Lambeth Council (201804647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201804647

Lambeth Council

1 February 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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s request to be rehoused;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s disrepair concerns, including: a roof leak, damp and mould;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling;
4. The landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Rehousing request
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident wants to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation. The information seen suggests her request is based on overcrowding and health/welfare grounds. The landlord’s stage two response indicates she has been on the local authority’s housing resister since 2016.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
Since the resident’s rehousing request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The Housing Ombudsman can consider the resident’s other concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

During a court submission in November 2016, the landlord confirmed the resident had been its secure tenant since 2010. Despite requesting this information, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, no information was seen to suggest it subsequently changed her tenancy type. Previous inspection reports, from 2015 and 2016, described the property as a one-bedroom flat on the top floor of a converted house. The landlord is the resident’s local authority.
The landlord provided a welcome booklet from 2017. Because it did not contain details of the landlord’s repairing obligations, the Ombudsman used a more relevant document, from our own policy library, for the below assessment. The landlord’s repairs manual shows it is responsible for repairing roofs and windows. It also shows the landlord will respond to routine repairs within 28 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective March 2016, shows it handled initial service requests informally in the first instance. Further, the landlord aimed to respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage one. No response timescale was provided for stage two complaints. The landlord’s website confirms the policy has since been updated. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records indicate the resident first reported the property’s roof was leaking in 2012. Further, the landlord cancelled the corresponding repair order in 2014 without completing the repair works. In contrast, the resident has frequently said she first reported the leak in 2011.
Court documents show the landlord sought possession of the property in 2014 due to rent arrears. The resident later told a local councillor that she stopped paying her rent due to the leak. Further, the roof was in disrepair and she was “desperate” to resolve the situation. The court documents confirm she ultimately made a counter legal claim against the landlord on disrepair grounds.
An independent surveyor inspected the property in October 2015. They noted “considerable dampness” in the kitchen despite previous repair works by the landlord. The surveyor listed around 30 repair issues to be addressed. The list included, amongst other issues, roofing, pest control, boiler and insulation works.
Court documents from January 2016 show the resident’s disrepair claim was successful. They confirm the court ordered the landlord to comply with the surveyor’s recommendations. Further, the court said the recommended works should be completed by 1 March 2016. The landlord was ordered to pay the resident £3,300 in damages. During later correspondence to the landlord, in February 2018 and August 2021, the resident said these damages cleared her arrears.
In October 2016 a further survey was undertaken by the same surveyor. They noted “limited” repairs had been completed and the majority of the identified defects were outstanding. Their report suggests boiler, pest control and smoke detector works were complete.
In late 2016 the landlord applied for an access injunction. It said it was unable to comply with its repair obligations because the resident failed to provide access for repairs. In its court submission, the landlord acknowledged responsibility for late and missed appointments. Nevertheless, the court ordered the resident to provide access to the property and pay the landlord’s court costs. Court documents suggest these costs were £750. The resident later said the parties were also asked to confirm a preferred communication method.
Limited information has been seen in relation to events between December 2016 and February 2018. However, in July 2017 the parties exchanged a number of emails in relation to a temporary decant. They suggest the resident was concerned about the effects of paint fumes on her young son. Subsequent correspondence between the parties confirms these concerns were based around his medical conditions. The information seen indicates the landlord ultimately failed to progress the repairs because the parties were unable to agree the terms of a decant.
During an email on 31 July 2017 the landlord offered the resident a range of solutions to her concerns. It offered to: use “breathe easy” paint, complete works while she was on holiday or pay a standard disturbance allowance, based on receipts from the resident, in the event of a decant. It said the works were expected to last around one week. Further, a temporary move would involve moving the resident’s essential furniture, disconnecting and reconnecting her utilities and re-directing her post.
On 8 February 2018 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord through the Resolver service. She said nothing had been done to rectify the ongoing leak and the roof was in disrepair. Further, rotting window frames meant it was difficult to heat the property and dangerous debris had been left outside for around a year. Her main points were:
1. The resident had a three year old son with medical conditions including “extreme eczema”. The property’s condition was therefore a “safeguarding” issue. Her son’s health was negatively impacted by previous repair works.
