Islington Council (202326091)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326091

Islington Council

25 October 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
    2. The resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and associated remedial repairs in the property.
    3. The resident’s concerns about the communal space including cleaning and works to the communal lift.
    4. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. The resident’s partner made a separate complaint to the Ombudsman which has been amalgamated within this report. This was concerning his dissatisfaction with the landlord about the condition of the property when he moved in, following a mutual exchange in 2019. This included “unsafe wiring” and a “condemned boiler” he did not believe had been checked before he moved in. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 25 April 2024. It stated it could not accept the complaint as it was made in November 2023, which was over 12 months after the resident moved into the property in July 2019. As such this aspect of the resident’s complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s’ jurisdiction as the complaint has not been fully investigated by the landlord.

Background

  1. The resident’s partner holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority at the property. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. The resident is not named on the tenancy agreement, but her partner (the named tenant) has provided consent for us to correspond with her. The resident and her partner live with their two young children at the property. The landlord has confirmed it has several physical and mental health issues recorded for the resident.
  2. On 28 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She stated the following points:
    1. Works to repair the communal lift had recently taken place following a delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She said the landlord failed to correctly notify her of the work, which did not leave suitable time to prepare. Operatives were supposed to help carry shopping and prams up and down stairs but were never available. She said her pram had been damaged and asked for £1000 compensation.
    2. She said she had to “deal with constant repairs” was “living in filth” and there were cockroaches in the property. She wanted to move out of the property but did not believe Homeswapper was appropriate. She said no one would want to swap given the “condition of the property.” She also raised concerns about the number of housing points she had been given by the landlord.
    3. The resident said her health had deteriorated because of the issues in the property and building. She asked for £27,400 compensation for “stress-related mental health and emotional damage caused by the “lift being out of order.”
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 July 2022. It did not uphold her complaint and told her the following:
    1. It said the lift replacement was considered “essential and necessary.” The delay in completing it was due to the “pandemic and out of its control.” It confirmed it had completed public consultation meetings on 3,14,16 December 2021 and 12 January 2022. The resident was provided with contractor details and could have been assisted with going up and down the stairs. Temporary hotel accommodation was offered to the resident but she had said this was not suitable for her family. It suggested she raise the damage to the pram to her home contents insurance. If she did not have this it asked her to contact it to “assist” in respect of a claim.
    2. It explained to the resident how to raise concerns regarding dissatisfaction with the caretaker service and cleaning of communal areas. It also explained how to raise issues with its pest control service and how to raise repairs.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2022. She said the landlord had “not acknowledged many of her points” and how “living in the property had affected” her. She also stated the following:
    1. She was only provided details for the onsite contractor 1 week before the work was due to end on 24 June 2022. She did not believe living in a hotel for 4 months with her family was suitable. She said she would have had no cooking appliances and the whole family would have shared 1 room. She was planning to sell the pram and recuperate the £1000 spent on it. She was unable to do this due to the damage caused having to transport it up and down the stairs. She confirmed she did not have contents insurance.
    2. She was disappointed by the landlord’s response to the cleanliness of the communal areas. She said she had raised the issue to the estate manager but there was no response. She was also disappointed with its response to pest control. She said she was living with insect traps and a continuous “infestation”, which the landlord was “not stopping.”
  5. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023. It told the resident the following:
    1. It was not possible to consult with residents before the lift works went ahead. It however intended to provide residents with temporary accommodation or on-site assistance. It completed 123 days of “door knocking” of vulnerable residents between February and June 2022. Each affected resident was paid £147.60, compensation at a daily rate of £1.20.
    2. It could find no “concrete evidence” contractors were on site to support residents as frequently as promised. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience. Hotel accommodation was the “only viable option” due to the “short timescale”. It was not able to offer temporary accommodation on a “like-for-like basis” and had to work with “what was available.” It also recommended the resident speak to it “in respect of an (insurance) claim.”
    3. It had placed a new caretaker at the building and its “assessed ratings” in cleaning had improved. It confirmed the new caretaker was taking “concerns on board” and would complete a quality inspection that week. It had also spoken to its pest control team. They said they last treated the property for cockroaches in April 2022 and mice in January 2023. Pest control had since spoken to the resident who said there were “no more issues with infestation” at the property.
