Hackney Council (202112672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112672

Hackney Council

Originally issued 9 August 2023 and amended 19 September 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 handling of:
1. Concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property when it was let to her.
2. The resident’s reports of leaking gutters and associated damp and mould.
3. Heating repairs.
4. Concerns raised by the resident about a fire escape door.
5. The resident’s request for adaptations.
6. The resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 may not be investigated.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that adaptations were needed due to her father’s disabilities and that these should have been done before she moved into the property. The landlord is a local authority which provides adaptations as part of its social care functions and, as such, this activity falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate matters within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. This means that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
However, the work recommended by the landlord’s occupational therapist included that a tree be removed from the front garden and the path be made suitable for a wheelchair user. Whilst we cannot consider the landlord’s adaptation to make the path wheelchair accessible, we have considered how the landlord fulfilled its repairing obligations in respect of removing the tree and making sure that the path was safe.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a three bedroom maisonette over three floors, from August 2021. The resident moved to the property after being given priority for a move on medical grounds and making a successful bid through the landlord’s choice based lettings scheme. The resident gave the landlord evidence that she has disabilities and health issues, and that her father had cancer and used a wheelchair.
The landlord is a local authority and it owns the property, which is managed, on its behalf, by a tenant management organisation (TMO). The Ombudsman understands that the TMO manage the void process for empty homes that are classed as “minor” voids and carry out minor void repairs and some responsive repairs on behalf of the landlord.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property including drains, gutters and external pipes, and paving. It is also responsible for repairs to the systems for supply of water, gas and electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water and keeping them in working order. The resident is responsible for internal decorations and minor repairs.
The landlord’s void procedure applies to all its empty homes including those that are managed by a TMO. The procedure says that a void inspection will be carried out, that a specific form will be completed and photographs taken, after which repairs will be ordered. It says that when repairs have been completed a joint inspectionwill take place to confirm that the property meets the landlord’s lettable standard and is ready to let. The procedure says a specific form will be completed to confirm that all required repairs have been done and that the property meets the lettable standard.
The landlord’s lettable standard includes that the gutters should be clear and watertight and that external paving and steps should be safe. It also says that any belongings left by the previous tenant will be removed including any from the loft.
The void procedure says that prospective new tenants may be able to view a property before repairs have been completed. In which case, the responsible officer will explain the repairs that are going to be done before the property is ready to let.
The void procedure says that vulnerabilities, including disabilities, and support needs “must” be identified before the tenancy starts. It says that it will consider decorating a void property if residents have medical conditions that would prevent them from carrying out the work needed. The landlord has separate vulnerable resident’s guidance but it has not been seen by the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s tenancy sign-up process includes verifying the identity of the new tenant and household members, explaining the rights and responsibilities of the tenancy and signing the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will respond to heating and hot water breakdowns within 24 hours if they occur between 1 November and 30 April. It does not say what its response timescale is for breakdowns occurring between 1 May and 31 October. The policy says the landlord will respond to urgent repairs within five working days but does not give examples of what repairs it would consider as urgent. It says it will respond to “normal” repairs within 21 working days and gives the example of replacing tap washers.
The landlord’s website has a page with advice on damp and mould. It says it will inspect reports of damp and mould within five working days and will respond to reports of leaks by the end of the day they were reported to fix the leak or schedule the necessary repairs.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of their properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould, excess cold, entry by intruders, falls and fire are potential hazards that fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process and says it aims to respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days. It says that stage two complaints will be considered by an independent team and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which provides for compensation to be paid where there has been a service failure. For example, it may pay up to £300 where there has been a delay in considering a complaint, £25 for missed appointments and consider compensation for “serious” repair cases in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Summary of events

The evidence shows that the resident viewed the property on 5 July 2021 before the void repairs and cleaning had been done. After viewing, the resident emailed the landlord’s lettings team saying the property would be suitable for her family but she was not able to do the work needed to make it ready to move into. She said that the property needed cleaning and decorating throughout, that drainpipes were leaking, the garden path was uneven, and the kitchen and bathroom needed replacing. The resident said that she had several health issues and her father had cancer and was insulin dependent. The resident sent a similar email to a senior manager of the landlord the following day.
On 8 July 2021 the TMO responded to the resident’s emails saying that it felt that the property met the landlord’s lettable standard in respect of decorations, though it would give the resident a decorating pack. It said that some minor work had been outstanding when she had viewed but the garden path was due to be repaired on 15 July 2021 and the guttering at the rear “repaired” on 29 July 2021. The TMO said that it would arrange for the front door to be replaced and the living room window to be sealed and would clean the property after the repairs had been done. It said that the resident should contact the landlord’s lettings team if she felt the property was not suitable.
