Hyde Housing Association Limited (202307080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307080

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Issues in her back garden following drainage work.
2. Leaks and damp in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4-bedroom house with a back garden. The resident moved there in June 2021.
The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system.
Around August 2022 the landlord carried out some repairs to the resident’s drains in her back garden.
On 24 October 2022, the resident reported the roof was leaking and the landlord carried out an emergency repair. Following 2 no access appointments, on 9 December 2022 the landlord applied a mould treatment and stain block to the ceilings affected by the roof leak. On that day the resident reported that she was unhappy with the drainage works that had been completed. She said she had reported this previously.
In March 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not decorate the areas affected by the roof leak and it was her responsibility. It also inspected the drains and found the concrete had not dried before the astro turf was laid on top of it. It found areas of damp on the external wall by the kitchen.
Following the resident’s complaint to the landlord about the repairs service, the landlord completed some repairs and inspections in April 2023 including:
1. Inspected the kitchen and bathroom for damp and inspected the concrete under the astro turf.
2. Overhauled the kitchen units and fixed a door handle.
3. Checked bowing ceiling, applied filler, stain block and emulsion to ceiling and walls by the back door.
4. Plumbed hot water to the downstairs WC basin and confirmed there was no leak from the bathroom to the kitchen.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted there were delays to the drain repairs. It confirmed which repairs it had completed and listed the outstanding repairs. It confirmed again it was the resident’s responsibility to decorate the areas affected by the leak but offered a paint voucher to cover the cost of materials. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £250 for the delays to the repairs and the complaint acknowledgement, and for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response listed the repairs completed and those outstanding. It confirmed that the resident could make a claim for damage to her personal belongings if she felt the landlord was responsible. It detailed how to do this. The landlord did not change its decision from stage 1 of the complaint process and told the resident this was the end of the internal complaint process.
From June to August 2023 the landlord completed various repairs at the resident’s property that included:
1. Removed the decking, cleared the drains, repaired the drains and fitted new manhole covers.
2. Repointed brickwork.
3. Painted a bedroom and the bathroom ceilings, utility room and the area near to the back door.
4. Carried out a mould wash in the utility room.
On 4 August 2023 the landlord reported rising damp in the utility room and recommended that it was investigated, and a course of action should be drawn up.
The resident expressed to the landlord that she was still unhappy, she was waiting for a damp and mould survey and the drains were still overspilling. She explained how this was affecting her family life. The landlord sent a second stage 2 complaint response on 7 September 2023. It increased its compensation offer to £400.
The landlord increased its compensation offer on 27 October 2023 to £650 and again on 30 November 2023. Its final offer was £750 for:
1. Complaint handling failures.
2. Customer effort.
3. Delays completing the repairs.
4. Distress and inconvenience.

Post internal complaint procedure

On 5 June 2024 the resident reported that in 2023 her decking was pulled up and the garden was left in a poor state. She told the landlord the paving slabs overhung, and the fencing was unstable. The landlord last visited on 28 June 2024 and the job is not completed on the landlord’s system.
It is not known when the landlord completed a damp and mould survey, or if the rising damp in the utility room was dealt with. The resident reported mould concerns again to the landlord on 29 April 2024 and an inspection was booked for 5 July 2024. The resident has told the Ombudsman a survey was completed a couple of months ago and she is waiting for the outcome.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures and legislation

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure outlines the following relevant information:
1. Emergency repairs are attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. Any follow-on works are raised as a routine repair.
2. Anytime (routine) repairs are endeavoured to be completed within 20 working days.
3. Any pre inspections are arranged as per the landlord’s pre and post inspection procedure.
4. Major repairs are undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment policy and procedure.
The landlord’s repairs policy statement confirms the landlord’s key objectives that include:
1. Provide an efficient, prompt, transparent and customer-focused repairs service ensuring high customer satisfaction.
2. Provide efficient, accurate and timely pre and post inspections.
Pre-inspections should be completed within 10 working days of the inspection order date. If works are required, they should be explained to the resident on site and confirmed in a follow-up letter.
The landlord has a damp and mould procedure. Where a root cause of the damp, mould and condensation cannot be identified, a property inspection must be carried out. The landlord will complete a damp and condensation survey and make recommendations about the appropriate course of action.
There are 2 stages to the landlord’s complaint procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days following the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days of the resident’s request being received.
The landlord’s complaint procedure allows for a compensation review within the stage 1 resolution discussion. This is used in circumstances where the resident has requested an increase in compensation.
The landlord’s compensation procedure gives examples of when financial compensation may be appropriate:
1. The landlord has not taken the appropriate action or has taken appropriate action but has been delayed in doing so with an adverse effect on the complainant with a maximum payment of £500.
2. The complainant has suffered stress and anxiety.
3. Distress and inconvenience including stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty or worry, with a maximum payment of £500.
4. Time and trouble with a maximum payment of £50.
5. Goodwill gestures.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the resident’s complaint. While the landlord provided information, its repair records were not always clear as to when appointments took place and where there were missed or failed appointments. The notes following repair visits were of a mixed quality ranging from very detailed explanations of what work it had carried out to just a few words. It also provided evidence of its complaint responses but not of all the communication with the resident throughout the complaint. This has made it difficult to determine whether the landlord communicated effectively with the resident and has somewhat impacted a fair and thorough investigation.

