Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202231188)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231188

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

18 October 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of;
    1. Damp and mould and the subsequent remedial repairs in the property.
    2. The claim for damage to the household’s belongings.
    3. The management of the tenancy including audits and an alleged breach resulting in allegations of discrimination.
    4. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The residents are joint secure tenants of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-flat within a block. The couple live in the property with their 2 children. They said their son has had allergic reactions to the mould spores, and a cough. One of the joint tenants has disabilities and he uses a mobility scooter.
  2. This Service has communicated with both residents, who are husband and wife. It is noted that the wife was the lead complainant to the landlord. For ease of reference in this report, the resident will be referred to as ‘she’. The landlord had a contractor whom it employed to manage its repairs. For the most part of this report, they will be referred to as the ‘landlord’.
  3. The resident first reported damp and mould problems in her property to her landlord in December 2020. It gave advice on ways to reduce condensation, and carried out a mould wash. She reported the issue again in November and December 2021. She said the damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings including a wardrobe and children’s toys. She provided photographs of these items to the landlord.
  4. It is reasonable to assume from communications between the landlord and tenant, that it surveyed the resident’s property on 5 January 2022. It identified works it needed to do. By February, the resident said the landlord had not contacted her about the works. She told the landlord the issues were affecting her children’s health. She said the mould was worse in the children’s bedroom so all of the family were sleeping in the other bedroom. The landlord said the resident also made a claim for the damage the mould had caused to her belongings in January 2022.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 June 2022. She said it had not contacted her to arrange to do the works or considered her claim for compensation. In its internal communications in July 2022 the landlord said it would arrange to do the works. It said they included; a mould wash, foam filling within the window trims, installing thermal boards and checking the cavity walls.
  6. The landlord’s records confirm that it completed a mould wash on 9 August 2022. They also confirm it checked the cavity wall in October 2022 and identified an area of the wall that needed unblocking. In its first complaint response, on 18 November, it apologised for the delay. It said it would ensure works were completed. It said it had unblocked some of the cavity wall on 16 December 2022 (which was almost 12 months after its inspection). It failed to respond to the resident’s claim for compensation.
  7. The resident chased the landlord for the works to be done in January 2023. She also expressed her continued dissatisfaction to the landlord, but it did not demonstrate it had offered to escalate her complaint. She said despite the cavity wall being done and some shower tiles refitted, the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord completed another mould wash in February and booked in some of the works between March and May 2023.
  8. In April 2023 the resident contacted this Service for help with escalating her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023. We asked the landlord to complete all of the outstanding repairs. We also asked it to respond to her claim for the damage to her belongings. The landlord said it would need to record a new complaint due to the time that had elapsed. It accepted a new complaint and gave its second stage 1 response on 31 May 2023. Within this, it again failed to respond to the resident’s claim for compensation.
  9. The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction to the landlord on 31 May 2023, the same day she received its second stage 1 complaint response. She said works remained outstanding since the landlord’s inspection in January 2022. In June 2023 the landlord’s records say she was also frustrated about the delays in it responding to her compensation claim. It had said she now needed to claim from its contractor, or her own insurance. She said the landlord had ignored the issue within 2 of its previous complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of her second complaint on 14 July 2023.
  10. The landlord visited the resident in June 2023 to carry out an audit of her tenancy. Following this visit, in July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that she was breaching her tenancy agreement. It said that her husband’s mobility scooter could not be left in the communal stairwell. The landlord’s records say the resident had said she felt as though she was being ‘victimised’. She said the tenancy audits were too frequent. She also said the landlord was not tackling the anti-social behaviour (ASB) issue she had reported. She said she had video evidence of people taking drugs outside of her home.
  11. The landlord conducted a damp and mould survey in September 2023. This outlined actions it would take, such as replacing a window and cleaning extractor fans. It also recommended actions the resident should take to improve airflow and reduce condensation. It responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 October. It apologised for the delay and offered compensation of £500. It said that it had found no evidence of victimisation. It said it would support her to resolve the issues with storing the mobility scooter, such as considering widening the door or helping her to move.