2. This prompted the resident to “plead” for a temporary decant during internal repair works. However, the landlord gave contradictory information and ultimately withdrew an offer of temporary accommodation. This was after the resident raised concerns about its location and the value of a disturbance allowance.
3. Scaffolding had been erected and removed on four occasions and had been in place for around two and a half years in total. This was a waste of the landlord’s resources. Though scaffolding would be needed again, it was a source of friction between the resident and her neighbours. This was due to garden access issues resulting from its location.
4. The landlord should provide accommodation closer to the resident’s current address. Its offer of a £325 allowance was insufficient given the resident understood works would take six weeks to complete.
Resolver records show the landlord received and acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day. They also show Resolver received further automated acknowledgements from the landlord the following month. However, no information was seen to show the landlord ultimately responded to the Resolver complaint.
The resident raised concerns with her local councillor on 14 February 2018. She said she previously accepted an “out of court settlement” to her disrepair claim. Further, during the final hearing, the landlord was given one year to complete the repairs. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this deadline, the court’s previous deadline was noted. The resident’s email included her timeline of events from 2011. The timeline said:
1. The landlord erected scaffolding in January 2017 to facilitate the roof repairs.
2. Following an inspection around October 2017, the landlord’s senior surveyor told the resident the roofing works were complete.
3. The landlord failed to respond fully to queries and concerns the resident raised around this time.
4. Though scaffolding was removed in January 2018, the roof was still leaking and pigeons were accessing the loft.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in July 2018. She said the landlord failed to respond to her concerns and the situation was impacting her mental health. Further, the landlord failed to take concerns about her son’s health seriously. Her complaint form broadly restated her Resolver complaint. We asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 20 July 2018. We encouraged it to contact the resident and clarify the status of her complaint. The landlord issued the Ombudsman a complaint acknowledgement within three working days.
On 8 August 2018 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around six months after the resident’s Resolver complaint. The response said the complaint was received through the Ombudsman. Since it only addressed the leak, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to contact the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recommendation. The main points were:
1. The resident had raised issues with the landlord’s Disrepair Team even though her disrepair case was settled. Any new repairs should be reported to the landlord’s Repair Team.
2. Nevertheless, a works order had been raised to inspect the roof for defects. This inspection was due by 18 September 2018. The landlord would complete any identified repairs to ensure the roof was watertight.
The landlord’s repair records show a corresponding works order was raised the same day. Soon afterwards, this Service advised the resident she should escalate her complaint if she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The resident replied in November 2018. Her email contained a number of supporting images and videos. She said she had been unable to pursue her concerns because a close family member recently passed away. She also said:
1. Conditions in the property were worse because mould growth was now affecting the family’s health.
2. A section of the garden wall (next to the street) had been left collapsed for over a year. This was further evidence the landlord neglected the property.
3. Roofers had attended in August 2018 to price up the repair works. The roof had to be repaired before internal repair works could begin.
In its later submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord said a repair to the building’s pitched roof, using scaffolding, was reported complete on 30 September 2019. The Ombudsman was unable to validate this information from its repair records. The timeline indicates the repair took around 14 months to complete.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in January 2020. She said the collapsed wall was now repaired but the debris was still left outside. She also said the landlord selectively responded to her communications.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord’s complaints team acknowledged an email from the resident. This was around one month after the landlord said a repair was completed. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s email. Further, little information was seen to confirm events between September 2019 and November 2020.
The resident chased the landlord on 17 December 2020. She said it had not responded to her November email, or her follow up correspondence on 2 December 2020. Further, her living conditions were “appalling” and her concerns were being ignored. The resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint. No information was seen to show the landlord ultimately responded to these emails.
