Inquilab Housing Association Limited (202115670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115670

Inquilab Housing Association Limited

26 June 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

1.The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

Reports of repair issues relating to water ingress into the property, and damp and mould associated with the winter balcony.
Request for compensation.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two bedroom, second floor flat in a block of flats. The block is made up of 37 residential apartments spread across eight floors. The resident moved out of the property in January 2023.
The evidence suggests that the property is a new build, although the date that the build was completed is unclear. The landlord’s records show that a number of properties within the building were built with balconies originally intended to be of an open design. However, planning constraints required changes to the construction to enclose them. The balconies were reconfigured as ‘winter balconies’ which ‘wrap’ around the properties.
This investigation notes that repair defects relating to the balconies were reported by a number of residents within the building.

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement states:
1. 2.34.2 the landlord’s insurance cover does not extend to any of the tenant’s belongings and the tenant is strongly advised to arrange insurance from a reputable insurer.
2. 3.3 Statutory repairing obligations:
  1. 3.3.1 The Landlord will comply with the obligations to repair as set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by section 116 of the Housing Act 1988).
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy refers to an informal and formal complaint response. The informal process sits outside of the complaints process, typically reserved for complaints such as an outstanding repair or missed appointment.
The formal complaints process has two steps. At the ‘investigation’ stage the landlord aims to respond within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. At the second, ‘review’ stage the landlord aims to respond within ten working days of the resident’s escalation request. The response will be approved by head of service/director.
If additional time is required at either complaint stage the landlord will contact the resident to agree a new timescale. Where appropriate, compensation can be paid at the end of any stage in the complaints process. Offers of compensation will be made in line with the compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the following:
1. 4.1 In certain circumstances where the landlord fails to perform or delivers an unsatisfactory service that a customer has paid for the landlord will consider paying compensation.
2. 4.2 Any payments the landlord makes under the compensation policy will be in “full and final settlement of the issue.” This means that that customer or service user is accepting that the matter is resolved by taking the compensation payment and will take no further action.
3. 5.2 If a claim for damage arises as the result of a tenant’s belongings being damaged through, for example, a flood or fire, but where the damage was not caused by contractors working in their home, then the landlord’s liability will depend on whether the cause was unforeseen (i.e. there was no way that the landlord could have reasonably known about it or prevented it). In this case the recourse would be through the tenant’s own contents insurance. If a tenant has not taken out contents insurance, and the cause is proven to be unforeseen, then the landlord will not compensate the tenant.
4. 5.3 The landlord expects customers to take out personal contents insurance and compensation will only be paid for damage to customer’s furniture, personal property etc in exceptional cases. As compensation is complicated by the issues of fault and liability each case will be considered on its merits. Where there is a different interpretation of facts, an agreement should be reached but the final decision rests with the landlord.
As outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord aims to make safe an emergency repair, or complete the repair where possible, within 24 hours.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states:
1. An effective complaints process enables a landlord to learn from the issues that arise for residents and to take steps to improve the services it provides. Complaint handling performs an important strategic role for an organisation, providing vital intelligence on its performance, culture and reputation.
2. At section 2.8, landlords must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaints process is exhausted. This affords the resident the opportunity to engage with the Ombudsman’s dispute support advisors for impartial advice.
3. At section 5.6, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