The resident replied the same day saying that she felt neither the TMO or landlord were taking responsibility for making sure that the property was safe and in a suitable condition. The evidence suggests that the TMO telephoned the resident that afternoon and it emailed her on 9 July 2021 saying that the resident should contact the landlord if she felt the property did not meet her medical needs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2021 and the landlord confirmed its position by email on 11 July 2021 asking the resident to make a final decision on its offer of the property and saying:
1. The resident had placed a bid for the property and the landlord’s occupational therapist had confirmed it was suitable for her father’s needs.
2. The property was managed by the TMO which had arranged the void repairs needed. The property met the landlord’s lettable standard and was not considered “hard to let”. The TMO had told the resident what further repairs would be done.
3. The property was desirable, in a sought after area, and there were currently 3,011 applicants on the housing register waiting between 9 and 26 years to be housed.
4. The landlord would provide a decorating pack and there may be charities that could help with the decorating.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 July 2021 saying that she would accept the property but was still not satisfied with its condition. She said that her father had a rare cancer and a weak immune system and asked for a copy of the void inspection report for the property. The landlord responded that the TMO would arrange an appointment for her to sign the tenancy agreement. No evidence has been seen that the landlord or TMO responded to her request for the void inspection report.
The TMO replied to the resident’s emails on 12 July 2021 saying again that the property met the landlord’s lettings standard and had now been cleaned, mould removed from the kitchen wall, toilet soil pipe checked, and no leaks found to the soil pipe or kitchen. It included photographs of the property, asked the resident to “re-confirm” that she wanted to accept it and said that the tenancy could start on 2 August 2021. The TMO listed the repairs that were outstanding indicating that the garden path and rear guttering would be repaired before 2 August 2021 but the front door replacement and sealing the living room window would be done at a later date. It said it had referred her requests for the kitchen and bathroom replacement and blocking up the fire escape door between her property and the neighbouring one to the landlord for consideration.
The resident replied the same day agreeing that there was a difference in the property since she had viewed but she remained disappointed about the TMO’s position regarding the decorating. She said that it would be “impossible” for her or her father to do the work needed due to their disabilities and felt the repairs should all be done before her tenancy started. The resident also sent the landlord and TMO medical evidence confirming her father’s cancer diagnosis which recommended that he should not be placed in accommodation where there was damp and mould as it would be “detrimental to his health”. It also said that neither the resident or her father would be able to do repairs or decorate due to their health conditions.
On 12 July 2021 the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord and TMO about the resident’s case and the landlord logged the enquiry.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property on 16 July 2021 and the lettings checklist completed at the time suggests that she was given a “moving into your new home” checklist. It also suggests that the resident was given keys for the front door, balcony door and window locks.
The TMO emailed the resident on 19 July 2021 saying that repairs would be done the following day including removing redundant pipes, repairing the skylight in the bathroom, removing items from the loft and repairing a leaking overflow pipe. It said that plastering would be done after the rear gutter was repaired to resolve the damp issue.
The landlord replied to the councillor on 23 July 2021 saying that the TMO had offered a decorating pack and a charity had offered volunteers to help the resident with decorating. It said it was giving the resident time to decorate before her new tenancy started and current tenancy ended and had provided her with dates of repairs and inspections that had been scheduled. The landlord said that the TMO was liaising with the landlord’s safety team regarding the fire escape door and that the resident had now signed the tenancy agreement for the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2021 saying that damp had now appeared in the front bedroom and she thought the front gutter was blocked. The TMO replied the same day saying that the resident should ask the contractor to inspect both gutters when it attended on 29 July 2021.
The evidence shows that an order to repair heating was completed on 27 July 2021 and a further order raised to replace three radiators. However, the latter order was cancelled on 18 August 2021 as the radiators were not in stock.
On 30 July 2021 the resident emailed the TMO asking for an update as the damp was getting worse and saying the contractor had not attended the appointment to attend to the gutter the previous day. The TMO made enquiries with the landlord as it had arranged the repair and subsequently replied to the resident saying the landlord was contacting the contractor.
The resident chased the TMO for an update on 3 August 2021 and it replied the same day saying that the landlord had advised that its contractor would contact her within 10 working days to make another appointment.
On 8 August 2021 the resident emailed the TMO saying that she did not feel safe knowing that her neighbour was able to hear through the fire escape door between the attic bedrooms of their properties. She said that the neighbour could use the door to enter her home at any time and that rain had caused further damage to her living room and front bedroom due to the gutter issues. The resident asked for an extractor fan to be fitted in her bathroom as she was not able to open the skylight to ventilate the room when it was raining. The TMO responded on 16 August 2021 saying that it was felt an extractor fan was not needed as the skylight could still be used in wet weather.
The TMO responded to the resident’s concerns about the fire escape door on 18 August 2021 saying that the landlord’s fire safety team had advised that the door must be retained. The resident asked to see the safety team’s advice and said that the door meant her home was not secure and that she could not work from home because it was not soundproof.