  12. In January 2024 the resident complained again to the landlord. She said the damp and mould remained unresolved and it was affecting her son’s health. She said she was being passed between the landlord and its contractors regarding her claim. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 3 of its complaint process and responded on 26 February. It carried out a further survey in February 2024, and agreed to carry out works by 15 March. Some of which had remained outstanding since 2022. The works included; foam filling the internal windows, a mould wash, fitting vents, and replacing the wet room window.
  13. The landlord’s records show it completed a further mould wash in March 2024. It replaced the resident’s window in the wet room to a double glazed unit (with a trickle vent) on 20 June 2024. The landlord’s repair records did not demonstrate it completed all of the necessary works by its promised timescale and it is unclear if works remain outstanding. In March, it offered the resident a “goodwill” payment of £699.15 to settle her claim for damage to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about the impact the mould issues may have had on hers and her family’s health and wellbeing.  She also said the mould had damaged her belongings. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, or belongings. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury and damaged belongings aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury or insurance claim, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
  2. The resident has also raised concerns of discrimination (victimisation). It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to make an assessment of an individual’s motives. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable
  3. In April 2023 the resident contacted this Service because she was experiencing problems in escalating her stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The landlord said it would open a new stage 1 complaint, as per its policy at that time. The resident raised new issues within the second complaint. The landlord responded to the new issues, in addition to the unresolved matters of damp and mould within its second complaint. In the interests of fairness and in order to bring the case to a resolution, both of these complaints have been considered within this investigation.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about how long she had been waiting for an offer of housing under its housing allocation scheme. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme specifies that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part VI. As such, the resident is advised to raise a complaint about this to the relevant department within the Local Authority, if necessary. If she remains dissatisfied, she can contact the LGSCO.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the subsequent remedial repairs

  1. The resident said she had experienced issues with damp and mould not long after moving into her property in September 2020. This was evident as she sent an email to her landlord in December 2020. In its response, it gave her advice on ways to reduce condensation, and carried out a mould wash. There is a gap in evidence between this date and November 2021 when this Service found that the resident reported the issue again. She provided photographs to the landlord. These images show mould on a wardrobe, ceiling and walls.
  2. In early January 2022 the resident said an inspector had assessed the damp and mould and found works that needed doing to remedy it. This Service has not seen a copy of this survey but it is not disputed that this took place based on the works the landlord identified within its later communications. The resident sent an email to the landlord asking when it would do the works because her child had a bad chest infection. On 21 January, she sent photographs of mould in her property, which the landlord said it forwarded onto its inspector.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 9 February 2022. She said she had not received a response, and no works had been done. She said that her children had bad coughs and colds. She said that the children could not play with their toys or sleep in their room as the mould was “so bad”, and all 4 of the family were sleeping in 1 bedroom.
  4. On 29 June 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its lack of response. She said no work had been done since the inspection in January. Within internal communications between July and November 2022, the landlord’s contractor said that works would need to be arranged as per the inspector’s assessment. Whilst this Service has not seen a copy of the inspection report from January 2022 it is reasonable to conclude from the communications that the works it identified included:
    1. A mould wash to all of the property.
    2. Works to the windows (including removing the trims and filling with foam) in both bedrooms, the kitchen, the wet room and the front room.
    3. Removing the boxing and skirting in the cupboards, installing thermal boards, installing insulation around the internal drainpipe and plastering.
    4. Checking the cavity walls in various locations and reporting the findings.
  5. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. In this case, that the landlord failed to show that it had responded promptly to the resident’s first reports of damp and mould. It did not demonstrate that it had carried out the works that the landlord and resident’s communications suggest had been identified in its assessment in January 2022.