Summary of events

On 17 December 2020, the resident reported a severe leak emanating from the property above into his balcony. In response, the landlord raised an emergency works order.
Evidence indicates that there was water ingress to other balconies at the same time as the landlord instructed a specialist surveyor to carry out a visual survey of three of the affected balconies, which took place on 12 January 2021. It is not known if this included the resident’s property.
The surveyor noted the following:
1. There was evidence of condensation build-up on the glazing and structural surfaces.
2. There was evidence of water ingress between the perimeter steel members and concrete floors above the glazing.
3. The majority of the balconies were fitted with full height glazing with an upper central section remaining open.
4. Planning issues had resulted in full height sliding doors being installed to central sections which enclosed the open portion of the balconies. Sliding doors had been fitted in-board of the facade glazing.
5. The soffits within the balconies were unfinished exposed concrete.
6. The balconies were not equipped with any designed mechanical ventilation or heating provisions.
7. As the balconies were enclosed the residents considered the areas as internal spaces, and they were being utilised as recreational areas, general storage and seating areas. In addition to general uses, it was noted that some residents also utilised the areas for laundry/ drying spaces, which would exacerbate the humidity, moisture and condensation issues.
8. It was unclear how the cladding, window framing and glazing was drained.
The report concluded that further investigation of the external facade was required in order to establish if it was fully watertight, where and how it drained. The surveyor also suggested that installation of mechanical ventilation could be problematic. In the alternative the landlord could consider providing passive ventilation, such as louvred vents or grilles within the facade glazing, to manage the environment.
On 21 February 2021 the resident signed a letter that was sent to the landlord on behalf of a number of residents within the building. Within the letter, the residents complained that the apartments “were not fit for purpose.” They added that they had experienced a number of defects.
A second report from the specialist surveyor, in relation to water ingress into the balconies, was provided to the landlord in February 2021. Having detailed a number of findings on the construction of the balconies, the survey:
1. Concluded that due to the design of the facades and nature of the construction, undertaking effective remedial works would be difficult to achieve. For example, any modifications to the facades may result in the existing glazing not being able to be reused or refitted, necessitating replacement.
2. Recommended that the landlord identify a trial area for remediation. The trial would enable a comprehensive design and costs to be established before any larger scale works were undertaken.
3. Said that, in conjunction with the remedial works, consideration could also be given to incorporating permanent ventilation into the balconies to address the condensation issues.
On 6 April 2021 the specialist surveyor wrote to the landlord regarding plans to carry out the trial on the balcony glazing to the first floor gym area. It noted that addressing condensation issues was likely to require permanent ventilation to be installed. It also highlighted that any changes to the external structure may require a planning application to be submitted.
On 8 July 2021, the resident reported a leak from his balcony ceiling. It was logged as a routine repair with a response time of 28 days. The repair was recorded as having been completed on 16 July 2021.
On 2 November 2021 the resident contacted this Service about what he said was an ongoing leak to the balcony and the presence of mould. He said that he was seeking a reduction in rent whilst the issues were ongoing. He also wanted compensation for damage caused to his belongings and for the impact the situation had had on his health. We contacted the landlord on the same day and asked it to provide a formal response to the complaint. Meanwhile, an order for a mould wash was raised by the landlord on 4 November 2021.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 11 November 2021. It said:
1. It was aware of issues with balconies and was seeking to appoint a contractor to carry out works. Once a contractor was appointed, a schedule of works would be shared with residents so they had a timeline.
2. Balconies were not to be used for storage of bulky items as they would be likely to cause further damage.
3. Its records showed that a number of repairs had been completed at the property in the meantime.
4. It had arranged for a mould wash to be carried out at the property and the resident was sent details of the appointment.
5. The resident could claim on his contents insurance for damaged belongings.
6. It was unable to reduce the level of rent paid by the resident or offer compensation.
7. The resident could provide further information on the impact on his health for review.
8. The resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 12 November 2021 the resident contacted this Service and asked if we could assist in escalating his complaint with the landlord. He said that:
1. He did not have contents insurance.
2. The landlord should find out what the impact on his health would be.
3. Nothing had been done since June 2021.
4. He was dissatisfied that it had not made any contact with him since June and that it refused to reduce the rent or pay him compensation.
5. He was concerned that he had raised concerns about the same leak issue but the contractor could not resolve this because access was required to the flat above.
6. He asked the landlord to send him details of all the repair jobs he had raised since he moved into the property.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response, dated 14 December 2021. Within this, the landlord said:
1. It noted that the resident had complained about an “ongoing leak” into the balcony, and the presence of mould.
2. The stage one response had been issued on 10 November, and it was sorry to hear that the resident remained dissatisfied. It understood from a request through its tenant portal that the reasons the resident remained dissatisfied were that – the leak was unresolved, and mould was still present.
3. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 15 November, and it understood that the resident was hoping for the “outstanding repairs” to be completed as resolution to the complaint.
4. Its contractor attended on 26 November to carry out a mould wash. However, the contractor reported there were no signs of mould. To ensure that mould was no longer present, it had arranged for its contractor to attend again on 21 December 2021. It was unable to uphold this part of the complaint.
5. As it had previously advised, major works were required to the balconies to prevent further leaks. A shortage of labour and materials meant that contract tendering was ongoing. All possible options to secure an appropriate contractor were being explored to try to carry out the works as soon as possible.
6. It would continue to carry out interim works until the major works were carried out.
7. It had updated the resident about the above in October and would continue to provide updates when it had further information.
8. In recognition of the delay in carrying out the works, it was partially upholding the complaint. Any offer of compensation would be considered once the works had been completed.
9. Stage two of its internal complaints process had been concluded. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response, he could refer the complaint to this Service.
The landlord subsequently issued an update to all residents. The date of the letter is unclear; however, it contents suggest it was sent in or around January 2022. Within its letter, the landlord said:
1. Following several surveys that were carried out in 2021, it was revealed that the design faults of the balconies had allowed water ingress which, compounded by lack of ventilation, were likely to have caused damp and mould.
2. As a result of the survey and further exploration it had concluded that the balconies needed to be taken apart and reconstructed. Works would include installation of permanent ventilation panels.
3. In December 2021 it had appointed a specialist contractor to carry out a small scale trial for remedial work to gain a full understanding of what was required to permanently fix the issue.
4. Once the trial was completed it would be able to put together a schedule of works.
5. It acknowledged frustration caused to residents, thanking them for patience over the past 12 months.
6. It said it would provide another update to residents after the trial, when there would be a schedule of works it could share with them.

