Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202219131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219131

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and water damage in the property.
2. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of his request for rehousing falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident said the property no longer met his medical needs and so he applied for a transfer on medical grounds on 21 June 2021. He provided detailed information about his medical conditions to the landlord. The landlord said it had sent the information to the housing register team [at the local authority] for processing.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member landlord within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
The resident complained about the lack of response to his rehousing request on 22 November 2022 – 1 year and 5 months after his request was submitted. As such, the Ombudsman finds that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of his rehousing request was not made within a reasonable period. Therefore, it is outside of our jurisdiction.
Additionally, it must be recognised that the management of a council’s housing allocation policy concern the council’s actions as a local authority as opposed to a landlord. Complaints about local authorities and their assessment of housing needs are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and not this Service, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme. However, it is not clear if the local authority received the housing application from the landlord in June 2021. This would need to be clarified with the local authority first, should the resident decide to contact the LGSCO.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom basement flat. The tenancy started in February 2010.
The resident has multiple medical conditions including but not limited to heart disease, kidney disease, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, diabetes, and mobility issues. The resident is registered disabled. The landlord is aware of the resident’s medical conditions.
The landlord said it is unable to see any evidence that a risk assessment was completed.
The resident complained via a representative. For ease of reference, this report refers to “the resident” throughout.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted his health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident and recognises he is extremely vulnerable. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
After considering all the circumstances of this case, we have used our discretion to consider events from 31 January 2022 (when the leak was first reported) up to the date of the landlord’s revised offer of compensation in January 2024.
Within recent correspondence with this Service, the resident explained that while the water leak has now been resolved, there were still issues with the heating as it had not worked properly for years. As this concern did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord in November 2022, it is not a matter we can consider within this investigation. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident directly through its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord shall keep the structure of the dwelling in repair.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook (available on its website) explain a water leak is considered an emergency repair, depending on the severity and the impact on adjoining properties.
The Ombudsman is aware from other cases that this landlord has an emergency and major works decant policy. It has not provided a copy of this policy in its submission for this complaint. Nonetheless, this policy states the landlord has a duty to provide alternative accommodation to tenants when their accommodation has become unsuitable to live in. This may be for a variety of reasons, including “major/complex works being undertaken resulting in the accommodation being temporarily unsafe for habitation.” In cases where a decant may be required, the policy sets out that a surveyor will visit the property to inspect its condition and determine whether a decant was warranted. It is not clear whether this policy was active at the time of this complaint.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy that was in force before October 2022.
The landlord’s repair policy (October 2022) states it has responsibility for maintaining in a good state of repair the building and its components. It sets out that the priority allocated to the work order for a repair will be determined by the type of issue being reported, and the likelihood to cause harm to the resident or the property:
1. Urgent emergency response – within 4 hours.
2. Emergency response – within 24 hours.
3. Routine – within 20 working days.
4. Planned – within 60 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will carry out a review of the stage 1 outcome within 20 working days. It says that the landlord will deal with each case on its own merits when considering compensation and will usually follow the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Awards of compensation for time, trouble and/or inconvenience range from £50 (for minor failure) to over £700 (for extensive disruption), whereas awards of up to £100 may be made for complaint handling failure. When assessing the amount that is due, the landlord will consider the extent of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered; the time taken to resolve the issue; recognition of its failure to follow policies and procedures; and any vulnerability within the household.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs.” There is a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants.”

Summary of events

On 31 January 2022, the resident reported a leak from the upstairs flat into his bathroom. The landlord’s repair records show more than 30 work orders relating to an ongoing leak between January and November 2022, some of which were marked as cancelled or closed.
Within the work orders, there was reference to a saturated ceiling near the lighting, damage to the bathroom flooring and the room being a “pool of water.” Within the landlord’s description of the repair, it stated that the leak had been ongoing for months, but it could not work out where the leak was coming from. Within the landlord’s repair history, there are references to the resident being vulnerable, but no details were recorded.
The landlord has provided notes for the various work orders; however, these are not contained within the repair history. It is unclear where these notes were recorded and what contractors or staff had access to these.
Within these notes, it is recorded in May 2022, the resident told the landlord he could not start any works until he had sorted out his health.