    4. It raised for a damp and mould survey to be completed on 23 December 2022 and this was completed on 15 February 2023. Work to wash, treat and paint mould in the property was completed on 8 April 2023. It arranged a further visit for 11 April 2023 to ensure all repairs were complete. It apologised for the “numerous” delays and offered £1300 in compensation.
    5. The landlord acknowledged its stage 2 complaint response was delayed and offered £100 compensation. In total it offered £1500 compensation.
  6. The resident raised her concerns with the Ombudsman on 28 November 2023. She said her child’s bedroom was not insulated and there was always damp and mould in there. She said a leak between the walls was also causing damp patches. She believed the landlord should renovate the whole property and move her out until it was “safe”. The Ombudsman accepted the complaint for investigation on 13 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The resident said that her health has suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
  2. The landlord directed the resident to complete a claim for damage to her possessions on her own content’s insurance. She stated she did not have content’s insurance and was unable to do this. It is unclear if it specifically referred the resident to its own insurer and if the resident raised a claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her possessions and its overall approach to the matter.

The resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and associated remedial repairs in the property.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident must give the landlord notice of disrepair as soon as possible. Its Housing Repairs Guide confirms it aims to maintain homes to a “reasonable standard”. It also aims to do the following:
    1. Complete repairs in one visit, whenever possible.
    2. Arrange and keep appointments to inspect or carry out routine works.
    3. Set high standards for the quality of work carried out.
    4. Keep mess, dust and disturbance to a minimum and tidy up afterwards.
    5. Provide an enhanced service to vulnerable residents less able to maintain their home.
  2. The guide confirms the landlord is “responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues affecting the home.” It will provide information on how to manage condensation where this is the “reported cause of any dampness.” The landlord will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It notes “some jobs will need an inspection first.”
  3. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
  4. The resident initially raised a complaint about a leak and damp and mould in June 2021. The landlord provided stage 1 responses in July and December 2021 addressing the complaint. It also took action during this period to complete repairs to rectify the issues reported. There is no evidence of the resident escalating that complaint with the landlord or raising her concerns to the landlord at that time. In the complaint being assessed in this report on 28 June 2022, the resident did not raise concerns about damp and mould at the property. As such the landlord did not address the issue in its stage 1 reply of 12 July 2022.
  5. The resident did not report issues of damp and mould or a leak in her complaint escalation of 4 August 2022. Furthermore, the Ombudsman can find no reports of damp and mould from the resident in 2022 through until 23 December 2022. On this date, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. On the same day, the landlord appropriately raised for an inspection to be completed at the property. However, the inspection did not take place until nearly 2 months later, on 15 February 2023. This was an inappropriate timescale to complete the inspection to establish what action it may need to take to rectify the issue.
  6. On 15 February 2023 following the inspection the landlord’s surveyor recommended mould treatment and then painting was carried out in both bedrooms. It said to allow for drying time between applications. The landlord completed the recommended work on 8 April. In total from the initial report, the landlord took 72 working days to complete treatment at the property. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 52 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident to keep her updated. It failed to manage her expectations leaving her uncertain on how any work would be progressing.
  7. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at her property herself over a prolonged period. It did not complete mould washes over a prolonged period and did not demonstrate it considered other options such as dehumidifiers. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
  8. The landlord completed a further inspection of the property on 11 April 2023 and found “no trace of damp and mould”. Following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, on 14 April, the resident raised concerns about the surveyor’s visit on 11 April. She said they failed to take into consideration the cold temperature in her child’s bedroom. She felt this was due in part, to the lack of insulation in the bedroom. She also raised concerns about damp patches appearing on the walls. There is no evidence it reinvestigated the property and it did not raise a repair on the matter until 1 August. On this date, it found a crack in the communal hallway could have contributed to damp in the bedroom. It completed a repair in the hallway on 16 November. In total, it took 151 working days to complete. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 131 working days.
  9. The prolonged time to complete the repair caused uncertainty to the resident and she reported her child was not able to use the room through this period. It is unclear if the landlord investigated whether further insulation was required for the affected bedroom and if the repair it completed negated this. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining this to the resident causing her uncertainty and confusion as to whether the matter was still outstanding.