It attached a ‘frequently asked questions’ sheet to the letter, covering topics including why the fault occurred and safety related issues.

The resident phoned this Service on 18 January 2022 to confirm that he had received the landlord’s final complaint response but remained dissatisfied. The resident emailed this Service the following day and provided a copy of the response. He also set out why he remained unhappy including:
1. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord.
2. The landlord had provided a poor response to his reports of a leak which he said he had raised over ten times.
3. There was an outstanding repair to the property above which was causing mould in his property.
4. He said he had raised over 20 repair related jobs for his property since he moved in. The issue with condensation remained outstanding but there had been no offer of compensation and no timescales offered in respect of a resolution.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The landlord provided a further complaint response dated 28 February 2023. The response was issued following a conversation with the resident on 24 February. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident. It said it had reviewed the original complaint and had decided to award compensation of £1500. The amount offered was based on a rent reduction calculated at £100 per month from the date of the original complaint in October 2021 to the date the resident left the property, which was 15 months.
The landlord wrote to all residents within the building on 22 March 2022. It said that it acknowledged that the property issues raised by residents “fell well below the standard of home it strived to provide.” It said it was working hard to rectify the issues and was currently agreeing a redesign solution for the external facade to alleviate issues with damp and mould in the balconies. It said it would keep residents informed and would provide the next update by 29 April 2022.
On 6 April 2023 the resident updated this Service to say that he had moved out of the property on 28 January 2023. He said he had intended to take legal action by issuing or commencing proceedings against the landlord but had subsequently accepted a compensation payment of £1500.

Assessment and findings

Repair issues relating to water ingress into the property and damp and mould associated with the balcony