On 22 November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint. He said:
1. There had been water flooding through his ceiling for a year. The ceiling had been removed due to the possibility of it caving in and water continued to pour through. He was too sick to clean up the rubble and mess.
2. His neighbours did not attend the appointments to resolve the leaks from their home.
3. This was causing great stress. He had heart failure, diabetes, and wore a bag to toilet himself. He needed moving to more appropriate accommodation immediately.
4. He does not have access to the internet or email. He needed a point of contact that could deal with all his issues by telephone as he had a weak heart and could not take the stress of calling different departments.
The complaint was acknowledged at stage 1 the same day. The landlord aimed to provide a written response by 13 December 2022.
Internal records from the landlord indicate in January 2023, it was not sure of the outstanding position with the leak or whether this had since been rectified. It asked for a surveyor to attend to assess the damage.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident to confirm the leak had stopped. A surveyor’s appointment was arranged for 19 January 2023 to assess kitchen and bathroom for damages. There is no record of this appointment on the repair history for the property.
On 30 January 2023, the surveyor emailed the landlord and said the following work orders had been raised:
1. Renew flooring, ceiling plasterboard and cracked/blown wall tiles in the wet room and resecure/unblock the hand basin.
The surveyor said they had reported the boiler was not working and referred the property to the damp and mould team as damp was observed in the living room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. It summarised the complaint and said:
1. The repair was poorly managed and should have been treated with more urgency.
2. The cause of the delay was due to access issues in other flats.
3. It was sorry for the impact this had.
4. The leak was identified, and repairs were completed on 12 January 2023.
5. A surveyor attended on 19 January 2023 and the follow-on works identified would be raised and appointed to its contractor to carry out.
6. The resident was known to adult social care but had refused an assessment.
7. It offered £550 compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 for the delay resolving the leak.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £50 for the delay responding to the complaint.
The resident responded on 2 February 2023 and said:
1. They accepted the leak from the above flats appeared to have stopped.
2. It wanted a list of the repairs raised by the surveyor along with a repair timescale.
3. In May/June 2021 there was a stock condition survey and multiple issues were noted. He wanted to know why these were not repaired at the time.
On 28 February 2023, the resident said a contractor attended to fix the ceiling, but it was still wet, and the leak was ongoing. It said it had contacted the landlord several times but had not received a response.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 9 March 2023 and said the repairs had not been carried out and the ceiling was pouring with water again.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 10 March 2023. It said it had contacted the repairs department to request an update. The resident responded to say the recently replaced bathroom floor was soaking wet and lifting from the leak, and water was currently pouring through the ceiling.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 14 March 2023 to say a repair had been scheduled with the flat above for 12 April 2023. It attempted to bring the repair forward but the occupant of the property above was out of the country. It said a plumber would attend the resident’s property on 27 March 2023.
The complaints department asked a manager to provide further comments in relation to the complaint about the leak. The response was, “there isn’t really anything else we can comment? It will be the same response.” The complaint handler then said, “please provide me with something as I cannot provide the same response. Once you provide me with something I can elaborate where I can.”
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry the whole experience impacted the resident negatively and caused so much distress and inconvenience.
2. The leak was initially reported in November 2022 and remained outstanding in March 2023. It recognised this was an exceptionally long time to wait. The repair should have been completed within 60 days.
3. Several inspections had taken place without any resolution or reporting of any findings until now.
4. Contractors were due to attend the property above to resolve the leak on 12 April 2023. A plumber was booked in for 27 March 2023.
5. During the complaints process there was a lack of regular communication with the departments. The resident had to contact different teams multiple times.
6. It recognised there needed to be improvements in its service. The resident experience team manager and head of service (including the repairs service, contractors, and contractor managers) were working closely together. Changes and improvements were being monitored including process changes, refresher training and development of monitoring cases through quality assurance.
7. Senior managers in repairs were aware of the changes needed to improve and were engaging with the contractors directly to provide a better service to residents.
8. Someone from the complaints team would monitor the repair through to completion with the contractor and would remain in contact with the resident.
9. It awarded a further £250 compensation (on top of the £550 awarded at stage 1) for the length of time and inconvenience of having to report and deal with the repair’s complaints communication with the landlord.