  6. The landlord has a legal obligation under Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout the term. It must ensure the property is free from hazards such as damp and mould. In this case the landlord’s policy confirms these legal obligations.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says that emergency repairs include “any defect that puts the health, safety or security of the tenant, or a third party, at immediate risk; or that affects the structure of the building adversely”. It defines ‘routine’ repairs as those that are non-emergency and says it will complete those within 28 days.
  8. The landlord’s records say it completed a mould wash on 9 August 2022. However the records show that it did not check the cavity wall until October 2022 when it identified an area of the wall that needed unblocking. In its first complaint response, on 18 November 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the works. It said it would ensure works were completed. Its records show, however, that it did not unblock the cavity wall until 16 December 2022. This was an unreasonable delay as it had taken almost 12 months to do this work after the inspection.
  9. In November 2022 the landlord drafted a damp and mould policy. This outlines how it will handle cases of damp and mould. The policy says that it will:
    1. Arrange for a survey appointment within 10 working days of the call.
    2. Provide a ‘damp report’ to the resident within 7 working days of survey appointment.
    3. Schedule works within 14 days of the survey appointment.
    4. Complete minor works within 28 working days and major works within 90 working days
    5. Arrange an aftercare/post-inspection call to the customer 6 months after the works are completed to ensure that the damp/mould issue is resolved
  10. The resident chased the landlord for a response in early January 2023. She said despite some of the cavity wall being unblocked and some shower tiles being refitted, the mould was getting worse. She provided more photographs. She said that her housing conditions were making her depressed. It is evident it was impacting on the resident’s wellbeing as she said “I feel like I’ve failed my children”. It is noted that she had been using dehumidifiers and had air fresheners in every room.
  11. The landlord completed another mould wash in February 2023 however the other works it had identified it needed to do, such as foam filling the windows, remained outstanding. In email exchanges between the contractor and landlord in March and April 2023, the contractor said it had planned to do works to the resident’s windows on 29 July 2022. However, this Service found that the works had not been booked, which led to an unacceptable further lengthy delay.
  12. In March 2023, the landlord called the resident to say it had booked in the works to the windows. It said it would also check her external front door as there was a problem with this. It said it could not fit the works in until 2 May.
  13. In April 2023 the resident contacted this Service for help. She said she had reported damp and mould issues as far back as October 2020 (which evidence shows was the case). We wrote to the landlord in May 2023 and asked it to complete all the outstanding repairs, including those to the windows. The landlord opened up a new complaint and gave its stage 1 response to this on 31 May 2023.
  14. In its second stage 1 response on 31 May 2023 the landlord said that it had completed some works on 22 November 2022. It said it had been unable to inspect the property earlier in the year as it had been unable to gain access. It said that because of the life expectancy of her windows and doors, they were not yet due for an upgrade. However it said it would arrange for a surveyor to do an inspection of the windows, doors and the damp and mould.
  15. On 31 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its second stage 1 response and asked it to escalate her complaint. She said she did not refuse access. She said she told the operative that her dog had recently had puppies and she did not think he would be safe entering the property. As such she had spoken with him at the doorstep.
  16. In escalating her complaint on 31 May 2023, the resident said works remained outstanding since the landlord’s inspection in January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of her complaint on 14 July 2023. Later that month the resident contacted this Service for further advice.
  17. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 19 September 2023, we asked it to resolve the resident’s issues which included completing the outstanding repairs. In internal email exchanges between the landlord and contractor it was noted that a surveyor had not attended the property since January 2022. It was suggested that the case had been missed from its ‘damp and mould tracker’ as the issues had begun before it had started this process.
  18. It was positive to note that the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 26 September 2023. This outlined actions it would take and recommended steps the resident should take, such as decluttering some areas of the property to improve airflow and reduce condensation. It said it was not due to replace all of the windows until 2029. The surveyor said the works that were required included:
    1. Replacing the window in the lounge with a double glazing unit.
    2. Checking and cleaning the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
    3. Replacing the front door as this did not comply with fire regulations.
    4. A mould wash of the bathroom and second bedroom.
  19. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 October 2023. It agreed that it had delayed in carrying out repairs and arranging a damp and mould survey. It said that it had completed some of the works. It said that it had scheduled in the further works that were required, such as checking the cavity wall insulation levels. It sincerely apologised for the delay and offered the resident compensation of £500 to reflect the anxiety and distress that the issues had caused.