Issues in her back garden following drainage work

The landlord logged a repair for the drains on 9 December 2022. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she had contacted the landlord on several occasions since August 2022 (when the drainage work was carried out) to report that there were issues with the work. She reported she was told to contact the landlord’s surveyor directly, which she did, and these calls were not logged centrally. The landlord should have ensured the reports and calls were logged. In not doing so the eventual repairs were delayed, leaving the resident with a garden she could not use. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident had contacted it in August 2022, but it took no action. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The repair log was completed on 16 December 2022 with a note that the subcontractors who carried out the work needed to attend. The poor record keeping means the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the subcontractors did inspect the drains on 16 December 2022. No further works were raised. The landlord acted unreasonably by not using its records to document the journey of the repair or ensure the resident knew what was happening.
It was not until the resident called again on 14 March 2023 about continued issues in the garden that an inspection was carried out on 20 March 2023 and details were recorded on the system. This was 4 working days from the repair log of 14 March 2023 and within the landlord’s timescale of 10 working days for an inspection to be carried out. The landlord acted appropriately.
The inspection found that concrete had not dried before the landlord’s subcontractors laid astro turf on top of it. The repair notes stated that a report would be written. The Ombudsman asked for a copy of the report, but it was not received.
Following the resident’s complaint to the landlord, a further inspection of the garden took place on 12 April 2023. On 3 May 2023 the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response detailed the work it planned to complete to fix the drainage and associated issues. Works were logged and completed as followed:
1. On 17 May 2023 a full survey was ordered. It was completed on 5 June 2023, within the landlord’s target timescale of 15 June 2023.
2. On 22 May 2023 an environmental jet wash was ordered. It was completed on 24 May 2023, within the landlord’s target timescale of 20 June 2023.
3. On 8 June 2023 the drainage repair works were ordered. It was completed by 29 June 2023, within the landlord’s target timescale of 7 July 2023.
4. On 3 July 2023 2 new manhole covers and frames were ordered. The work was completed on 8 July 2023, within the landlord’s target timescale of 1 August 2023.
5. On 20 July 2023 a further environmental jet was ordered. The landlord attended on 7 August 2023 but did not have the right equipment. The work was completed on 31 August 2023, outside of the landlord’s target of 18 August 2023.
While most of the works were completed within the landlord’s target timescales, based on the day they were raised, this does not account for the delay in getting them raised in the first place. The landlord has acknowledged the resident reported the issues with the drainage in the back garden in August 2022. It was not until 8 June 2023 that the works were ordered to repair the drains. The works were completed on 31 August 2023, which meant the resident could not use her garden for 1 year. The Ombudsman does not consider this a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acted inappropriately.
The landlord raised all the repairs as either an anytime (routine) repair or a major works repair (if the cost was over £1500). The landlord was aware and had seen that the overflowing drains were causing sewage waste in the garden. While this kind of repair is not listed as an emergency repair in the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, and the resident could keep her family safe by not using the garden, the landlord did not act with enough urgency in trying to resolve the issue. The landlord acted unreasonably, and its inaction may have caused the resident to feel like it was not taking her reports seriously.
From the evidence available, the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to progress repairs. The burden of following up outstanding repairs should not fall upon the resident. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issues, and worsened the impact on the resident.
There was no dispute from the landlord that it acted inappropriately in relation to its handling of the resident’s report of issues with the drainage. It acknowledged it in all three of its complaint responses. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates 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.
The landlord offered the following redress:
1. An apology. This was appropriate for the situation.
2. At stage 1 it offered financial redress of:
  1. £50 for the delay in completing the drainage repairs.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. List of repair actions.
4. At stage 2 the landlord offered an additional £150 for delays and customer effort.
5. The landlord further increased its financial compensation offer to £650 on 25 October 2023 and then £750 on 30 November 2023. The final offer in relation to this part of the complaint was:
  1. £150 for customer effort.
  2. £250 for the delays in completing the repairs.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
After carefully considering the information available and the detriment described by the resident, the Ombudsman finds the compensation awarded by the landlord does not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by repeated failings and the length of time she could not use her garden. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered additional compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, that the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of issues in her back garden. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord took some steps to remedy the situation, it went on for too long. The landlord took too long to start resolving the issues and too long to complete them. It did not communicate effectively with the resident which resulted in a breakdown in the resident and landlord relationship. The resident has expressed to the Ombudsman the distress and anxiety the situation caused her.