Actions after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023. He said:
1. The information within the stage 2 response was not factual. The plumber appointment for 27 March 2023 was to fix a sink and nothing to do with the ceiling leak.
2. No one had contacted him about the appointment for 12 April 2023. The resident needed regular communication to reassure him that he was being listened to.
3. The ceiling has had several attempts to be fixed and therefore the landlord could not assume that one visit on 12 April 2023 would fix the issue.
4. The management of the repairs has had a significant impact on his mental health.
5. He had a heart monitor linked to the electrics in the property. He was concerned about water from the leak getting into the electrics and causing issues with his heart monitor.
The landlord appointed a fixed member of staff to manage this case going forward.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 April 2023. He explained the background of the complaint and said the leak was from the upstairs occupier but was believed to be ultimately coming from another flat on the first floor. He described his medical conditions and explained he needed a clean environment to deal with catheterisation and struggled due to the condition of the bathroom.
A series of home visits and leak investigations to the various flats took place on 19 April 2023, 11 May 2023, 31 May 2023, and 8 August 2023. From the information available, the resident was kept updated throughout. The cause of the leak was identified on 8 August 2023. Work orders were raised for the repairs and follow on works. The landlord informed the resident that its compensation offer would be revised once all repairs were completed.
A damp and mould survey took place on 14 August 2023 and a further home visit took place on 14 September 2023. A further leak was identified under the flooring, which was fixed.
Another home visit took place on 22 September 2023. The shower pump had been fixed but there were still issues with the drainage. A work order was raised regarding the blocked drain at the rear of the flat. A leak was also reported behind the electrical shower unit.
On 1 October 2023, the resident advised further issues had occurred such as the shower drain pump flooding his bathroom on several occasions, despite plumbers attending to try to resolve the problem. The resident reported that he had been admitted to hospital. He said he had a kidney issue due to not being able to empty his urine bag regularly due to contractors constantly being in the property, and the issues not being completely rectified. He said it was unacceptable that he was still without the use of his bathroom and explained he needed to shower daily to keep his drains clean. Further, he said he was in heart failure and the stress of his living situation was not helping with his condition.
The resident reported ongoing issues with the shower pump on 10 October 2023. He said he had to stand in a paddling pool and turn taps on and off in sequence to get it to drain. The ‘pool’ was a hazard with a risk of falling. Also, tiles had fallen off the wall above the shower seat so he could not use it. The constant tidying up of bathroom was giving him “funny turns” when his heart was beating out of rhythm.
The landlord replied on 16 October 2023, confirming it had organised someone to look at the shower and the pump. It commented that neither were functioning well, and both were likely contributing to the flooding on the bathroom floor. It also chased up the shower curtain and sink pedestal.
The landlord’s records show a work order was raised on 10 November 2023 to rebuild the bathroom wall and ceiling, tiling, full decorations to the living room, hallway, leak detection and repair, repair to collapsed floating floor and external ground works.
The resident chased the landlord for an update regarding compensation on 14 December 2023, stating most issues within the flat had been resolved apart from a fault with the boiler.
The landlord responded on 24 January 2024. It said the boiler issue was being investigated and an appointment had been scheduled for 8 February 2024 to install a grab rail and inspect the shower chair. It reviewed the compensation offered at stage 2 and increased this from £250 to £750, making a total compensation award of £1250.
The landlord informed this Service that in view of the resident’s health needs and the impact of living in his current accommodation, it agreed to a permanent move. It evidenced it requested further information from the resident to facilitate this in January 2024. However, due to the resident’s ill health, he declined to move.
The landlord’s head of complaints wrote to the resident on 3 March 2024, recognising its failures with repairs management and complaint handling. It gave the resident a formal apology.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating 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.