  20. The landlord’s records show that the landlord fitted a new double glazed window in the lounge on 1 December 2023 and completed mould washes in the bathroom and second bedroom by 12 December. Despite these actions, the resident told the landlord on 2 January 2024 that the damp and mould had returned. She said she wanted to move. The landlord carried out a further mould wash on 16 January.
  21. On 29 January 2024 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process. The resident said her son was unwell and had been coughing in his bedroom. It is noted that a further inspection had been planned for that month however this did not take place due to an admin error (it had not saved on the landlord’s computer system). The landlord rescheduled the appointment, and it carried out a follow up damp and mould inspection on 2 February 2024.
  22. During the landlord’s inspection in February 2024, it said “meter readings obtained during visit were very low, with no ‘at risk’ readings; all were in the green zone of the meter”. It noted that the resident had taken steps to improve the airflow, by clearing some of the rooms. The landlord identified works it needed to do. This included; filling the internal window trims with foam, boxing or lagging the pipe in the internal cupboard, a mould wash of all the affected areas (including the hallway cupboards), fitting to the cupboard doors and fitting trickle vents to the wet room windows. It said it should also quote for a ventilation system for the property.
  23. The Ombudsman has found that some of the works that landlord identified in its revisit to the property in February 2024 were works that had remained outstanding since its survey which had taken place over 2 years previously. This including filling the window trims with foam and carpentry work within the cupboards. This was an unacceptable delay. Landlords are expected to have systems in place to record all scheduled works and track the progress of them to ensure it meets it legal obligation to keep properties safe and free from hazards.
  24. The resident contacted this Service in February 2024. It is clear that she was concerned about the impact the housing conditions were having on her family’s health. She said that her son’s GP had said they thought he was having an allergic reaction to the mould. She said that she wanted to move. She said she had not had a response from the landlord or from the housing options department about moving to another property.
  25. The landlord provided its stage 3 response to the resident’s second complaint on 26 February 2024. It did not make a further offer of compensation. It said that the contractors would attend between 28 February and 15 March to do the following works:
    1. Mould wash and stain block all areas of mould to bedrooms, both hall cupboards, wet room, lounge and kitchen.
    2. Foam fill behind the trims in the wet room, master bedroom, lounge & kitchen.
    3. Box in or lag the pipe in the entrance hall cupboard which was currently exposed.
    4. Fit vents to top and bottom of both cupboard doors.
    5. Fit trickle vents to the wet room windows.
    6. Complete the cavity inspection to the remainder of the wall along the second bedroom, lounge, and the wet room wall.
    7. Provide a quote (if not already done so) for the Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system to the flat.
  26. This landlord’s repair log shows that it completed some of the works on 1 March 2024. It says it foam filled the windows, carried out carpentry work (including the vents) within the cupboards and inspected the cavity wall. It completed a mould wash on 12 March. It ordered the new double glazed window (with trickle vents) in May and scheduled to fit this in June 2024.It is unclear from the landlord’s records as to whether works remain outstanding. This includes the front door replacement, insulation works following the cavity inspection and the quote for the PIV.
  27. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, there was severe maladministration in this case. The landlord should have taken a proactive approach in dealing with the damp and mould issue, to prevent it from becoming a hazard. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made an offer of compensation, this service does not consider this offer to be proportionate in this case. It is clear that the issue had been raised at an early stage. There were significant delays and poor handling of the remedial works, and this caused much distress to the resident.
  28. It is appreciated that the landlord attempted to put things right somewhat through its complaints process. However it took over 2 years to complete the works it identified in January 2022. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord demonstrated it completed some of these works. However it is unclear from its records whether these works were completed thoroughly. The evidence shows this was not the case, because the resident raised further works.