The resident emailed the TMO on 20 August 2021 saying that the contractor had not attended the previous day and the TMO said it would chase the landlord. The TMO called the resident later that day conducting a new tenant interview and the record of the interview noted that repairs were outstanding to the gutters and front door and that the resident had received a signed copy of the landlord’s lettings standard.
On 23 August 2021 the TMO emailed the resident advising that a new front door had been ordered and the landlord’s contractor would contact her about the gutter repairs within 10 working days. It said that it had escalated her concerns about the fire escape door to the landlord. Later that day, the TMO emailed the resident saying that the kitchen and bathroom had been inspected by the landlord in June 2019 and had not needed replacing, and that the next survey was due in 2023-24. The resident replied saying that the kitchen cupboards were rotten and full of holes and the TMO asked her to send photographs.
The evidence suggests that the fire safety team wrote to the resident in response to her concerns about the fire escape door but it is not clear when it did so. The response acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the security of her home and the effect on her insurance cover. It said that the door was an escape route for occupants of the attic bedrooms in case of a fire preventing other escape and must not be locked or obstructed. The response suggested she could ask the fire service to carry out a fire safety visit and contact the TMO regarding her security concerns.
The TMO emailed the resident on 1 September 2021 saying that she had reported that a hole had appeared in her bedroom ceiling whilst she was out a few days previously. It said that having inspected the hole, it felt that it had been caused from the loft above and noted that the resident had access to the loft from her bedroom. The TMO said it considered that the resident was responsible for the hole in the ceiling.
The resident emailed the TMO to make a formal complaint later that day saying that she and her father had disabilities and no one in her household had any reason to enter the loft. She said that she thought she had been burgled when she discovered the hole and noted that her neighbour could access her home through the fire escape door in the attic bedroom. The resident asked for the other outstanding repairs to be considered as part of her complaint and the TMO asked her to provide further details of her complaint and the resolution she wanted.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 September 2021 saying that she had made a complaint to the landlord in July 2021 and not had a response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
The following day the resident emailed the landlord saying she wished to complain about the TMO, attaching photographs and a letter from her GP. She said that:
1. the property had been in poor condition when she moved in, that repairs had not been done and that the TMO had not helped.
2. Leaks to the front and rear gutters were causing damp which was affecting her father’s health.
3. The fire escape door meant her home was not secure and she had not been able to get home contents insurance.
4. An engineer had attended on 16 August 2021 to repair the heating but four replacement radiators were needed and parts for the boiler.
5. A hole had appeared in her bedroom ceiling on 27 August 2021 and the TMO had decided that she had caused the damage which she disputed.
6. She did not feel safe in her home due to the outstanding issues.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 29 September 2021 and the evidence suggests that the landlord telephoned her on 7 October 2021 to apologise for the delay. The resident chased her outstanding repairs on 8 October 2021.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 25 November 2021 saying the landlord had not responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to respond within five working days and wrote again on 3 December 2021 when the landlord had still not provided a response to the resident.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord raised an order which said there was no heating due to faulty radiators. The order was marked as completed on 8 December 2021 but noted that three replacement radiators were needed.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 10 December 2021 saying:
1. The issues she had raised about the condition of the property had been dealt with previously following the enquiry from her councillor.
2. The fire safety team had responded to her concerns about the fire escape door.
3. The landlord had removed the tree and roots causing her path to be uneven on 27 September 2021.
4. It apologised for its delay in raising orders for the adaptations work needed.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day saying she remained dissatisfied as:
1. The decorating pack had not been sufficient to do the work needed and the charity had told her they could not assist with the decorating or help with grants.
2. No surveyors had attended to inspect the repairs needed and her requests to see the report confirming the property had met the landlord’s lettable standard had been ignored.
3. She had sent photographs of the path and gutters in October 2021 and the landlord had ignored her emails about the outstanding repairs which were causing damage to her home and affecting the family’s health and wellbeing.
4. She had fallen on the uneven paving on 26 November 2021 and it had still not been repaired.
5. She had emailed the landlord on 16 and 25 November 2021 saying that the fire service had visited on 16 November 2021 and said the fire escape door was not necessary. She had asked for copies of the design and planning documents for her home which had not been provided.
6. She wanted compensation to enable her to carry out the repairs needed inside her home.
On 15 December 2021 the resident emailed the TMO and landlord saying that her gutter had been cleared but it had not resolved the damp and damage caused as the neighbour’s gutter was completely blocked. The TMO responded saying it would arrange for a contractor to treat the mould in the bedroom and would ask the landlord to arrange for the neighbour’s gutter to be cleared.
The complaint officer and resident exchanged several emails on 22 December 2021. The complaint officer asked the resident to make a freedom of information request for the further information she wanted about the fire escape door. The resident replied that it was part of her complaint and should be addressed in the landlord’s response. The landlord asked for a copy of the advice she had received from the fire service saying that it was unable to ask the fire service for this directly. The complaint officer also gave details of the landlord’s insurance team should the resident wish to make a claim following her fall in November 2021.
The landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint escalation on 24 December 2021 saying:
1. It disagreed that the decorating pack had not been sufficient and the charity had said it could help secure funding for her.
2. The property had met the landlord’s lettable standard.
3. It included the repair history for her home which showed the repairs carried out between 13 July 2021 and 6 December 2021 by the landlord and TMO.
4. The fire escape door was necessary as an escape route and the resident should make a freedom of information request for the building plans.
5. It did not find fault with the action taken by the TMO to address the concerns she had raised or its own response to her complaint at stage one.
On 5 January 2022 the resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate as her gutters had not been repaired, the three radiators had not been replaced and the damp and mould had not been resolved. She said that she remained dissatisfied that her home had not met the landlord’s lettable standard and with the landlord’s handling of her complaints.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised an order for the three radiators to be replaced on 5 January 2022 and the work was completed on 2 February 2022. It also shows that the rear gutter was replaced on 12 February 2022 and the living room wall was plastered and painted after it had dried out with work being completed on 25 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
From the evidence seen, the landlord has separate teams that deal with lettings, void and responsive repairs, fire safety and complaints. This is a common approach, but landlords must ensure that their specialist teams do not work in silos and that there is collaboration and co-ordination in managing cases that span across specialisms.
Where landlord’s employ managing agents, including TMOs, the landlord is responsible for the actions of that agent and must have effective management and oversight of the agent’s activities. For example, the landlord should have assurance that its agents are fulfilling obligations which are the landlord’s responsibility such as responding to reports of damp and mould. The landlord should also ensure that there is effective collaboration and co-ordination between the agent and its own teams and that the responsibilities of the agent and landlord are understood by all stakeholders.
This case suggests there was inadequate collaboration and co-ordination between the landlord’s teams and with its TMO from the start. For example, the evidence shows the resident’s email to the landlord’s senior manager of 6 July 2021 was passed between the landlord’s lettings team, voids team and TMO with no one taking responsibility for responding until the TMO emailed the resident on 8 July 2021. Although the TMO responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, the TMO referred the resident back to the landlord regarding its suitability for her. Other examples of inadequate collaboration and co-ordination are given in the relevant sections below.
The evidence seen also suggests that the landlord may not have had adequate management and oversight of the TMO in this case. For example, the TMO did not follow the landlord’s void procedure and the landlord’s complaint process did not result in adequate investigation of the TMO’s actions. Both examples are explained further in the relevant sections below.

Condition of the property on letting

The landlord told us that the main criteria for deciding whether an empty home is classed as a minor or major void is whether the kitchen and/or bathroom need replacement. It told us that a joint inspection is carried out by the landlord and TMO and that if the kitchen and bathroom were in “suitable” condition the property will be classed as a minor void and the TMO would manage the void repairs. However, no evidence has been seen that a joint inspection was carried out in this case.
Further, the landlord’s void procedure says a specific form will be completed at a void inspection but the landlord told us that the TMO does not use the landlord’s inspection form. Similarly, the void procedure says that a joint inspection is carried out by a void supervisor and co-ordinator to check the property meets the lettable standard but the landlord told us that this check is actually carried out by one person. These inconsistencies suggest that the landlord’s void procedure does not reflect its current practice, or the practice of the TMO. This suggests failings by the landlord and an order has been made below for the landlord to review its procedure and ensure it is followed by its staff and managing agents.
In this case, the void inspection was carried out by the TMO and its inspection record dated 7 May 2021 does not provide a record of the condition of the property, such as the presence of damp and mould, or its decorative condition and makes no reference to any external repairs. This means that there is no adequate record of identified defects and repair issues and, along with the repair records seen, suggests that no work was ordered at the time to replace the missing rear gutter or repair the path. This was a failing and contrary to the landlord’s void procedure.
The TMO also carried out the post-works inspection and its inspection record dated 25 June 2021 stated that the property met the lettable standard. However, no evidence has been seen which confirms the property had been checked against the standard and met its requirements at the time of the inspection.
The landlord told us that it was unable to provide a signed copy of the lettable standard checklist as this would have been given to the resident. It did provide a copy of a document called “your new council home” which is a different checklist against its lettable standard. The document seen is completed but not signed or dated so it is unclear who completed it or when and it indicates that the gutters were clear and watertight, that paving was safe and the property was clear of the previous tenant’s belongings.
However, the evidence shows that the gutter at the back was missing causing rain to leak onto the living room wall, the front gutter was blocked causing rain to leak onto the bedroom wall, and the garden path was uneven. Further, the TMO had arranged for the former tenant’s belongings to be cleared from the loft after the resident had signed the tenancy agreement for the property. This means that the property had not met the lettable standard in those regards.
The additional repairs ordered after the post inspection had been carried out suggest that the void and post inspections were not adequate and that work that should have been identified was missed. As such the actions of the TMO and landlord were not appropriate in dealing with the void repairs that were needed.