  10. The landlord awarded the resident £1300 compensation relating to its handling of damp and mould at the property. This was split as £1000 for the issue and £300 for the time and trouble to complain. This was in accordance with its Compensation Policy. In awarding £1000 for distress its policy suggests this is for “prolonged or severe” issues. The landlord’s award was therefore appropriate in the circumstances. The £300 for time and trouble was at the top end of its £100 to £300 scale and was also appropriate under the circumstances. The Ombudsman therefore finds the compensation offered by the landlord as part of its complaints process to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The resident accepted this offer from the landlord on 14 April 2023.
  11. However, the landlord failed to adhere to its Repairs Policy to address the additional damp issue in the child’s bedroom between April and November 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges this took place outside of the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the issue formed part of the substantive issue. As such further compensation will be awarded for the landlord’s failure to complete repairs for over 7 months.
  12. In summary the landlord treated the resident’s initial report of damp and mould appropriately, raising an inspection. However, following this it took 2 months to complete the inspection and a further 2 months to treat the property. There is no evidence of sufficient communication from the landlord through this period to keep the resident updated. In total, this caused uncertainty and distress to the resident managing the damp and mould in her property with a lack of clarity as to when it would be rectified. The landlord recognised this in its final complaint response and apologised and offered proportionate compensation of £1300 on the matter. This has been paid to the resident.
  13. Following completion of the complaints procedure the landlord took over 7 months to rectify the root cause of damp in the child’s bedroom. In all circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been found. The Ombudsman has considered the resident and her family’s enjoyment of the child’s bedroom has been curtailed for a significant period between April and November 2023 due to damp. As such the landlord has been ordered to pay compensation based on 5% of rent for the affected room during the period in which the resident was unable to use the room to its full purpose. This is 5% of the weekly rent for 31 weeks. The resident’s rent is £135.96. 5% of the weekly rent amounts to £6.80. The total compensation for 31 weeks is therefore £210.80.
  14. Further compensation of £150 has been awarded for the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident, keep her updated or respond to her concerns about insulation. In total additional compensation of £360.80 has been awarded for this aspect of the complaint. This figure is not intended to act as a formal reimbursement of the resident’s rent for these periods, but rather it is considered reasonable and proportionate redress for the periods in question given the landlord’s failures and resulting detriment to the household. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The resident’s concerns about the communal space including cleaning and major works to the communal lift.

  1. The landlord’s Tenancy Guide and Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the communal lift. Depending on the cost it has a duty to consult with leaseholders who own a property in a block. It can proceed without consulting leaseholders in “certain emergency situations.” The Repairs Policy describes planned repair jobs as those which are “high value” and are “often complicated to complete. It will complete such works within 60 working days.
  2. The Tenancy Guide confirms the landlord provides a caretaking and cleaning service to the communal areas and blocks. It states the resident is responsible for the “area directly outside” their home. The resident is responsible for telling the landlord about any “maintenance problems” in communal areas as soon as possible.

Communal lift issue.

  1. In her initial complaint of 28 June 2022, the resident raised concerns about the works to replace the communal lift in the building. This concerned 4 matters:
    1. She was not given sufficient notice of the lift repairs. She said this denied her the opportunity to make “viable and necessary arrangements”. She reported she had a baby 6 weeks before.
    2. She had not been provided with onsite contractor details until the work was due to end. She was also concerned there was never anyone available onsite to carry her pram up and down 3 flights of stairs.
    3. She was concerned temporary hotel accommodation offered to her and her family was inappropriate and not on a case-by-case basis.
    4. She wanted compensation for the damage caused to her pram which had been “scratched and scraped” by taking it up and down the stairs. She said she had intended to resell the pram, but the damage prevented her from doing this. She also asked for compensation for the “stress-related mental health and emotional damage caused by the “lift being out of order.”
  2. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response of 12 July 2022 that the lift replacement was “essential and necessary”. It said work was initially delayed “due to the pandemic” and this was a reasonable explanation. It also confirmed it had appropriately completed public consultation meetings on 4 occasions in December 2021 and once in January 2022. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns it had “only notified (her) 2 months before the work started. This caused frustration that the landlord was not resolution-focused on all the points she had raised.