  29. It was positive to note that the landlord recognised the detriment to the resident and made an offer of compensation. However it was unclear from the landlord’s complaint response what proportion of its compensation related specifically to the delays in responding to the damp and mould issues. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s total offer of compensation to be disproportionate to its failings in this case.
  30. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £1,000 where the failure has been more severe and has had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay additional compensation of £1,000 to the resident, this takes into consideration the impact that the delays and poor communication have had on her  and her family. The landlord is also ordered to arrange for another inspection of the property to determine if any further works are required. If work is required the landlord should complete these within a reasonable timeframe, as per its policy.

The claim for damage to the household’s belongings.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that “Claims for damage caused to personal belongings or personal injury claims whereby there is a suggestion that liability may sit with ‘the landlord’ or one of our contractors will be dealt with by the Council’s Insurance Team”. It also says “Where the complaint relates to a contractor working on behalf of the Council, we will work with them to ensure that the relevant compensation is awarded to the customer via the contractor”.
  2. On 20 November 2021 the resident’s husband contacted the landlord to say that the damp and mould had damaged the children’s personal belongings. He sent photographs of mould on the children’s wardrobe, wallpaper, and the children’s toys. The landlord did not demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s husband’s request. He sent a further email on 29 December 2021.
  3. The landlord told this Service that the resident made a claim for compensation for the damage she said the mould had caused to her belongings on 9 January 2022. It said she provided photographic evidence on 10 January. On 21 January the landlord forwarded a photograph of the resident’s damaged clothing (denim jeans) to its contractor. The contractor confirmed its receipt of the photographs and said they had sent them to their inspector.
  4. The resident chased the contractor for a response on 9 February 2022. The contractor forwarded the email onto their inspector and their planning team the following day. The landlord did not demonstrate that it responded promptly to the resident’s claim and did not liaise with contractor to get a response, as per its policy. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 June 2022. She said she made a claim months ago and had not received a response.
  5. The landlord said its contractor gave its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2022 but within this did not respond to the resident’s claim for compensation. It is noted that the landlord said its insurers rejected the resident’s claim for compensation on 22 November 2022. It said it should be directed at its contractors. However there is no evidence to show this information was communicated to the resident.
  6. The resident contacted this Service for help in April 2023. We wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2023 asking for it to respond to the resident’s claim  for compensation. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 May but again did not address the compensation claim. The landlord’s notes in June and July say the resident asked to escalate her complaint as it had not replied about the claim. The records say it contacted the contractor asking them to resolve the claim for damages, as its insurance team had closed the claim.
  7. On 19 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service to say that she was frustrated as the landlord had told her she should claim from her house insurance for the damaged belongings. She said that the contractor and landlord were blaming each other and neither was taking responsibility for her claim. She said they were ignoring her. In email exchanges with this Service in September, the landlord said it had apologised to the resident as it observed it had not responded to the claim within its complaint response.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2023 the landlord accepted that it had not responded to the claim in either of its stage 1 complaint responses. It apologised for its failings and offered total compensation of £500 for the anxiety and distress caused. It said its contractors had confirmed that they would compensate her for damaged items. It said they had requested receipts from her to allow payment.
  9. It is evident within email exchanges between the landlord, its contractors and the resident between November 2023 and January 2024 that the claim remained unresolved. The resident said she had received mixed messages from the landlord, its contractor and the insurance company about whom she should claim from. Consequently the resident contacted this Service and she complained to the landlord again in January 2024.
  10. The landlord provided a final stage 3 response to the resident on 26 February 2024. It is positive to note that it admitted its service failure in the handling of the claim, including its poor communication. The landlord’s contractor said that its insurers had denied the resident’s claim for compensation as there was no evidence to support the claim. However it was positive to note that despite this, the landlord’s contractors it made a “goodwill payment” to the resident of £699.15 and it said the resident accepted this on 1 March.