Leaks and damp

There were multiple repairs in relation to leaks and damp at the property between October 2022 and November 2023. In the interest of clarity, this report will focus on each issue in turn and determine completely at the end of the section. This will include looking at whether the redress the landlord offered was fair and reasonable and proportionate to the acknowledged failings.

Follow on works from a roof leak

On 24 October 2022 the resident’s roof was leaking into the property and the landlord raised an emergency repair. The landlord’s initial response was correct. In line with the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, it classified the repair as an emergency because it could affect the building adversely and the landlord needed to sustain the immediate safety of the resident. The landlord acted appropriately and completed the repair in the 24-hour timescale.
The next day the landlord raised follow on repairs to patch repair damage to the ceilings and treat the damp in the bathroom. It correctly classified it as a routine repair. The work was completed on 9 December 2022, which was within the target completion date of 28 December 2022. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman for this investigation does not explain why this repair was given a completion timescale of 44 working days, when the routine repair target was 20 working days. It took 34 working days to complete the repair. There was a no access appointment on 28 October 2022 as the landlord arrived too early and a further no access on 14 November 2022. Considering these, the landlord acted reasonably. It quickly raised the follow on works and completed them in a reasonable timeframe.
On 27 February 2023 a repair was logged to make good the ceiling of the bathroom and a bedroom following the previous attendance. The landlord attended on 10 or 17 March 2023. It closed the job and noted the work was already complete and it had confirmed to the resident it would not decorate the ceilings. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed it was not its responsibility to decorate after a leak, only to apply stain block to the area. The landlord offered the resident a paint voucher to cover the cost of the materials, but the resident refused the offer. The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably. It followed its policy but also made a reasonable offer when it knew the resident was unhappy with its decision. It was customer focused and sought to resolve the issue. It kept the offer open when the resident refused the paint voucher.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It told the resident its policy had changed, and it would now paint her bedroom and bathroom ceilings and any walls that had been damaged by the roof leak. The landlord acted reasonably by informing the resident the rules had changed and agreeing to carry out the decoration works.
The landlord attended on 5 July 2023 to complete the work, but the resident said she did not know about the appointment and had told the landlord previously that 5 July 2023 was not convenient. The work was completed on 20 July 2023, 39 working days after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had confirmed it would complete the decoration. Following the complaint the landlord should have followed the proposed repairs diligently and its failure to take note of the resident’s email that she was not available on 5 July 2023 delayed the work. The landlord acted unreasonably.