  3. In her complaint escalation the resident said she had not attended public consultation meetings. She said she disagreed “she was made aware with enough time.” The landlord appropriately addressed this in its stage 2 complaint response. It advised the resident the work was required to be completed “without delay”. This was because the lift was last refurbished in 1987 and needed remedial work to ensure it was “compliant and safe.” It stated as such it was not “possible to consult with residents before work started.” However, it was under no obligation to consult with the resident as she was not a leaseholder. It identified as good practice it should do this.
  4. The landlord could have reinforced its point on the matter by explaining the timescales that were involved, causing the urgency to complete the repairs. It explained it took reasonable steps to identify “vulnerable residents” and checked on them between February and June 2022. It identified the resident and her family as vulnerable and put in on-site assistance, which is assessed later in this report. It also confirmed it wrote to all residents before and during the works asking them to contact it with concerns. These were all reasonable steps to overcome its inability to notify the resident earlier.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated it had put the support in place to assist vulnerable residents with “going up and down the stairs.” This was appropriate action to take. However, there was no evidence the landlord reviewed this in practice. This was despite the resident stating there was “no help available” and “no guarantee of support” in her complaint. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address the concerns it only provided contractor contact details 1 week before the work was due to end. The landlord should have investigated both matters to not only review its approach but also provide appropriate resolution for the resident. Its failure to do so caused uncertainty about whether it was taking her concerns seriously.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it was unable to find evidence regarding its correspondence of notifying the resident. It has not been able to provide further evidence regarding this to the Ombudsman either. As such the landlord’s approach in this regard is uncertain. It did confirm it appropriately offered the resident support in taking her child to school. It also suggested she keep her pram in the car as it “may have been easier than carrying it downstairs.” It was unable to find evidence of the onsite contractor being available. It took the reasonable step of “deducing (the resident) was not able to access help as frequently as promised.” It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience. Its Compensation Policy suggests awards between £100 and £300 on a sliding scale for moderate to significant distress. It can offer up to £1000 for severe distress. The amount the landlord offered was not sufficient as it did not address the total detriment suffered by the resident. This was particularly as she had recently had a baby and was having to go up and downstairs unaided whenever she left the property.
  7. In both complaints the resident stated the impact the issues were having on her health. Other than confirming if health was a barrier for temporary accommodation the Ombudsman can find no evidence of it completing a risk assessment. A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlord’s decision-making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that take into account factors such as household vulnerability. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family at the property. It must then take any further appropriate action, as necessary.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response only provided an overview of the offer of temporary hotel accommodation to the resident. It also confirmed the resident declined the offer as “not suitable”. The landlord did not investigate the matter further despite the resident believing other residents “were offered more.” The landlord also discussed Homeswapper in its response which it was entitled to do. However as the resident had told it this option was not suitable in her complaint. As such the landlord’s approach and it should have addressed this in its response. This caused the resident to believe it was not listening to her concerns sufficiently.
  9. The resident stated in her escalation the landlord had not considered temporary accommodation on a “case by case basis”. The landlord’s stage 2 response on the matter was appropriate. It confirmed it had considered medical factors and found no restrictions to the resident and her family staying in a hotel. It also said due to the short timescale hotel accommodation was the only “viable option.” This was reasonable as an alternative option to supporting residents who remained in their properties with onsite help. The landlord also said it was “not able to offer temporary accommodation on a like-for-like basis” and “had to work with what was available.” The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of temporary accommodation offers made to other residents. However, the landlord’s offer to the resident was reasonable given the timescale and as an alternative to remaining in her property.
  10. The landlord paid all residents affected by the lift outage compensation of £1.20 per day. In total, it paid £147.60 to the resident. It confirmed this had previously paid this in its stage 2 complaint response. There is no evidence the landlord was obligated to pay this as part of its policy. This was therefore an appropriate offer to the resident to compensate for the inability to access the lift whilst it was unavailable,
  11. In her initial complaint the resident asked for compensation for damage to her pram due to moving it up and down stairs. She asked for the £999 cost she had paid for it. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately directed the resident to claim on her home contents insurance. The landlord also told her to contact it regarding being “assisted in respect of a claim”. However there is no evidence to suggest the resident contacted the landlord on this issue at this point, as directed, over the matter. In her complaint escalation, the resident stated she did not have home contents insurance. This was because it “cost money” she “did not have”. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s position here and then repeated the wording from its stage 1 response about being “assisted in respect of a claim.” There is no evidence of the resident contacting the number provided by the landlord.