  11. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s claim for compensation for the damage to her belongings. As mentioned above, the landlord’s policy says it will work with its contractors to ensure the relevant compensation is awarded to the resident where it is found to be at fault. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took ownership of the resident’s claim and did not deal with it in a timely way, as per its policy.
  12. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made a total offer of compensation of £500, it did not specify what portion of this related to this element of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless this service does not consider the overall final offer to be proportionate in this case.
  13. The resident had first requested that the landlord paid compensation in November 2021 and this was not settled until 1 March 2024. It took too long to respond to the resident’s claim. When it did, the evidence shows that the resident had received mixed messages from all of the parties involved about who was responsible. Considering this delay and the poor communication regarding this, this Service considers that an offer of £250 to be proportionate to recognise the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the claim.

The landlord’s handling of the management of the tenancy, including audits and an alleged breach resulting in allegations of discrimination.

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 June 2023 to say it would visit on 28 June for a ‘tenancy review’. The letter said “We visit all homes on a regular basis to ensure that there are no repair or tenancy issues that need to be addressed by the Council or tenant(s). This visit also provides an opportunity to identify any support I may be able to offer you to manage your home”.
  2. It is appreciated that landlords may need to carry out regular inspections of its residents’ properties to ensure they are well maintained. The inspections may also provide an opportunity to identify any health and safety issues and to offer support to residents that may need it. Visits may be of particular benefit to residents who have disabilities, and also those who may be considered to be vulnerable.
  3. This Service expects that where landlords intend to carry out regular tenancy inspections, it will explain this within its tenancy policies. The policy should clearly outline why it carries out the inspections and the frequency of when they will be carried out. Landlords may also want to include a term within its residents tenancy agreements which requires tenants to allow access for such audits.
  4. In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that it has a clear policy on the management of tenancy inspections. Neither was this mentioned within the resident’s tenancy agreement. It is recommended that the landlord updates its policies. The policy should include reasons why it conducts inspections and the frequency at which they will be carried out.
  5. On 10 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that she and her husband were breaching their tenancy agreement by having a mobility scooter in the communal stairwell. It was noted by the landlord that her husband said the scooter was too big to fit in the flat. He said he normally kept it in a garage, but required help with this. The landlord said it would discuss the issues further with the resident in a visit to the property on 18 July. This Service has not seen a record of this visit.
  6. The landlord has a policy which covers the storage of mobility scooters within tenancies. This policy says that residents must not store the scooters within communal stairwells for health and safety reasons. The resident’s tenancy agreement also said this. The policy says the scooter must be able to be charged safety and securely stored within the resident’s property. It says where possible it will work with residents to enable their use of the scooter.
  7. The landlord said the resident complained online to the landlord on 14 July 2023 which it acknowledged as a stage 2 escalation request the same day. It said she had complained about the handling of the damp and mould and also about the letter concerning the tenancy breach. It noted that the resident said she felt she was being ‘victimised’. She said the landlord was carrying out too many audits (6 since she had moved in 3 years ago) and also there was nowhere to charge her husband’s scooter, as it would not fit in the flat.
  8. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Part 149 of the Act also created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours prohibited under the Act.
  9. The landlord also has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to make an assessment of an individual’s motives.
  10. In this case, whilst the landlord did not have a clear policy about its tenancy audits, it explained in its letter to the resident that it carried out the visits to all its residents. In this case, the evidence did not suggest that the visits being excessive, however it is recommended that the landlord clarifies its process within its policies to manage its residents’ expectations about the audits in future.
  11. In relation to the scooter, the surveyor made a recommendation about this in the damp and mould survey on 26 September 2023. It said the landlord should consider installing an external waterproof charging point close to communal entrance door, for charging the mobility scooter. This Service has not seen any evidence of any further considerations for this within the landlord’s records.
  12. On 2 October 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was aware that the resident’s husband used a scooter and as such it would visit the property on 12 October to complete a fire risk assessment. It said that it would discuss “any additional support needs you may have in being able to safely leave your property should you need to do so in an emergency”.