The resident updated the Ombudsman by email on 24 February 2021. She said scaffolding had been erected since 2019 but, contrary to previous court proceedings, the property remained in disrepair because “absolutely nothing (had) been done”. Further, this was her fourth complaint since 2011 and the landlord never responded to her stage one complaint in November 2020. She also said the situation made her feel depressed and caused her son anxiety. Again, supporting images were provided. The resident’s main points were:
1. The roof leak had spread to the living room and the bathroom was damp. Window frames were rotten and mouldy, and windows had “blown out”, allowing cold air into the property. “Structural cracks” had widened, mould in different areas of the property was worse, and flooring was creaky and uneven with gaps. Further, damp walls caused water marks and peeling wallpaper.
2. Because there was insufficient room for the resident and her son (now six) to live comfortably in the property, they were forced to sleep in the same bed. This was partly because defective windows meant the property was “really cold” at night. The landlord advised the resident to apply for alternative accommodation based on the family’s living arrangements. However, she had not been updated after submitting the relevant paperwork.
The Ombudsman forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2021. Our correspondence included the resident’s full list of repair issues. We said the landlord should respond to her complaint within ten working days. The resident updated the Ombudsman around the same time. She said the scaffolding had been removed but the roof was still leaking. She felt the Ombudsman’s involvement must have prompted its removal.
The resident updated the Ombudsman again on 7 April 2021. She said the leak was now affecting the building’s other floors and residents. Further, her neighbour failed to report the issue and their lifestyle was a fire-hazard. She also said there was no fire exit on the top floor.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord issued a second stage one response. This was around five months after the resident’s November 2020 complaint. It was also around 28 working days after the Ombudsman’s correspondence. The landlord said the complaint concerned its handling of repairs. Nevertheless, it failed to address the resident’s full list of concerns as supplied by the Ombudsman. The resident’s complaint was “partly upheld”. The main points were:
1. A works order to repair the roof using scaffolding, from August 2018, was completed on 30 September 2019. A further order to inspect the roof was now raised in response to the resident’s complaint.
2. An improved level of communication about the repairs would have been beneficial. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused in repairing the leaks. It would closely monitor the progress of repairs.
On 18 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord for a schedule of works by email. She said two site inspections were conducted by different contractors in the last two weeks, which was a waste of time. Further, a neighbour was unhappy scaffolding would be erected again. She also said, compensation was necessary given the landlord’s “unprofessional” approach to the repairs. Her main points were:
1. Scaffolding blocked the property’s natural light for extended periods. The last time it was erected the scaffolding was in place for around a year and six months (between September 2019 and March 2021). Scaffolding was now being erected again around three months later. Its presence caused the resident’s energy usage to increase.
2. The resident wanted an update on her rehousing application. The roof was leaking before her son was born and he was now seven. The situation was detrimental to the family’s health and wellbeing. The family were unable to invite guests to the property given its “embarrassing” and “uninhabitable” condition.
On 24 May 2021 the resident chased a response to her above correspondence. She said the landlord’s communication had not improved and, unless an operative let themself in, its contractor may have missed an appointment. The resident also said the family were supposed to be decanted in 2017 while internal repairs were undertaken. Further, damp and mould caused her son to cough when he was at home.
The resident exchanged emails with the Ombudsman between 4 and 14 June 2021. She said the landlord reverted to its previous pattern of communication and failed to respond to queries about internal repairs. Further, two of her neighbours were unhappy scaffolding would again be installed. The resident also said she was now taking medication for depression and anxiety. When the Ombudsman subsequently suggested escalating the complaint, the resident said she already had. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 18 June 2021. On 1 July 2021 we received an acknowledgement from the landlord. On 20 July 2021 the resident told us the landlord’s stage two response was outstanding. She also said the property now had wood lice and she wanted to move.
On 5 August 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around 34 working days after the Ombudsman’s escalation request. The response addressed the resident’s list of issues from February 2021, along with her rehousing request. It included a timeline of the roofing repair orders since November 2012. It focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns from 8 August 2018. The resident’s complaint was upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord acknowledged the reported leak was not resolved and the works order from 30 April 2021 was outstanding. It also accepted the leak was ongoing despite the removal of previous scaffolding. The landlord was sorry for the delay. Its new repair contractor had been asked to prioritise the works and it would follow up the repairs.