The evidence suggests that there was a tree in the front garden of the property which had caused the front path to be uneven. The resident had raised concerns about the safety of the path and it not being suitable for wheelchair access after she had viewed the property on 5 July 2021 and had wanted it to be made safe before she moved in.
The repair history suggests that some work was carried out to level the paving around 15 July 2021, which was before the start of the resident’s tenancy. However, the tree and its roots were not removed until 27 September 2021 and the path was not repaired until 27 January 2022 which was six months after the start of the resident’s tenancy.
An adaptations request was made in August 2021 for the tree to be removed and the path made accessible for use by a wheelchair user. Internal emails show there was confusion between the landlord’s teams and the TMO over which was responsible for providing adaptations, and whether the tree removal was an adaptation or repair work. Ultimately, it was resolved that the landlord was responsible for providing adaptations but the tree removal was repair work.
Although an adaptations request had been made, the landlord had repairing obligations to maintain the path and a responsibility under the HHSRS to minimise the risk of falls. The landlord should have carried out the work needed to fulfil its obligations and meet the requirements of its lettable standard during the void period and its failure to do so was inappropriate. In addition to causing delays in the path being repaired, the confusion over responsibility to provide the adaptations suggests that the responsibilities of the TMO and landlord were not understood by the teams involved.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord or TMO responded to the resident’s requests for a copy of the void inspection reports. It would have been reasonable for one or the other to have responded to the resident and it would have been reasonable for the TMO to have provided the resident with a copy of its inspection records.
The landlord’s void procedure says it will consider decorating where the resident’s vulnerabilities may prevent them from doing the work but no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered doing so in this case.
The landlord told us that this was because the resident had not provided evidence of her vulnerability during the sign up process. However, the evidence seen shows that the resident had made the landlord and TMO aware of her and her father’s health issues from 5 July 2021 and had provided medical evidence on 12 July 2021 which specifically stated that she and her father would be unable to decorate. Further, the landlord’s void procedure says that vulnerabilities “must” be identified before the tenancy starts and no evidence has been seen that either the landlord or the TMO asked the resident about her vulnerabilities at any point.
The information provided by the resident should have prompted the landlord to consider decorating in line with its void procedure. Further, the landlord’s explanation of why it had not done so was not reasonable and could be perceived as blaming the resident for its failure to follow its void procedure. Both are failings on behalf of the landlord.
This service has concerns about comments made by the landlord during the events in this case and to this service. For example, on 21 June 2023 the landlord replied to a further information request saying that, when the decorating pack was delivered by the TMO, the resident had presented as “abled body along with her son”. This suggests that the TMO felt qualified to judge the capabilities of the resident based on her appearance and that the landlord, in including the comment in its response, saw nothing wrong with this. Even without the medical evidence regarding the health conditions and capabilities of the resident and her father, the comment would have been inappropriate and should have been challenged by the landlord.
Earlier comments made by the landlord are also concerning. When the landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2021 to confirm its position regarding the issues she had raised, it said that the property was desirable and quoted the number of applicants on the housing register who were waiting for housing. This was not necessary and could be perceived as the landlord suggesting that the resident should be grateful for being offered a property.
The landlord has not been able to evidence that its void procedure was followed or that the property met its lettable standard and the evidence shows that it did not meet the standard in respect of the gutter issues, uneven path and belongs left in the loft. As such the TMO and landlord’s repeated insistence that the property met the lettable standard was incorrect and inappropriate. The landlord’s failure to adequately consider the resident’s concerns or question the TMO’s approach was also inappropriate.
The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances, such as health conditions or vulnerabilities, mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions than others. In considering the significant vulnerabilities of the resident’s father due to his age and mobility, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property amounts to severe maladministration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
We cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or exacerbated, a resident’s physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. However, our awards should recognise that a resident’s circumstances affect the emotional impact that a landlord’s failings have on them. In this case, the resident’s caring responsibility to her father and her own health issues were aggravating factors in the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings and have been considered in our award.
In this case the landlord had found no failings in its approach and did not offer any redress. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its void procedure and take steps to ensure that it is followed by its staff and managing agents.

Response to reports of leaking gutters and associated damp and mould

The evidence suggests that the TMO may have removed some mould from the kitchen wall during void repairs. However, it also suggests that there was damp in the living room, caused by the missing rear gutter, when the resident viewed the property on 5 July 2021 and it shows that she reported damp in the living room on 26 July 2021. The resident told us that her decorators found further mould in those rooms and other rooms when they removed wallpaper and that she had the decorators remove the mould and treat the walls.
The evidence shows that the TMO had reported the gutter issues to the landlord and chased progress on multiple occasions. However, no evidence has been seen of the dates that the landlord raised repair orders or the dates that repairs were done as there are no references to gutter repairs in the landlord’s repair records. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractors missed at least two appointments to inspect the gutters (on 29 July 2021 and 19 August 2021). The landlord’s website says it will respond to reports of leaks on the day they are reported but no evidence has been seen that it did so in this case and its failure to take action was inappropriate.