In February 2024, the Ombudsman published a special report following an in-depth investigation into the landlord and made 10 recommendations for service improvements. The Ombudsman has therefore not made duplicate recommendations within this report. Nonetheless, we expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its future service provision.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and water damage in the property

The landlord’s repairs handbook sets out that leaks are usually treated as an emergency repair. Emergencies should be dealt with within 4 hours or 24 hours, depending on the severity. Considering the resident’s significant vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond urgently to the resident’s report of a leak.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks. It can be difficult to identify the cause of a leak at the outset, especially where multiple properties may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. Investigations must be managed effectively and overseen with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord proactively managed the leak investigations or completed a leak detection survey at the earliest opportunity.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the leak into the resident’s property, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of this, repair logs, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue had been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Some of this information has been provided but this does not fully evidence the landlord’s decision making at the time. For example, the repair history supplied shows work orders to investigate reported leaks were raised multiple times. It is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided more detailed records and has not evidenced active management of the repairs.
The Ombudsman appreciates that due to data protection reasons, it is possible that the landlord would choose not to share records from the neighbouring properties with this Service. Nonetheless, the landlord ought to be able to outline an accurate timeline of events to explain its actions in investigating the leak and summarise its communications with the occupiers of the other properties, and its subsequent updates to the resident.
The landlord’s limited records in relation to investigations and repairs provides little confidence that any meaningful action was done until the landlord appointed a fixed member of staff to manage and oversee this case at the end of March 2023. The records we have prior to this date do not indicate a detailed level of understanding of the issue affecting the resident, or any urgency in completing the required repairs. While it is recognised various contractors attended the property, the landlord’s records do not explain what work was done on each occasion or how the resident’s expectations were managed. There is no evidence of the progress of the repair being tracked early on or anyone having responsibility to ensure the repair was followed through to completion.
It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of detailed evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
Prior to March 2023, it is evident the resident was not updated regularly and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to drive the repairs forward. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable resident. It is recognised that the landlord’s communication improved significantly with the resident when a staff member was appointed to oversee and manage the repairs.
Records show that prior to the leak, the resident had made the landlord aware of the severity of his medical conditions. These were reiterated throughout the complaint and communication with the landlord. He explained he had heart failure, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) fitted into his chest (linked to the electrics within the property) and a catheter to drain his urine due to chronic kidney failure. While the landlord’s repair records state the resident was vulnerable, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment to see whether it was safe for the resident to remain in the property or whether the property was habitable. Accordingly, the landlord did not evidence that it acted in line with its emergency repairs decant policy or what the Ombudsman would reasonably expect in the circumstances. This was a significant failing.
The resident described that he found it difficult to empty his urine bag regularly due to the contractors in the property, and he had been left without a fully operational bathroom for a long time. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord contacted adult social care and was informed the resident had refused an assessment. However, this does not negate the landlord’s duty of care to vulnerable residents. The landlord has not demonstrated that it understood the needs of the resident or that it responded fairly to his needs in the way it provided its repair service, as it was expected to do under the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. Having clear and open lines of communication with the resident at the earliest opportunity would have fostered a better understanding of his medical conditions and could have reduced the impact on him.
Considering the duration the resident lived at the property where water ingress affected the bathroom and other areas of the 1-bedroom flat, the Ombudsman concludes the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to address the impact on him. The landlord was put on notice about the problem in January 2022. Records indicate the main leak was fixed in August 2023; and remedial work continued until approximately December 2023. The landlord made an increased offer of compensation after the completion of the internal complaints process and whilst this shows it took further steps to address its failings, it was significantly outside of the complaint process. This demonstrates the landlord failed to achieve a resolution in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord informed this Service that the resident’s weekly rent was £129.61 as of April 2023. It has not evidenced the weekly rent prior to this.
In an email dated 27 February 2024, the landlord said 99% of the repairs were completed towards the end of September 2023. However, the landlord has also provided a spreadsheet in which work orders relating to the leak were raised in November 2023. Without evidence of a completion date, the Ombudsman has used the date the resident confirmed repairs were completed – 14 December 2023. This is considered reasonable based on the limited evidence available.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by this Service in relation to the award of redress for loss of amenity and the overall enjoyment of the property. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The order considers the weekly rent specified from the date the leak was reported (31 January 2022) up to the date the repairs were confirmed as completed by the resident (14 December 2023) – a period of 97 weeks. As the landlord made assurances and identified service improvements in its final complaint response, we have reviewed its handling of leaks and remedial works over the subsequent months to consider whether it put things right and learned lessons from its complaint investigation in line with our dispute resolution principles.