The resident reported a leak from the property above into his balcony area in December 2020. The resident, along with other residents, had also reported that the balcony area was showing signs of damp and mould. It is unclear from the evidence provided, including the repair logs and the complaint responses, whether there was a separate ingress of water from upstairs, or whether the issues related to the construction/design of the winter balcony. However, this investigation has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and concerns that were raised from December 2020 onwards.
In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs including the roof, external walls and windows. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The repair log shows that the severe leak reported in December 2020 was treated by the landlord as an emergency however, it was not completed until 18 January 2021.This does not comply with the target response time as outlined in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy and was therefore inappropriate. There are no notes on the repairs log to account for the delay in resolving the repair which indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
Given that the landlord instructed a specialist contractor in January 2021 it is reasonable to conclude that it was aware of the issues with the balconies during 2020. Given the scale of the problem and the complexities involved in finding a resolution it is reasonable these repairs were classed as “major works” and not a “responsive repair”. This investigation acknowledges the complexity of the situation and notes that the surveyor advised that remedial works would be difficult and could require planning permission. This investigation is satisfied that the landlord’s records evidence that it was taking reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the defects identified with the winter balconies.
This investigation does not dispute the number of reports the resident says he made in relation to his property, including ten complaints he says he made about water ingress into his property from the one above. In both its stage one and stage two complaint responses the landlord states that it continued to carry out works to the property. The repair logs provided by the landlord for the purposes of this investigation contain three repair reports relating to damp, mould or water ingress. The repair logs show that during a call the resident made to the landlord in July 2021 he said he had reported the leak more than once before however, there is only one record of a similar prior report which was raised in December 2020. The landlord has not provided a detailed log containing all contacts from the resident in relation to repairs at his property, which amounts to poor record keeping.
The resident contacted the landlord to report a leak on 8 July 2021. The notes against the report say that the resident reported water leaking from the open balcony above into his enclosed balcony and provided photographs of damp patches across the balcony ceiling. The resident told the landlord that he had reported this more than once before. The landlord responded to the job as a routine repair, with a response time of 28 days. The information recorded on the log shows the landlord acted reasonably by responding to the repair in keeping with its stated timescale. The log provides a detailed account of the resident’s complaint but there are no notes to describe what action was taken by the landlord to resolve the issue. This is a further example of poor record keeping. The next entry on the log is four months later, to raise an order to carry out a mould wash.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord said that it had provided an updating letter, not seen by this investigation, to residents in October 2021. It sent a further letter with fact sheet attached in January 2022. It said it would provide a further update once the remedial works trial was completed, when a schedule of works could be shared. The landlord subsequently provided a further update to residents in March 2022, after the internal complaints procedure had been exhausted. The letter outlined how works would progress, and provided a timeline on when residents could expect further communication. This was appropriate and evidenced that the landlord took steps to keep residents informed, managing their expectations accordingly.
The resident reported his ongoing dissatisfaction that the landlord did not resolve the persistent leak to the winter balcony which was in turn causing mould. In its stage one complaint response the landlord said its records showed “that a number of repairs have been completed to property in the meantime.” It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided details of what inspections had been undertaken and corresponding works carried out. This would have reassured the resident that it was taking the matter seriously, and that its response had been appropriate. In its stage two complaint response the landlord said it would continue to carry out works to provide interim solutions until a contractor was selected to carry out major works. However, the entries on the repairs log do not evidence that the landlord captured the reporting of the repair issues adequately or that it took appropriate steps to resolve the leak.
The investigation of the complaint has been hindered by a lack of clear repair records. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The resident has said that he did not receive any communication from the landlord in relation to the works. This investigation has seen evidence that there was some communication from the landlord to the resident. However, the information provided was vague, and its updates were infrequent. As such, it is understandable that the resident did not feel that he had been sufficiently informed about what action the landlord was intending to take and when.
The nature of the balcony defects and the problems this created for the resident created a great deal of uncertainty, leading to distress and frustration. It is accepted that the landlord could not have reasonably been expected to fully rectify such a significant problem, or provide a comprehensive timeline, within a short period of time. Given the long term nature of the works it was crucial that the landlord developed an effective communication strategy as a means of keeping residents informed of progress. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it engaged in meaningful communication with the residents. Furthermore, it was not appropriate for the resident to be put to time and trouble in chasing updates.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered how it could engage with residents, such as holding on site information events. This would have ensured residents were fully aware of the steps being taken as well as promoting positive landlord tenant relations during a difficult period. By way of example, the landlord could have used such an event to provide advice to residents on how they could combat damp and mould issues caused by condensation evident on the balconies. This investigation has not seen evidence that it considered any such actions, demonstrating a lack of insight into the detrimental impact the ongoing situation was having on the resident and his neighbours.