Damp in the kitchen and utility room

As part of her stage 1 complaint the landlord spoke to the resident. She reported that there was a damp patch on the outside wall in line with the kitchen waste pipe. On 28 March 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement letter said it would arrange an inspection of the kitchen. This was a reasonable response. The landlord could not say for certain if the damp was due to the drainage issues, so an inspection was booked. The inspection was completed on 12 April 2023, 9 working days after the landlord requested it. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting within 10 working days.
The landlord’s pre inspection policy tells us that once an inspection has taken place the resident would be informed of the actions the landlord will take and this would be followed up in writing. No evidence has been presented to the Ombudsman to show that the landlord did this. The landlord acted inappropriately. The landlord missed an opportunity to deal with the damp reports in a structured way and keep the resident informed.
The resident had previously complained about damp in the utility room and the landlord agreed to install heating. The resident says the landlord originally said it would be gas but then offered an electrical heater. The Ombudsman has not seen the evidence of these conversations. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed that it offered the resident an electrical heater, but she had refused. It is not within the Ombudsman expertise to determine what kind of heating the landlord should install. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer a form of heating. The complaint response did not give an explanation as to why the landlord’s offer had changed from gas to electrical. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with a written explanation.
Following on from the inspection the following works were completed within 20 working days of the inspection:
1. Scrape back and skim wall on both sides of the back door and stain block.
2. Check bowing kitchen ceiling, plaster and stain block.
3. Overhaul kitchen units.
4. Check for a leak from the bathroom to kitchen (none found).
The landlord acted appropriately in completing the repairs in the kitchen within its published timescales. However, the reports of damp in the kitchen were not dealt with as part of the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, but as routine repairs linked to the drainage issues in the garden. While the Ombudsman cannot fault that the landlord acted appropriately in trying to resolve the damp in the kitchen, it may have been forward thinking to implement the damp and mould procedure and carry out a full property inspection. It may have shown the resident the landlord was taking her reports seriously. The resident had previously reported damp elsewhere in the property and the landlord should have taken an inquisitorial approach to consider if it had spread.
The inspection found that the utility room paint was flaking from the damp and electrical switches were in the wrong places. From the evidence provided it then looks like the issue of damp in the utility room was not included in any new repair orders. Other concerns in the utility room were completed but the damp remained. It was not until 4 August 2023 that a mould wash was completed, 79 working days after the inspection. The landlord should have raised the required work or explained to the resident why it did not. The landlord acted unreasonably in missing the works required in the utility room. It was left to the resident again to chase and progress the repairs.
On 24 July 2023, following most of the drainage work being completed, the landlord attended to carry out repointing work to the property. The visit notes on the landlord’s system confirmed that it completed a thorough job and proactively completed extra work to ensure a lasting repair. It inspected for any potential leaks that may be causing a wall to get damp and fixed them. The landlord acted reasonably, and the notes were an example of excellent record keeping.
On 4 August 2023 the landlord carried out some further works to the kitchen and utility room, including a mould treatment in the utility room. The operative noted that rising damp was present and told the resident a damp and mould survey was required. Despite the resident chasing the landlord a survey was not carried out. The landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman that confirmed it had logged the need for a survey on its tracker but that no inspection date was set. The resident has since told the Ombudsman she had a survey done sometime in June or July 2024,10 months after she was initially told the property needed one. The landlord had not followed its own damp and mould procedure. It did not communicate with the resident about what it was doing to resolve the damp in the property. There was no evidence of a streamlined approach to resolving the damp in the property. The landlord has acted unreasonably. As a result, the resident is still experiencing damp in the property and is waiting for somebody to share the recommendations from the survey with her. Being told there is rising damp in your property may have worried the resident and the landlord did not show any empathy to the resident’s situation in its actions or communication.
The landlord did not offer any financial redress for these repair failings. It explained in its stage 1 complaint response that as they had not been reported in the last 6 months the complaint could not be upheld. This was in line with its complaints policy and the landlord acted reasonably. It did acknowledge that the resident had contacted them about these repairs prior to the 6-month period in question. The landlord also arranged for the repairs to be addressed.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord sent its second stage 2 complaint response and increased its compensation offer because of the added delays. The response was not clear whether this was specifically for the drainage repairs or all the repairs the resident had mentioned at stage 1. Landlords need to ensure that when offering compensation, it is clear as to which complaint issue it is offering compensation for. Due to the on-going delays, throughout the time of the resident’s complaint, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to offer financial redress for its failings in dealing with the damp at the property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an offer of £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience would have been appropriate for the damp complaint. The fact that the issue has not been resolved and the resident continues to take time and trouble to chase the landlord means a further compensation order is made below, as well as orders to resolve the damp.
There was minimal evidence of the landlord learning from the outcomes of the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it knew it needed to get quicker at responding to resident’s repair reports and that it was undertaking actions to ensure it could do this. It did not go into detail about what those actions were. It would have been useful to tell the resident exactly what it was doing. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she feels recently the landlord’s communication has been better and the visits are professional and friendly. It may be useful for residents to know how the landlord has made these changes happen.