Similarly, the landlord’s website says it will inspect damp and mould within five working days but no evidence has been seen that the landlord inspected the damp and mould in the resident’s home at any point. The evidence shows that the TMO was aware of the damp issues caused by the disrepair of the gutters but no evidence has been seen to confirm that it reported the damp and mould to the landlord. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered or investigated the damage being caused by the missing and blocked gutters and no evidence has been seen that it did so.
The resident had clearly told the landlord that the gutter issues were causing damp that was affecting her father’s health in her complaint of 3 September 2021. This should have caused the landlord to inspect and consider expediting the gutter repairs but no evidence has been seen that it did either. The landlord’s lack of action was a further failing.
Although the rear gutter was replaced on 12 February 2022, the evidence suggests that the wall took time to dry out and was not finally repaired and redecorated until 25 November 2022 which was over 15 months after the tenancy had started. The resident told us that her father was unable to use the living room over the period because of the damp and mould which meant he spent most of his time confined to his bedroom.
The evidence suggests that the front gutter was cleared around 15 December 2021 but this did not resolve the damp in the bedroom as further repair was needed and the neighbour’s gutter was blocked. The resident told us that both issues remained outstanding in July 2023 and that there continued to be damp and mould in the bedroom as a result. She also told us that she and her son have asthma and she is concerned that the damp and mould is affecting their health, although no evidence has been seen that the TMO or landlord are aware of this. The evidence seen does show that the resident has continued to chase the TMO to resolve the gutter repairs and damp and mould in the bedroom.
The evidence shows inappropriate delays in the gutter repairs being done during which time the damp and mould persisted from before the start of the resident’s tenancy and is not yet resolved in respect of the bedroom. Given the landlord’s responsibilities under the HHSRS to minimise risks to residents, the landlord should have acted sooner to resolve the issues causing the damp and mould and its failure to do so was inappropriate.
The persistent damp and mould has affected the residents enjoyment of her home from the start of her tenancy and amounts to severe maladministration by the landlord. Orders have been made below for the landlord to inspect the damp and mould and carry out any necessary work to resolve the issues, to carry out the gutter repairs, and apologise to the resident.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay £2,850 compensation for the period the resident’s home has been affected by damp and mould. This has been calculated as a proportion of the rent charge for the 67 weeks (2 August 2021 to 25 November 2022) that two rooms were affected, and further period from 26 November 2022 where one room continues to be affected. In addition, an order has been made for the landlord to pay £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident would like the tree in her neighbour’s garden removing as it overhangs the gutter at the front of her home and she is concerned that there will continue to be issues with damp and mould through leaves blocking the gutters. The Ombudsman is unable to order landlord to remove the tree but would expect it to take appropriate steps to fulfil its responsibilities under the HHSRS to minimise the hazard of damp and mould in the resident’s home. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made below.
In recognition of the landlord’s responsibilities under the HHSRS, an order has been made for the landlord to include the absence of damp and mould in its lettable standard. This is to ensure that the landlord does not let further properties where damp and mould are present.

Handling of heating repairs

The gas supply was capped when property was void which is a common approach and in line with landlord’s void procedure and its lettable standard. However, the resident says that the heating did not work when supply was reinstated.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised an order for the heating to be repaired on 26 July 2021 although it is not clear when the fault had been reported. The order noted that the resident was vulnerable and, although the target date allocated was 24 August 2021, the evidence shows the landlord’s contractor attended on 27 July 2021 replacing the pump, repairing a leaking radiator and balancing the system. The speed of response was appropriate and suggests that the landlord had recognised the resident’s need for heating despite the repair being reported outside of the time of year where its policy is to respond within 24 hours.
However, it is not clear from the evidence seen whether the contractor was able to restore the heating to every room and the resident told us that the radiator in the bedroom used by her father did not work from the start of the tenancy until it was replaced in December 2021. The evidence does show that the landlord raised a further order to replace three radiators on 27 July 2021 with a target date of 25 August 2021 but it was cancelled on 18 August 2021 because the radiators were not in stock.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered other options when the radiators were out of stock, such as trying different suppliers or providing temporary heating, given it knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, no evidence has been seen that it did so and no evidence has been seen that the resident was informed that the order had been cancelled.
The landlord raised another order for the three radiators to be replaced on 6 December 2021 after the TMO had chased the landlord. It is not clear from the evidence why it took so long for the second order to be raised, but it meant that the heating was not in full working order until those radiators were replaced on 8 December 2021.
The resident told us that she had continued to have problems with the radiators in other rooms and the evidence shows that the landlord raised an order for a further three radiators to be replaced on 5 January 2022. The work was completed on 2 February 2022 and the resident confirmed to us that the heating has worked since then.