Response to request for compensation

The landlord addressed the issue of rent reduction and compensation in the stage one complaint response. It referred to compensation again in its stage two complaint response. However, it did not offer an explanation for why it was not offering compensation. Section 5 of the Code states that landlords are required to “provide clear reasons for any decisions.” The landlord’s failure to explain why it was not offering compensation at that point in time was a failing in its complaint handling. This caused additional distress to the resident because he was not fully informed about why compensation or a rent reduction could not be met.
In its letter to residents on 22 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the issues raised by residents “fell well below the standard of home it strived to provide.” Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a payment of compensation in line with its compensation policy, because it “failed to perform.”
The resident requested compensation for personal items damaged by damp and mould. He also requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the situation. In its stage one complaint response the landlord said it was unable to offer compensation or a rent reduction. It also advised that the resident should claim from his own contents insurance which he said he did not have. While the tenancy agreement advises the tenant to arrange their own insurance, the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be paid for damage in “exceptional cases.” It adds that decisions will be based on the merits of each case.
Having assessed the evidence, it is not clear whether the damage to the resident’s personal property was caused by the defect with the balcony, the leak from the property above, or a combination of the two. Regardless, the landlord was responsible for resolving both issues. As liability for the damage was being claimed by the resident against the landlord, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided information to the resident as to how he could make a claim on its liability insurance. In the alternative, the landlord could have considered whether any failure to address the leaks had led to damage to the resident’s belongings and, if so, whether compensation was warranted. Both approaches are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance issues. That the landlord did not consider either of these options was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that compensation can be paid at the end of any stage during the complaints process. The landlord’s original stage two complaint response said it would consider compensation once works had been completed as a full and final settlement. Given the complexity of the works involved it is understandable that the landlord might take this approach when considering a final compensation award to reflect the overall detriment to the resident in order to ‘put things right’. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether it was appropriate to make an interim payment until the overall compensation amount could be determined.
An interim payment would have gone some way to recognising the distress and inconvenience already caused to the resident by the ongoing situation. It would have reassured the resident that the landlord took the complaint seriously, improving the landlord tenant relationship, and that it understood the impact the situation had on him. It may have also alleviated genuine financial hardship in the event the resident found it difficult to fund the cost of replacing the damaged items himself.
This investigation acknowledges that following exhaustion of the complaints procedure, the resident accepted compensation of £1500. This amounts to 15 months of rent reduction at the rate of £100 per month.
The resident advised this Service that the landlord made an offer of compensation at the point at which he said he would take legal action. The landlord’s second stage two complaint response, dated 28 February 2023, said the offer was made following a telephone conversation on 24 February. The phone call was “regarding the resident’s expectations and reaching a satisfactory conclusion.” There is no evidence that the offer of compensation was made proactively, as a genuine attempt at complaint resolution. There is also no evidence that the payment reflected the detriment caused to the resident based on his own individual experience for example, poor complaint handling. Therefore, this investigation does not consider that a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in the circumstances and finds that there was maladministration in respect of the repairs response.
The calculation for the rent refund of £100 per month was reasonable. However, it was not appropriate to apply this with a start date of October 2021. The issues caused by the defects with the balconies had been ongoing since at least January 2021 and the resident first complained about the leak from the property above in July 2021. The detriment caused to the resident began before he found himself at the point where he made a formal complaint. Therefore, this investigation orders that the landlord pay a further £300, taking the period for the calculation back to July 2021.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s inclusion of an informal complaint process within its complaints and compensation policy does not adhere to the principles of the Code, although it is noted that no specific detriment was caused to the resident through the application of the informal stage in this case. Section 5 of the Code sets out that complaints should be progressed and clearly set out as stage one and stage two complaints. Landlords must respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and to stage two complaints within twenty working days. While the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy at the time of the complaint was not compliant with the Code, it is noted that the landlord has since amended and revised its complaints policy so that it is in line with the Code. Therefore, an order has not been made in relation to this aspect of the determination. This investigation has not, however, seen evidence of a revised compensation policy.
The landlord’s stage one (referred to by the landlord as the ‘investigation’) complaint response adhered to the standards set out in its complaints and compensation policy. It is difficult to assess the landlord’s stage two (‘review’) complaint handling given the evidence provided for this investigation. The stage two complaint response says that the resident’s escalation request was received on 15 November 2021 but, there is also mention in the evidence supplied to this investigation of the resident making the request through the tenant portal on 23 November 2021.
As set out in the Code, a full record should be kept of complaints, any reviews and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared. Records should be maintained accurately in order to be effective, assisting the landlord in fulfilling its complaint handling obligations. Not doing so amounts to service failure in relation to poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response asked the resident to provide it with further information how the ongoing damp and mould issues were impacting on his health. This was a reasonable request in the circumstances, and the provision of such information by the resident would have enabled the landlord to consider the matter further. The resident informed this Service that he would not supply this information to the landlord. The resident’s reasons for not wishing to provide this information are noted. However, in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not progress this aspect of the complaint further. Should the resident wish to pursue this retrospectively, he should contact the landlord to request details of how he can make claim on its insurance.
In his request to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process, the resident made a clear request to his landlord for copies of his repair records. This investigation has not sought to make a decision on whether the landlord should have provided the information, as this is best decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, this investigation has considered whether the landlord responded appropriately.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the request which formed part of the resident’s complaint was not reasonable. That the landlord did not provide an explanation about whether it was going to provide the information or not, or what alternative process would need to be followed, was unreasonable. The landlord failed to acknowledge this element of the complaint in its stage two response and therefore failed to address the whole complaint. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s request, which formed part of his complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, or wants further guidance on requesting information, he may wish to contact the ICO.
The landlord has provided this Service with a second stage two complaint response letter which sets out the final offer of £1500 compensation which the resident accepted. The resident had moved out of the property by that time and said he had advised the landlord that he was considering taking legal action. The offer of an apology for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and award of compensation at this stage was reasonable. However, the complaint response did not comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It failed to set out the complaint and the reasons for the decision made. Had it set out the reasons it could have communicated to the resident where things had gone wrong, and how it had learnt from the process to ensure that the same mistakes would not be repeated. It would also have been appropriate to set out why it felt the figure of compensation was reasonable, taking into account the severity of any service failure or omission.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that any payment it makes will be a “full and final settlement of the issue.” It goes on to state that if the customer accepts the offer, they do so on the basis that they will not take further action in respect of the complaint. This is inappropriate because it is entirely possible for a resident to accept an offer of compensation but remain dissatisfied with the outcome. In such circumstances a resident should be free to, for example, continue their engagement with the landlord’s complaint process, contact an elected member, or this Service. The Code encourages landlords to not only see the complaints process as a positive learning process but also to promote resident’s access to this Service at all stages of the complaints process.

