be carried out in October/November 2022 by installing monitoring data logging equipment, no evidence was provided to suggest that this was carried out. This was not appropriate and evidently frustrating for the resident.

Guttering

In her email of 20 October 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the guttering was still overflowing. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 March 2022 explaining that its contractors would be in contact with her in relation to checking the gutters and downpipe.
The resident chased matters on 8 May 2022 saying that the guttering was still overflowing. The repair log evidenced that works to the gutters were carried out on 12 August 2022. This was 205 working days after the resident’s report of October 21. It is not appropriate that the landlord took this length of time to attend to the matter, especially as the resident had chased the issue in May 2022 and the landlord was aware of the ongoing issues in relation to the guttering and potential damp problems it could cause.

Water ingress to the front door

An internal email was sent on 17 November 2021 saying the front door was still leaking water over the threshold. The resident chased the matter on 1 February 2022. However, the door threshold was not resealed until 7 March 2022.
It is not appropriate that it took 75 working days to carry out the necessary repair to the front door. Particularly as the repair was highlighted during the winter months and affecting the resident more severely.
The resident reported again that there was water ingress to the front door on 8 May 2022, this was evidenced as repaired on 13 June 2022, which was appropriate and in line with its repair’s times scale. Nevertheless, the resident has advised this Service that there is still water ingress to the front door and the matter remains outstanding although it is not clear if this has been reported to the landlord.

The fence

The resident reported on 20 October 2021 and in her stage 1 complaint of 4 January 2022 that no work in relation to the fence had been carried out. The repair log shows that works orders were raised on 29 December 2021 and 14 January 2022 in relation to removing the existing fence and replacing it with a 6-foot fence. This was not evidenced as complete until 18 February 2022.
This was not appropriate as it was 84 working days after the works order was raised and not in line with its repair policy which says routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days.
Following recent contact with the resident, she explained that although the fence had been replaced, it had been positioned in front of the old fence allowing vegetation to grow between the two fences causing damage. Therefore, an order has been made in relation to this.

Woodworm

Work orders were raised on 24 August 2021 and on 6 July 2022 in relation to obtaining quotes for the woodworm treatment in the loft. The landlord was within its rights to obtain more than 1 quote for the work, nevertheless, there was an unreasonable delay of 219 days in between each quote being obtained.
The delay in obtaining the quotes had ultimately led to an increase in time before the works were carried out and an added delay for the resident which was not appropriate.
The resident raised concerns regarding a disparity between how the works were to be carried out following the quotes. The landlord investigated these concerns by contacting the contractor directly for an explanation which has been evidenced in internal emails. This approach was reasonable for the landlord to be satisfied with the professional advice. In addition, a certificate of warranty was provided with the works upon completion.
Although the works were carried out, there was still a delay of 253 working between obtain the first quote and carrying out the work. This was not appropriate or in line with policy.

Overall

Despite a previous determination by this Service, the landlord has failed to progress the repairs in a timely manner. This is of concern as this means the landlord has failed to follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord paused works between 28 June 2021 and 8 August 2021 at the resident’s request.
However, the resident has experienced delays in pursuing the repairs to her property which has caused her distress and inconvenience. Between 8 August 2021 and 12 August 2022, the property has been in some form of disrepair, this is despite a previous determination by this service, which is of significant concern.
Although the landlord did accept it had not undertaken the works in a timely fashion or communicated effectively with the resident about the planning of works, it did not offer the resident any compensation or identify any learning outcomes to prevent the issue from happening again. Therefore, the above failings by the landlord amount to maladministration.

Compensation

This service aims to provide fair and proportionate remedies to complaints where the Ombudsman has found maladministration and where the failure has impacted the resident.
A total award of £250 was offered to the resident for excess energy usage. There was no compensation offered to the resident to put things right as a result of the impact the delays and outstanding repairs had on her. It is clear that the resident was upset and distressed.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent related element based on a refund of around 20% for the delay period being between August 2021 to August 2022. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £1153.84 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 20% of the weekly rent (£82.14) for 52 weeks. Also, an additional £300 has been ordered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s insurance claim