  12. The resident requested compensation of £27400 for the “stress-related mental and emotional damages caused by the lift being out of order.” In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it could not “identify service failures and no compensation was applicable.” It reiterated this in its stage 2 response, referring to the £100 it offered for the onsite contractor being unavailable. This was appropriate as it paid compensation in accordance with its Compensation Policy for the failure it identified. However, it could offer no further compensation in accordance with its policy as it could find no further failures. It should have considered referring the resident to its insurer for a personal injury liability claim. This would have ensured liability could be effectively considered on the matter.
  13. In summary the landlord was timebound in completing the essential replacement of the lift, which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It recognised in its complaint responses it had not consulted with the resident, however there was no obligation for it to do so. It would have been good practice to have notified the resident as soon as possible but again this was impacted by the timescales involved. The landlord did take effective action to counter this, providing resident meetings, communicating with residents, and offering compensation payments. It recognised it had failed to offer onsite support as specified and apologised and provided compensation for the resident. The landlord also offered an alternative to the resident remaining at the property, which she ultimately declined. An appropriate consideration of compensation was made, and the landlord advised the resident about making an insurance claim. However, it should have made this clearer about claiming on its own insurance.

Communal cleaning issue.

  1. In her complaint of 28 June 2022 the resident said she was ”living in filth and cockroaches.” It is unclear if she was referring to the interior of her property or the communal area of the building. In her complaint escalation in August 2022 the resident said it was “disappointing” the landlord did not “acknowledge her points regarding the cleanliness of the estate.” By the time the landlord responded to the complaint about communal cleaning In April 2023, 8 months had passed. As such it was not able to provide a comprehensive response on the matter. This was because it had installed a new caretaker at the building in January 2023. The new caretaker said it was “difficult to comment on historical issues.”
  2. The lack of communication on the matter caused uncertainty and ambiguity to the resident. The landlord took no positive steps on the matter until 4 months after the resident’s concerns when it installed the new caretaker. It was able to provide examples of how the cleaning standards had improved since the new caretaker had taken over. This was an effective way to address the resident’s concerns with cleaning standards moving forward. It also arranged for the caretaker to complete a further quality inspection, and they were proactively listening to concerns. This was effective in building the relationship between the caretaker and resident and building trust in the service provided.

Summary of lift and communal cleaning issues.

  1. The landlord offered £100 compensation total for onsite contractors being inaccessible to support the resident during the lift outage. It offered no compensation for the communal cleaning issue. The landlord should have considered further compensation for the total detriment caused plus the following failures:
    1. The landlord’s response regarding claiming on its own insurance was ambiguous in both complaint responses. It did not communicate with the resident on the matter after her complaint escalation for over 8 months. Its ambiguous response and lack of communication limited her opportunity to make a liability insurance claim regarding the pram or personal injury
    2. The total detriment suffered by the resident of having to climb the flights of stairs at the property unaided with a newborn baby. It offered £100 compensation but, in the Ombudsman’s view, should have increased this to the higher end of its £100 to £300 range in its policy. The landlord also failed to complete a risk assessment for the resident despite being provided with information about the detriment to her mental and physical health.
    3. It failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning and take action for over 4 months. It failed to communicate with her on the matter causing uncertainty and distress to her.
  2. In summary the landlord took appropriate steps to manage the impact of the lift on the resident within the short timescale it had to complete the lift replacement. Its steps to communicate with residents on the matter, issue daily compensation and arrange onsite support were all reasonable. It identified a failure in its action to implement onsite support, apologised and offered compensation. This compensation offer did not go far enough in acknowledging the total detriment suffered by the resident. Furthermore, it should have directed the resident to contact its insurer to consider making a personal injury claim. It should have done this to ensure a liability claim could be made. The landlord failed to investigate the concerns about cleaning in the communal area. It took action over 4 months later, causing uncertainty and distress to the resident. The action it did take was positive in addressing the issue, however.