  13. During the visit on 12 October 2023 the landlord said it would work with the resident’s husband to support a move into accommodation whereby he could safely charge the scooter. It said it would also consider if the front door could be widened to allow the resident to charge the scooter inside the flat. It is noted that the landlord had enquired within an internal email on the same day about the widening of the door, or considerations for a priority transfer.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaint on 16 October 2023. It said it had found no evidence of victimisation and its tenancy auditing reflected its procedures. It said that there had been a one-year gap between the audits which was “in accordance with the Council’s process”. It said it followed its policy regarding the breach of tenancy in relation to the mobility scooter. It said a “supportive approach is being taken to find an effective resolution”.
  15. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In November 2023 she told this Service that her husband had been unable to leave the property. She made a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the situation on 26 January 2024. However, despite the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 3 of its complaint process it failed to address the matter within this final response.
  16. This Service has found that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in saying that the resident could not store the scooter in a communal area. However it did not demonstrate that it offered support in considering other alternatives that may have been available to the disabled resident. This is despite its stage 2 response saying that it would work with the couple to support a move into accommodation which allowed safe charging of the mobility scooter. It also said it would consider either widening the door so the scooter could sit within the property, or installing a waterproof charging point outside of the block. It did not demonstrate to this Service that it had been proactive in considering these options.
  17. The landlord has an Adaptations policy. This says that it will work on the recommendations of an Occupational Therapist in considering adaptations if they are deemed “necessary and appropriate”. The policy also says that adaptations could enable a disabled person to gain access to and from their home and garden. However it may not deem an adaptation reasonable if the property is not suitable, for example if it is overcrowded. It says if this is the case “the tenant will be offered the option of transferring to more suitable alternative accommodation”. It says that “Transfers are dealt with in accordance with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme”.
  18. Within her complaint, the resident raised issues with her property being too small. She said her children would be unable to share a bedroom soon as they were opposite sexes and 1 was reaching 10 years old. Issues with statutory overcrowding and housing allocations are outside of the Ombudsman’s remit as they are governed by the LGSCO. However it is noted that Local Authority’s (LA) Allocation Scheme allows the LA to offer a direct let to an existing tenant to meet their particular needs. The policy says the applicant must be in Priority Band A or B. This Service considers that it would have been reasonable in this case for the landlord to consider a management move, however there is no evidence it did so.
  19. Overall the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management of the tenancy, including its audits and alleged breach. It has not demonstrated it has a clear policy about its tenancy audit processes. In relation to the breach, whilst this was within its policy, it did not show that it has followed up on its promised actions. It did not demonstrate it took positive action in line with its Public Sector Equality Duty, in considering any  reasonable adjustments it could make. It also did not demonstrate that it had supported the resident in considering a managed move as its records said it would on 12 October 2023.
  20. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to award compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress this matter has caused. It should consider supporting the resident with a managed move, or alternatively consider whether it will take steps to allow the scooter to be safely charged within the locality of the property. This might include widening the door or providing an external charging point.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint handling process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can resolve problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord failed to fully investigate and resolve matters in a timely way.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy in 2023 said that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, then provide a response within 10 working days. It said it would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. Its policy at that time also had a stage 3 escalation process.
  3. The 2022 version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) contains guidance that landlords were expected to follow at the time of these complaints. It says that a complaint is defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
  4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord on 21 January and 2022. The landlord did not demonstrate that it recorded this as a complaint, as per the Code. The resident complained again to the landlord’s contractor on 29 June 2022 to say that her previous complaints at the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022 had been ignored.
  5. The landlord did not demonstrate that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 29 June 2022. It emailed its contractor on 27 July to say a response was due as it had fallen out of the complaints timeframe. The landlord said its contractor gave its first response on 18 November, which was almost 5 months after the landlord had accepted the complaint. This Service has not seen a copy of this response.