2. The landlord had also alerted its Repairs Manager to the situation. A schedule of works would be provided as requested. The landlord “did not note” any request for a decant. However, the resident was free to discuss the situation with the landlord’s surveyor, who would determine whether a decant was required. The surveyor would contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property.
3. The resident’s rehousing request was currently allocated a “D” banding. The resident could complete a form to provide additional information about the family’s medical needs. A link to the form was provided.
4. The landlord acknowledged it delayed escalating the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged its failure to respond to her update request on 18 May 2021. The resident was awarded £875 in compensation, comprising £750 for the delayed repair and £125 to acknowledge the time and trouble involved in pursuing her complaint. The landlord’s complaint handler was happy to provide the resident further assistance with her concerns if necessary.
The resident replied on 7 August 2021. Based on the landlord’s repair timeline, she questioned why a number of historic work orders had been cancelled. She also questioned the landlord’s processes for following up outstanding repairs. Additionally, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to follow up an inspection in 2014. She said between 2014 and 2018 she was unable to pursue the landlord given she was caring for her son. The resident’s main points were:
1. Her son developed eczema and a sinus condition at an early stage. He was still affected by these conditions and the situation in the property did not help. The resident attached numerous medical documents to illustrate her point. The resident said, given she previously provided this information, she could not understand why she had only been allocated a “D” banding.
2. The landlord’s compensation offer was “insulting” because the leak was ongoing from 2011. Events prior to August 2018 should have therefore been considered. The award did not reflect the resident’s “ordeal” because: the list of outstanding repairs was extensive; the landlord’s communication and complaint handling were poor; the scaffolding was intrusive; the family’s social life was impacted; they were unable to decorate due to the ongoing leak; damp and mould were a health hazard and complaining was time-consuming.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 17 and 25 October 2021. She said roofers had attended three times between May and August 2021 but no repairs were complete. Further, she called the fire-service because the landlord failed to respond to an emergency leak. She said the fire-service subsequently confirmed live wires above the property’s door were hazardous. Additionally, her son was using an inhaler due to the mould. The resident said additional compensation was required and the landlord should return her court costs from 2016.
The resident updated the Ombudsman several times between January and April 2022. The key points were:
1. The landlord failed to attend her reported repairs, which now included a fire alarm fault.
2. The landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident in February 2022. The surveyor was unaware of the property’s history and, despite the contact, the required works were all outstanding.
3. “Structural cracks” were increasing and the resident was concerned the roof would collapse on the family.
During the interim period, around 24 February 2022, the landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman. It said the most recent roofing repair order, raised on 15 July 2021, was still open. Further, an appointment had been postponed because the resident was unable to facilitate access for the full day. However, the contractor would contact the resident again in due course. It also said the resident refused to provide access for its surveyor to inspect the property and the roof. Little evidence was seen to support this assertion.
On 26 May 2022 the family’s primary school wrote to the landlord. The letter was addressed to the landlord’s Environmental Health department. It said the resident’s son had visible eczema on his hands and torso. Further, there was black mould in the kitchen and red/orange mould in the living room. It raised several concerns including wood lice and a window pane held in position with sticky tape, which it said could fall causing injury. The Ombudsman has seen an undated image that appears to support the above window description. The school requested a property inspection and support for the family’s rehousing application.
The resident updated the landlord by email on 21 September 2022. She said water was now leaking into the loft, kitchen, living room and bedroom. Further, she would withhold her rent until the necessary repairs were complete, but the relevant funds would be set-aside to ensure it was paid when matters were resolved. The email said the resident’s monthly rent amounted to £460.
During an email on 3 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to respond to the school’s safeguarding enquiry. The timeline shows her email was sent around five months after the school’s letter. No information was seen to show the landlord responded to either enquiry. However, the resident’s below comments indicate her email may have prompted the landlord to complete an inspection in December 2022.