As the landlord’s and resident’s evidence confirm that the impact of the leak(s) on the bathroom was significant over an extended period, and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made an award for loss of amenity. Given the property is a 1 bed flat, how seriously the bathroom was affected (in terms of flooring, walls crumbling, ceiling/electrics affected) and that other rooms were also impacted, compensation has been calculated at 25% of the rent amount (excluding service charges) of £129.61 per week (£32.40) for 97 weeks. This is £3142.80.
The Ombudsman also considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident because of the landlord’s failure to remedy the leak in a timely manner, to treat the repairs with the appropriate urgency, to address the resident’s vulnerabilities, and its poor communication. In this case the Ombudsman considers the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident to be significant over a prolonged period. In recognition of the detriment caused, the Ombudsman requires the landlord to compensate the resident £1500 for the distress and inconvenience as outlined above.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of leaks within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated. It did not evidence that it considered his vulnerabilities or assessed whether the property was habitable. While it recognised some of its shortcomings, it did not offer proportionate compensation. Taken altogether, this constitutes severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident complained on 22 November 2022. The stage 1 response was dated 27 January 2023 – 9 weeks later. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 9 March 2023. The stage 2 response was dated 22 March 2023 – 1 week and 6 days later.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open at stage 1 for an unreasonable duration.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint handling delay at stage 1 compounded the detriment to the resident as he was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking his concerns. It also prevented the resident from accessing this Service and contributed to further delays resolving the substantive issue. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable, and added further confusion and distress to the resident.
The Code makes it clear that a landlord must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access this Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted. Within this complaint, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident about this Service within its stage 1 response. However, it did provide information about our Service within its stage 1 acknowledgement dated 22 November 2022.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were inadequate and did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident. As such, the landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. Within both formal complaint responses, the landlord has not demonstrated that it sufficiently investigated all the resident’s complaint points or explained what evidence it considered. It did not refer to its own investigation or policies, nor did it consider the vulnerabilities highlighted by the resident. It also got basic details wrong at stage 2, such as the date the leak was first reported and made inappropriate comments internally, as opposed to examining repair records or the history of the case. This was inappropriate. Taken altogether, the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship.
The Code states that when responding to a complaint the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” In this case, the leak continued for around 5 months after the stage 2 response, with remedial works continuing to approximately December 2023. This demonstrates a lack of ownership, active management, and complaint oversight.
In January 2023, the landlord increased its compensation offer – 9 months after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process. This approach opens questions as to how effectively the landlord is using its complaints process to offer redress and whether resolutions are only being considered once a resident has brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that a senior member of staff formally apologised to the resident in March 2024. Nonetheless, the landlord missed an opportunity to do this much earlier.
Considering the complaint handling failures identified, the missed opportunities to put things right within a reasonable period and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To this end, an additional £300 compensation has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and water damage in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s administration of the resident’s request for rehousing is out of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed in its obligations to repair the leak and associated remedial works within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and did not evidence that it took his vulnerabilities into account, causing him significant distress over a prolonged period.
The administration of the resident’s request for rehousing happened more than 12 months before the resident made a complaint. As the complaint was not made within a reasonable period, the Ombudsman considers this matter to be out of our jurisdiction.
The landlord did not respond at stage 1 within the timescales set out in the Code. It did not use the complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issue or improve the landlord/resident relationship.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £4942.80 in compensation. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation of £1250, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The redress is comprised of:
1. £3142.80 to reflect the impact on the home and the resident’s use and enjoyment of it while the leak and remedial works remained unresolved.
2. £1500 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £300 for the impact of the complaint handling failures
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident (via his representative if applicable) and offer a post inspection of the remedial works if it has not yet done so. It should ensure they are completed to a high standard and there are no outstanding repairs related to the leaks that it is responsible for.

Recommendation

It is recommended for the landlord to contact the resident/resident’s representative to set out a plan of action with defined timescales to resolve the problem with the boiler (if it has not yet done so).
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident/resident’s representative to discuss any vulnerabilities he may have, and reasonable adjustments required, updating its internal records accordingly. This is subject to any data protection requirements.
The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks to set out its intention regarding the above recommendations.