  6. In its response on 18 November 2022 the landlord said its contractor had apologised for its delay and it had booked in the outstanding works. However it failed to address all of the resident’s issues (her complaint about the handling of her claim for her damaged belongings).
  7. The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction at the end of November 2022 and the beginning of January 2023. The landlord did not escalate her complaint to its second stage, as per its complaints policy. It missed an opportunity here to put matters right for the resident. The resident contacted this Service in April 2023 for help with escalating her complaint.
  8. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord in May 2023. At the time the landlord’s policy said that complaints must be escalated within 6 months. As it was outside of this timeframe, it recorded this as a new complaint. It responded to this complaint the next day, which was within its policy timeframe. However this second stage 1 response again ignored the resident’s complaint about the handling of the claim for compensation. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint same day.
  9. The landlord ignored the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 31 May 2023. She sent a further email on 12 June which was also ignored. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 14 July which was outside of its policy timeframe. In this acknowledgement it said it would respond in 15 working days. However it did not respond within this timeframe and the resident contacted this Service for help.
  10. The resident raised new issues when escalating her complaint. As aforementioned, the 2022 version of the Code was relevant at the time of the complaint. It says “Where residents 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”.
  11. In this case the resident complained about the frequency of tenancy audits, a breach of tenancy letter and also about the landlord’s handling of alleged drug use outside of her property. As these issues were raised after its stage 1 complaint response the landlord should have responded to these as a new complaint. Nonetheless it is appreciated that these actions meant that it was trying to resolve the resident’s issues more quickly by incorporating them into its escalation of the resident’s complaint.
  12. This Service contacted the landlord on 19 September 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023. This was over 4 months after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated and well outside of its policy timescales. It is positive to note that in part the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident within the stage 2 response. It apologised for the delays, and for missing parts of the resident’s complaint within its first responses. It awarded £500 compensation.
  13. The landlord also responded to the resident’s new issues within this response. It said that the resident’s issue about drug use outside of her property had not been brought to it previously however it was working with the police. The resident is advised to make a new complaint about this matter if it remains an issue.
  14. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as her issues were unresolved. She complained to the landlord again on 26 January 2024. The landlord at the time had a 3 stage process and on 29 January it escalated her complaint to its next stage. It said it would respond by 26 February, which it duly did on this occasion.
  15. According to its website, the landlord updated its policy in June 2024 to align with its legal requirement of 1 April to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is positive to see that the landlord has now amended its policy and has removed its stage 3 of its complaint handling. This reflects the now legal requirements of the Code, to have a 2 stage process.
  16. The Ombudsman has found severe maladministration because of the multiple failures of the landlord in the handling of this complaint. It took over 2 years for the landlord to provide its final response to the resident’s complaint. Throughout this time, the resident’s complaints and requests to escalate were at times ignored. The first 2 of its complaints failed to address all the resident’s issues. Then new issues were incorporated into the complaint within its final responses, rather than them being treated as separate complaints.
  17. It is positive to note that the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered compensation within its earlier response. However it did not specify which portion of its compensation offer was related to its complaint handling. Nonetheless the Ombudsman does not consider its overall final compensation offer to be proportionate in this case. The landlord must therefore pay the resident further compensation of £500 in recognition of its handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the subsequent remedial repairs in the property.
    2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the claim for compensation.
    3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of management of the tenancy, including audits and alleged breach.
    4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation of £1,000 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. Pay compensation of £250 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the claim for damages.
    4. Pay £250 to the resident in recognition of management of the tenancy, including audits and alleged breach.
    5. Pay compensation of £500 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. The above amounts are in addition to what it has already offered to the resident in respect of the complaints.
  3. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Confirm in writing to the resident how it will monitor the property for the next 12 months to ensure that the damp and mould issues are fully resolved.
    2. Outline the actions it will take to support the resident in charging the mobility scooter. This to include whether it will consider supporting the resident with a managed move.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord updates its policies to include its procedure for carrying out tenancy audits. This should explain the reasons why it carries out the checks and the frequency in which they will be carried out.