On 10 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident with details on how to make a claim via its insurance. It explained that the insurance company would review the details of her complaint and any information provided. This was appropriate as it clarified who the resident should contact and what the process would be.
The landlord’s insurance company contacted the resident on 22 November 2022 explaining that the onus was on her to prove and provide evidence of her losses. This was appropriate and in line with any insurance policy and claims procedure. The resident responded on 13 December saying that she had already provided the landlord with the information and to contact her once it had viewed the information.
Whilst this service understands that it would be frustrating for the resident to have to provide this information again, the onus is on the claimant to fully prove any losses. Furthermore, on 11 February 2022 the landlord hand delivered the residents housing file to her as she requested.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 14 March 2022 saying that the resident she was in a position to pursue the claim as she had all the information required by the insurance company.
Furthermore, it had been evidenced that the landlord liaised with the insurance company between March and May 2022, providing them with details of the investigation into the original complaint and the ombudsman report. The landlord accepted its failing and apologised to the resident.
Therefore, given all of the above the ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s insurance claim.

Complaint Handling

The landlord has a three stage complaints process where responses are required within 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stages 2 and 3. This is not appropriate as the complaints handling code says that a landlord’s complaint procedure should comprise of 2 stages.
The ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaint process but if a landlord believes strongly, it requires one it should set out its reasons as part of its self-assessment. The landlord set out its reasonings saying it “uses a three stage process that links to the structure and wider Council services for consistency”.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2022. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 February 2022 saying that she had not had a response to her stage 1 complaint. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy whereby stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days.
Given the lack of response the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 1 February 2022. The landlord responded the same day apologising for the lack of response and saying it would provide her with updates in relation to the outstanding works. It was appropriate the landlord apologised to the resident for its lack of contact.
Nevertheless, the landlord did not respond at stage 2 until 25 March 2022 this was 38 days later. Furthermore, it did not indicate whether this was a formal response. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy whereby stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in relation to whether it was a formal response was confusing for the resident.
On 8 May 2022 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 3. She said that there were a significant number of items not addressed. On 6 June 2022 the landlord sent its final response saying that it had not met its repair obligations in undertaking the works in a timely fashion and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It therefore upheld the resident’s stage two complaint offering its sincere apologies to her. It went on to say the service she received was unacceptable. Whilst this demonstrates the landlord was accepting its failings, it did not offer compensation to put things right which was not appropriate.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to identify any learning outcomes which is not appropriate. Recognising the need to learn could prevent failures of this kind occurring again, in turn reducing the impact on the resident when trying to pursue matters.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond at stage one of its complaints process, was delayed in responding at stage 2 and failed to offer compensation.
Therefore, given the above the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, £150 compensation had been ordered to be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to:
1. The damp and mould and outstanding repairs
2. Its response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s insurance claim.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is ruled outside of jurisdiction:
1. Staff behaviour

Reasons

Despite a previous determination by this Service, the landlord has failed to progress the repairs in a timely manner. There was a 75-day delay to repair the water ingress, a 205-day delay to address the guttering and a 58-day delay in addressing the damp and mould issue.
The landlord failed to respond at stage one of its complaints process and took 38 working days to respond at stage 2. Although it had accepted its failing and apologised, it failed to offer the resident compensation to put things right or identify any steps to prevent the failures reoccurring.
The burden of proof is on the person who brings a claim, to prove and provide evidence of their losses. The landlord hand delivered the resident’s housing file which provided evidence to demonstrate her losses which was required by the insurance company.
Although the resident raised the issue of staff behaviour with the landlord, this did not form part of her stage 1 or 2 complaints and was therefore not considered as part of the internal complaint’s procedure.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1303.84 made up of:
1. £853.84 to reflect the impact on her in relation to its response to her reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenient in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint.
A senior leader to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Liaise directly with the resident and draw up an action plan detailing what works are outstanding and give a timescale for when these are to be completed. A copy of the plan is to be provided to the resident and this service with all works to be complete within 2 months of this determination. The plan should include:
1. A new inspection carried out to the front door, and to rectify the water ingress over the threshold.
2. New inspection carried out to the guttering by an independent, suitable qualified person, and to rectify the overflowing gutters.
3. New inspection of the fence to make sure it was installed as intended as per the works order.
Contact the resident in relation to her insurance claim to provide an update on how to progress matters.
Within eight weeks of today’s date, the landlord should carry out a review of this complaint to identify any lessons to be learnt from its handling of the repair requests and subsequent complaint. The review should focus on the need to get things right first time and if the initial jobs were carried out poorly resulting in the need for multiple contractor visits. The landlord should share the findings from this case review with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord takes steps to ensure that it maintains oversight of the actions of its repair’s contractor in response to repair requests and that it has access to the records of the actions taken by the contractor.