  3. As such the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration and has awarded compensation of £400. This is £300 more than the landlord previously awarded. This is for the failure to communicate or make clear that the resident could claim for personal injury or damage to possessions to its insurer. It is also for its failure to offer proportionate compensation for its lack of onsite support for the resident. Furthermore, it is for the failure to investigate or rectify reported issues with communal cleaning for a prolonged period. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy and the tenancy agreement do not include information regarding pest control. The landlord’s website states “by law, your landlord has to ensure your home is safe, free from hazards and in good repair. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure their properties meet an acceptable standard. This includes being free of pests such as mice and cockroaches. The landlord offers a pest control service which it states, “provides fast, effective treatments for all rodent insects pests found in homes.”
  2. The resident reported cockroaches in the property on 16 December 2021. Pest control attended in an appropriate timescale completing treatment on 20 December 2021. The landlord’s records show pest control revisited the property on 24 March 2022, but it is unclear what prompted this. Further treatment was completed on 8 and 22 April 2022. There is no further evidence of further treatment following this.
  3. In her complaint of 28 June 2022, the resident said she was “living in filth and cockroaches.” The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 July was ineffective. It only directed the resident to report any infestation to pest control. It did not take the opportunity to review its handling of the reports of cockroaches at the resident’s property. There is no evidence it reviewed its pest control service’s attendance at the property and if the respective treatment was completed appropriately. This left the resident concerned about whether it was taking her concerns seriously and was serious about reviewing its management of the issue.
  4. The resident reported in her complaint escalation of 4 August 2022 that her property was “covered in poison and insect traps.” She also said “infestation (was) continuing.” Had the landlord investigated the issue in its 12 July 2022 response, it would have had the opportunity to address the points at the earliest possible point. However, the landlord did not address the complaint until over 8 months later, on 13 April 2023. There is no evidence of the resident reporting further issues in this respect to pest control between 13 July 2022 and 13 April 2023. However, there is also no evidence of the landlord investigating the issue. Its stage 2 response confirmed its pest control service had spoken to the resident who confirmed there were “no further issues with infestation.” It is unclear when the issue was resolved, as the landlord failed to investigate the resident was left to deal with the issue and any detriment by herself.
  5. The resident reported mice in her property on 7 November 2022. Pest control attended in an appropriate timescale on 10 November 2022. It then completed further treatment at the property on 24 November, 8 December 2022 and 5 January 2023. There is no evidence of the resident raising concerns about mice during the landlord’s internal complaint procedure up to 13 April 2023. The landlord confirmed in its response it last attended in January 2023 to complete treatment. The landlord arranged for pest control to speak to the resident around 13 April 2023. She confirmed there were “no more issues with infestation.” It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to take no further action on the issue at this point.
  6. The landlord offered no compensation for the pest control issue. It should have done so for its failure to investigate the resident’s concerns between 12 July 2022 and 12 April 2023. This left her to manage the reports of a “cockroach infestation” and the impact of previous treatment at her property.
  7. In summary the landlord acted quickly and attentively when the resident reported cockroaches and mice in the property. The landlord appropriately directed the resident to raise further concerns to its pest control service in both its complaint responses. However, it failed to investigate its handling of the “cockroach infestation” comprehensively in its stage 1 reply. When the resident escalated this, it failed to communicate on the issue for over 8 months. From the evidence provided by the landlord the Ombudsman is unable to determine what action the landlord took, if any. It is unclear therefore if it supported the resident in dealing with the reported infestation, the effects of previous treatment and any other detriment caused.
  8. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure and has awarded compensation of £200. The landlord should have acknowledged and acted on the resident’s reports in her complaint escalation much sooner than it did.  The failure to do this caused considerable detriment including stress, worry anxiety and inconvenience to the resident and her family.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaint’s Policy confirms it aims to provide its customers with services that are of a “consistently good quality.” It recognises the importance of complaints in achieving this. It states a well-managed complaint service can reassure residents it is:
    1. Listening to concerns and taking them seriously.
    2. Learning from mistakes and using lessons from complaints to help improve services.
    3. Committed to providing good customer service and making sure complaints are investigated fully and fairly.
  2. The policy confirms the landlord will attempt to resolve informally before they reach the formal stage of its procedure. Its formal procedure has two stages:
    1. Stage 1 which is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. It will acknowledge a complaint in 3 calendar days (excluding bank holidays). It will provide its response within 10 working days of registering the complaint. If it is unable to meet this timescale it must send a holding reply explaining the delay with an expected due date.