In summary there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp in the property. While it did complete some works within its policy’s timescales, it took a disjointed approach, rather than utilising its damp and mould procedure. It did not specifically offer any financial redress for its mishandling of the damp reports and the landlord has not yet resolved the resident’s issues with damp at the property.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord took too long to go through the complaint stages and its communication and record keeping was inconsistent.
The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence of when the resident first made a complaint. On 28 March 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement letter, and it acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that this acknowledgement had been delayed. The Ombudsman can determine the landlord acted inappropriately but cannot determine whether the landlord acted unreasonably as we do not know how long the delay was. As per paragraph 4.15 of the complaint handling code (the Code) at the time, a full record of the complaint must be kept, including the date the complaint was received and all correspondence with the resident. The landlord acted inappropriately.
The landlord told the resident it would provide a stage 1 complaint response by 13 April 2023. The resident did not receive the response until 3 May 2023. There is no evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated or that the extension was agreed. Paragraph 4.10 of the Code states that landlords must keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation. Paragraph 5.1 of the Code says that if the landlord cannot meet the 10-working day deadline then it should provide an explanation to the resident with a clear timeframe of when the response will be received. The landlord acted inappropriately. The resident did not know what was happening with her complaint and the landlord was not customer focused.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she was confused by her complaint and what stage she was at. This was further evidenced by three of the complaint responses not being clearly labelled at the start as to what they were, as per paragraph 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code. They were the stage 1 acknowledgement and response letter, and the landlord’s stage 2 response from 25 May 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by not providing clearly titled responses. This resulted in confusion for the resident, and she sought advice from the Ombudsman. In November 2023 she asked the landlord if she could escalate her complaint to stage 3, which further showed that the landlord had not communicated clearly with the resident throughout the complaint process.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence of two stage 2 complaint responses related to this complaint, 25 May and 7 September 2023 respectively. It also carried out compensation reviews on 27 October and 30 November 2023, both in relation to the stage 2 compensation offer of 7 September 2023. The complaint was effectively open from May 2023 to November 2023, a total of 7 months. The landlord’s complaint policy used words such as swiftly and promptly in relation to how it will deal with complaints. The complaint handling in this case was neither swift nor prompt. It was unnecessarily prolonged, confused, delayed the resolution of the substantive issues and worsened the impact on the resident. It denied the resident the opportunity to access the investigation services of the Ombudsman at an earlier point, which may have helped to resolve her complaints sooner. The landlord acted inappropriately.
The landlord’s complaints policy allowed a compensation review before escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. The two compensation reviews in this case were after the stage 2 response of 7 September 2023. It is not clear in the evidence provided, if the resident requested the reviews or if the landlord instigated them. Regardless, the Ombudsman does not recommend compensation reviews in the Code. It may be considered as a tactic to prevent the resident from telling the Ombudsman about their complaint, which is not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. It amounts to a third stage of the complaint process. Below the Ombudsman requires the landlord to consider the findings of this report and review its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
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 considering this, the Ombudsman investigates 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. By the end of the complaints process the landlord had offered the resident £150 for the complaint handling failures that it acknowledged. The Ombudsman does not consider this a fair remedy. There were failings that the landlord had not acknowledged, and its offer was not proportionate to the failings this investigation has identified or in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the level of failings found.
The resident’s complaint journey was disjointed and confused. Even when she told the landlord she already had a final resolution response, it continued to produce another stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge all the complaint handling failings throughout the complaint journey. The resident has expressed to the Ombudsman that she felt confused about her complaint and that she felt she was in battle with a giant landlord who did not care about her. In line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance, a payment of £500 would have been appropriate for the complaint handling failures, as they had an adverse effect on the resident. It took her time and trouble to progress and understand the landlord’s complaint process.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. While some of its responses were detailed and resolution focused, the overall complaint journey for the resident was poor and further exacerbated her feeling that the landlord had no empathy and did not care about her situation. The landlord did not comply with its own complaint policy or the code, to the detriment of the resident. An order is made below.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our compliance framework and act where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her back garden following drainage works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. It must be a written apology and the resident and the Ombudsman require a copy.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1800 made up of:
1. £200 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of her reports of drainage issues.
2. £500 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of her reports of damp in the property.
3. £350 for the time and trouble incurred because of the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.
4. £750 offered in its compensation review on 30 November 2023, if it has not already done so.
These payments must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amounts owed.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with the following:
1. A copy of the damp and mould survey recently completed.
2. A written action plan consisting of the repairs required and planned appointments or completion timescales.
3. A point of contact for the duration of the repairs.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance and a copy of the action plan.
As detailed above, the landlord is ordered to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.