Although the landlord ultimately replaced all the radiators in the resident’s home, it took six months to do so, three of which were during the winter months when the landlord says it will respond to heating breakdowns within 24 hours. Further there was an inappropriate delay in the landlord raising the second order to replace radiators after the first order was cancelled.
In considering the resident’s father’s significant vulnerabilities due to his age and his cancer, diabetes and low immunity, the landlord’s handling the heating repairs amounts to severe maladministration.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Orders have also been made for the landlord to update its information to residents to clarify its response timescale for heating repairs between 1 May and 31 October and give examples of repairs it considers to be an emergency so that residents know what to expect when they report such repairs.

Response to concerns raised about a fire escape door

The evidence shows that there is a fire escape door in the resident’s attic bedroom which leads into the adjoining property. The resident told us the adjoining property is managed by a private landlord and that the occupants change frequently.
The TMO had referred the resident’s concerns about the door to the landlord in July 2021 and the resident raised further concerns with the TMO on 8 August 2021 when she became aware that the occupant of the adjoining bedroom was able to hear her through the door. The TMO acted appropriately in referring the matter to the landlord’s fire safety team for consideration, passing on the response it received from the landlord and escalating the matter when the resident remained dissatisfied.
The subsequent response from the landlord’s fire safety team to the resident acknowledged her concerns about security and insurance cover but concluded that the door was a necessary fire escape route. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of how the fire safety team came to this conclusion or how it considered the risks but the landlord’s complaint records suggest the landlord was concerned about escape routes for occupants with disabilities, and in particular, the resident’s father.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have considered the household’s disabilities given that fire is a hazard covered by the HHSRS. However, an occupational therapist’s assessment of 11 August 2021 had not referred to any fire safety concerns despite noting that the resident’s father “mobilised slowly and using a walking aid”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the resident’s father would have been able to reach the fire escape door, and to have sought further advice from the occupational therapist if needed, when making its decision on whether the door was a necessary escape route.
Although the fire safety team’s response advised the resident about arranging for the fire service to visit to give advice, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged this as a joint visit to enable it to consider the fire service’s advice.
Entry by intruders is also a hazard within the HHSRS and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s concerns about security. The fire safety team’s advice for the resident to contact the TMO regarding her security concerns was not reasonable given that the resident had raised them with the TMO in the first instance. Further, this is another example of the resident being passed between the landlord and TMO with neither taking overall responsibility for addressing her concerns.
The resident reported the hole that had appeared in her bedroom ceiling in August 2021 and the TMO appropriately carried out an inspection. The TMO subsequently concluded that the resident was responsible for the hole as it had been made from the loft above which she had access to from her bedroom.
However, the evidence shows that the TMO had arranged for items left by the previous tenant to be removed from the loft in July 2021 and it would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether this might be the cause or a contributory factor of the hole appearing. Similarly, the TMO was aware that the neighbour could access the resident’s bedroom through the fire escape door and it would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether someone else had caused the damage. No evidence has been seen that it considered either possibility.
The various issues with the fire door have affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home since the start of the tenancy as she says she does not feel safe or that her home is secure. The landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about security and insurance cover or address her challenge about the TMO’s conclusion that she was responsible for the hole in her ceiling. This amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire escape door.
An order has been made below for the landlord to carry out a joint inspection with the fire service, consider the fire service’s advice along with the other risks the door presents, and write to the resident to explain its position and any further action it intends to take. Orders have also been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident told us that she had made complaints to the TMO from July 2021 and believed that these had been logged as formal complaints by the landlord. Whilst the evidence shows that the resident had raised her dissatisfaction with the TMO and the landlord from that time, no formal complaint was logged by the landlord and the TMO had responded to the resident’s contacts.
Similarly, the enquiry raised by the resident’s councillor on 12 July 2021 was not logged as a formal complaint which was reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. However, the current Code effective from 1 April 2022 requires such enquiries to be considered through a landlord’s complaint process and the landlord told us that it is reviewing its procedures accordingly.
The evidence suggests that the landlord responded to the councillor on 23 July 2021 but no evidence has been seen of a response being sent to the resident.
The landlord did log a formal complaint after the Ombudsman’s email of 2 September 2021 but, despite two further interventions by the Ombudsman, it took over three months to provide its response on 10 December 2021. Although the landlord had spoken to the resident on 7 October 2021 apologising for the delay, no apology or explanation for the delay was given in its response. This timescale was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, and the landlord should have apologised and explained the reason for the delay in its response.
The landlord’s stage one response quoted the response it had given to the councillor on 23 August 2021, the response previously given to the resident by the fire safety team and the occupational therapists assessment of 11 August 2021. It is not clear why the landlord felt it necessary to include the quotes but doing so made its response unnecessarily long and over complicated.
Further, the landlord’s response did not address why repairs to the gutter remained outstanding or comment on the hole in the bedroom ceiling despite acknowledging these as complaint issues the resident had raised. Nor did the response address the concern raised in the resident’s complaint that the damp was affecting her father’s health.