Record Keeping

This investigation has found evidence of poor record keeping in relation to the repairs process. The entries on the repairs log do not suggest that the landlord captured the reporting of the repair issues adequately or that it took appropriate steps to resolve the leak. Specifically:
1. There were no notes on the repair log to account for a delayed response to resolving the severe leak reported in December 2020.
2. The number of entries on the repair log do not reflect the number of reports made by the resident in relation to repairs at his property or the landlord’s assertion that it was carrying out works “in the meantime.”
3. There were no notes on the repair log to describe what action the landlord took in response to a report of a leak on 8 July 2021.
There was also evidence of poor record keeping within the complaint handling process, within the stage two complaint response. The response says that the resident’s escalation request was received on 15 November 2021 but, there is also mention in the evidence supplied to this investigation of the resident making the request through the tenant portal on 23 November 2021.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair issues relating water ingress into the property and damp and mould issues associated with the balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding major works on the balcony. It failed to fully address the leak into the property despite repeated reports from the resident.
The landlord failed to consider an interim compensation payment whilst it was investigating the works required to remedy the defect on the balcony. It failed to assist the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance in relation to damage to personal property. The final offer of compensation was not based on a reasonable calculation.
The landlord did not comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It failed to clearly set out its decision making process in relation to the resident’s request for compensation and did not respond to the resident’s request for copies of the repair logs relating to his property. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, causing distress and time and trouble to the resident who contacted this Service to try to resolve those matters.
There was evidence of poor record keeping in relation to both the landlord’s complaint handling and its repair logs.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1050 as follows:
1. £300 in addition to the £1500 already offered and accepted by the resident in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused by the issues with the winter balcony.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to offer compensation as part of its complaint resolution process.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s claim for damage to personal items.
4. £100 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in complaint handling.
5. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s record keeping failures which had an adverse effect on the level of service received by the resident.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review the failings identified in this complaint in relation to record keeping and consider how these failings can be avoided in future. This may include a review of current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately, or staff training. The outcome of this consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.
2. Review the failings identified in this report which relate to complaint handling and carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaint handling procedure. This should include the importance of accurate record keeping throughout the complaint process.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its compensation policy to ensure it reflects a fair and transparent approach to financial redress. This should include:
  1. Support for residents to make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance in appropriate circumstances or be considered for reasonable financial redress as soon as possible within the complaints process.
  2. Review the wording of clause 4.2 of its compensation policy to ensure the policy is consistent with the Code. Residents must be allowed access to this Service, even after an offer of compensation has been accepted.
2. Provide a response to the resident’s element of his complaint in which he requested a copy of the repair logs for his property.