    2. Stage 2 which is investigated by the landlord’s Corporate Customer Service team on behalf of the Chief Executive. Once an escalation request is accepted the landlord will acknowledge it in 3 calendar days (excluding bank holidays). It will provide its complaint response in 20 working days.
  3. The resident raised her initial complaint on 28 June 2022, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged on the same day. It provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 July. This was equivalent to 10 working days and was in accordance with its policy.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response would fail to provide a substantial response to several issues. Its stage 2 response the following year would provide a more comprehensive response to some of the issues. However, the issues at stage 1 were as follows:
    1. The landlord failed to investigate the impact and detriment the lift closure had on the resident and her family. It would find in its stage 2 complaint response that onsite support had not been available to the resident. It should have been able to have done this at stage 1. It would have been able to provide a resolution on the issue much sooner had it done so.
    2. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning, repairs and a pest infestation. It did take the appropriate steps of providing the resident with details of how to report each issue. However, it did not investigate its handling of each issue. This left each issue unresolved for the resident with concern the landlord was not taking a resolution-focused approach.
    3. As previously stated, its advice regarding insurance was unclear. It stated the resident should contact it to be “assisted in respect of a claim.” It is uncertain if this meant the resident could claim on its insurance. This left the resident uncertain about what further steps she should take.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2022. The landlord provided a partial acknowledgement on 30 August 2022. It stated it “would provide a formal acknowledgement” once its investigation had begun. However, it would not provide this until 1 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023. This was equivalent to 175 working days and exceeded the timescale in its policy by 155 working days. This was a wholly inappropriate timescale and delayed resolution for the resident, causing uncertainty to her throughout. This prolonged any further action and resolution on many of the issues for the resident. The landlord did acknowledge this delay in its response. It appropriately apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was in accordance with its Compensation Policy for “time and trouble.”
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was more comprehensive. It addressed the pest infestation, communal cleaning and repairs issues. However, there were a couple of issues with its response as follows:
    1. The advice given regarding insurance copied the information given in its stage 1 response. The information given did not clarify specifically what support it could offer and if the resident could claim on its insurance.
    2. Although the resident had not raised about insulation in her escalation request this had been raised in the surveyor report of 15 February 2023. The landlord should have included this in its response and whether it would address insulation in the bedroom. The landlord would raise the day after receiving the stage 2 response, her concerns the landlord had not addressed the insulation issue.
  7. The £100 compensation was appropriate for the delayed stage 2 complaint response. However, there were several other complaint-handling failures identified in this report that the landlord should have considered compensation for, as follows:
    1. It failed to comprehensively address all issues at stage 1 of its complaints process. This included points about pest control, repairs and communal cleaning. Had it investigated earlier it could have taken action to resolve the issues much sooner.
    2. It was delayed in formally acknowledging the resident’s escalated complaint for over 6 months. It failed to communicate with her throughout this period to keep her updated on the position of her complaint. It also failed to manage her expectations on when it would reply.
  8. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 2 complaint response time and its communication with the resident. It did not comprehensively seek to address all issues at stage 1. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £200 compensation has been ordered. This is an additional £100 to the £100 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and associated remedial repairs in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal space including cleaning and works to the communal lift.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1160.80 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £360.80 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp in the property.
      2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal space, including cleaning and the works to the communal lift.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of reports of a pest infestation in her property.
      4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      5. The above amounts include the £200 previously awarded by the landlord.
    3. The landlord must provide the resident with an update on whether further insulation is required in her child’s bedroom and must take any further appropriate action as necessary. If a further survey is required to support establishing this, it must complete this first.
    4. The landlord must complete a risk assessment for the resident and her child, taking any further action as appropriate. It must also investigate further appropriate support for the resident and her child.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to refer the resident’s claim for compensation regarding personal injury and damage to her possessions to its insurer or provide the resident with information about how to submit a claim.
  2. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, and consider the completion of a self-assessment against the report if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord should review the September 2023 government guidance – ‘understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home’ to help it address its approach to damp and mould.