The landlord provided its stage two response within its policy timescale but, as with its stage one response included lengthy quotes from previous correspondence with the resident. This made the response overly complex and, again, the response did not address why the gutter repairs remained outstanding, the damp and mould or the TMO’s response to the hole in the ceiling.
Whilst a lot of information had been gathered and included in both the landlord’s complaint responses the evidence suggests that the resident’s complaint was not adequately investigated at either stage. For example, the repair history included in the stage two response did not refer to any repairs to the gutters or reports of damp and mould, and the job raised on 27 July 2021 to replace three radiators was marked as still in progress. These anomalies should have prompted the complaint officer to question why some repairs did not appear to have been ordered and other repairs remained outstanding. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord investigated or considered expediting the repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that any complaints involving a liability claim “should be” referred to its insurance team. This does not make it clear whether the intention is that the landlord should make the referral or signpost the resident as it did in this case and the landlord should clarify this.
The landlord should have responded to the resident’s initial complaint and should have identified failings during its investigation of her subsequent complaint. Had it done so, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered compensating the resident in line with its compensation policy. However, the inadequate investigation of the resident’s complaints meant that the issues were not resolved and no compensation was considered. This amounts to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her complaints. An order has been made for the landlord to review its approach to investigating and responding to complaints and a recommendation made for the landlord to clarify its compensation policy in respect of referrals to its insurance team.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property when it was let to her.
2. The resident’s reports of leaking gutters and associated damp and mould.
3. Heating repairs.
4. The resident’s complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about the fire escape door.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for adaptations is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord has not been able to evidence that its void procedure was followed or that the property met its lettable standard and the evidence shows that it did not meet the standard in respect of the gutter issues, uneven path and belongs left in the loft. As such the TMO and landlord’s repeated insistence that the property met the lettable standard was incorrect and inappropriate. The landlord’s failure to adequately consider the resident’s concerns and her vulnerabilities or question the TMO’s approach was also inappropriate.
The evidence shows inappropriate delays in the gutter repairs being done during which time the damp and mould persisted from before the start of the resident’s tenancy and is not yet resolved in respect of the bedroom. The persistent damp and mould has affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home from the start of her tenancy.
Although the landlord ultimately replaced all the radiators in the resident’s home, it took six months to do so, three of which were during the winter months when the landlord says it will respond to heating breakdowns within 24 hours. Despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, there was an inappropriate delay in the landlord raising the second order to replace radiators after the first order was cancelled.
The landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage one and should have identified failings in its handling of her complaint during its stage two investigation. The inadequate investigation of the resident’s complaint at both stages meant that the issues were not resolved and no compensation was considered.
The various issues with the fire door have affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home since the start of the tenancy as she says she does not feel safe or that her home is secure. The landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about security and insurance cover or address her challenge about the TMO’s conclusion that she was responsible for the hole in her ceiling.
The landlord provides adaptations as part of its social care functions which means this part of the resident’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Complete any work necessary to prevent the front gutter from leaking water onto the resident’s bedroom wall.
2. Inspect the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom and carry out any repair work needed.
3. Carry out a joint inspection with the fire service and consider its advice regarding the fire escape door along with the other risks it presents. The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the advice it received and explain its position regarding the fire escape door and any further action it intends to take. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter to the Ombudsman.
4. The chief executive to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter to the Ombudsman.
5. Pay the resident total compensation of £6,450. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
  2. £2,850 for the period that parts of the resident’s home have been affected by damp and mould due to disrepair of the gutters.
  3. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the gutter repairs.
  4. £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the heating repairs.
  5. £400 for its failure to adequately consider the resident’s concerns regarding the fire door.
  6. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Review its void procedure to ensure:
  1. It reflects the landlord’s requirements and is followed by its staff and managing agents.
  2. Void inspection reports provide a record of the condition of the property including decorative condition and capture all repairs that are needed.
  3. Post repair inspections record whether repairs have been completed satisfactorily and provide a check against the landlord’s lettable standard.
  4. The landlord retains copies of its void inspection reports and checks against its lettable standard.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its revised procedure, the revised void inspection forms and explain how it will ensure that its managing agents follow its procedure.

Update its lettable standard to include that a ready to let property will be free from damp and mould. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its updated standard.
Update information for residents to clarify its response timescales for heating repairs between 1 May and 31 October, and to give examples of the types of repairs it considers to be urgent.
Review its approach to investigating and responding to complaints. The landlord should consider the failings identified in this report and must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the outcome of its review and its action plan for implementing improvements.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Takes appropriate steps to reduce the risk of the tree in the neighbouring garden causing further issues with the gutters which may cause damp and mould in the resident’s home.
2. Retains a copy of the signed lettable standard that is given to residents when they sign the tenancy agreement.
3. Clarifies its compensation policy in respect of how complaints involving liability claims should be referred to its insurance team.