During a phone call on 6 January 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman the roof was still leaking and internal repairs remained outstanding. She also said the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in December 2022. However, the landlord failed to follow up the survey with any further action. She denied refusing access to another surveyor following the landlord’s final response. Her main points were:
1. The resident was contacted by the landlord’s repair, rather than disrepair, surveyors on two occasions following its final response. Though it sent the wrong type of specialist on both occasions, the resident was assured it would pass the details to the correct department.
2. Because nothing happened since then, the resident felt the landlord failed to pass on the details. Overall, she said the landlord should comply with the independent surveyor’s recommendations because its own surveyors would “cut-corners”.
3. Recent correspondence from the landlord said the resident should seek advice from her legal representative about the disrepair. This correspondence was unfair because the landlord knew she was no-longer represented. The resident said she was unable to find legal representation because the case was now too complex.
Following this discussion, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the property’s full repair history from 2011 and every inspection report since 2017. We said we needed to understand the current/recent condition of the property, and to assess its handling of internal repairs. We also signposted the landlord to the December 2022 inspection (in line with the resident’s comments).
The following events occurred in mid-late January 2023:
1. In response to our information request, the landlord provided the building’s repair history in a spread sheet running until December 2022. It failed to provide any inspection reports or the property’s specific repair history. The spread sheet confirms the last roofing repair order, to contact the resident and arrange an inspection, was raised in July 2021. However, the order was marked closed and the closure date was unclear.
2. The resident repeated her concerns about the quality of the landlord’s in-house surveys. She also said she was concerned about safety of the roof and the ongoing damp and mould. She provided images of black mould and wooden windows that appeared to be in poor condition.
3. Later, the resident provided a letter from the landlord to her local councillor. It said no works were specified during the December 2022 survey because the landlord’s surveyor was lead to believe the property was subject to an active disrepair case. However, the resident’s disrepair case was closed in August 2017. The letter also said the landlord’s repair manager and senior surveyor would inspect the property on 26 January 2023.
4. The resident told the Ombudsman her rent was £460 and the property comprised four rooms in total. This did not include the loft, which the resident said was unusable.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her son. The timeline confirms it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, the resident has multiple concerns about the property and the landlord’s actions. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
This assessment concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is distinct from her previous legal proceedings. The scope of an Ombudsman assessment can be limited by the time that has passed. We will not seek to reopen matters decided by the courts. Compliance with court orders is typically a legal matter. The resident’s concerns around fire safety, from April 2021, and live wires are also beyond the scope of the assessment. The Ombudsman can consider more recent issues once the landlord has issued a final response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s disrepair concerns

The timeline shows the landlord was reasonably alerted to the roof leak and window issues in February 2018. In its stage two response, dated 5 August 2021, it acknowledged the leak was ongoing despite previous repair attempts. It awarded the resident £750 in compensation to acknowledge the delayed repair. However, despite its assurance to monitor the situation closely, the timeline shows the landlord failed to progress matters beyond arranging another inspection. The response failed to address the resident’s window concerns.
Given the above, the evidence suggests the original leak and window issues remain unresolved at the point of this assessment. It also points to a total delay of around 59 months based on the period between February 2018 and January 2023. This calculation accounts for the landlord’s 28 working day response timescale for routine repairs. No information was seen to indicate the landlord responded to the other key issues which the resident reported during the timeline. For example, the damp and mould or structural cracks reported in February 2021.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The above identified 59 month delay is both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s legal obligations. Further, damp and mould are potential health hazards to be either avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). As a result, the landlord’s failure to engage with these issues was also inappropriate.
It was noted the evidence indicates the landlord failed to respond promptly to safeguarding enquiry from the family’s school. It is reasonable to conclude the school intended to alert the landlord to a situation requiring its urgent attention. On that basis, this type of intervention should reasonably be viewed as a safety mechanism for bringing important issues to light outside of the landlord’s usual processes. The landlord’s apparent failure to act on the school’s notification for around five months was therefore inappropriate.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
No evidence was seen to show the landlord raised further access issues following the 2016 court proceedings. Regardless, the timeline confirms the landlord can enforce its access rights through the courts if necessary. As a result, any access issues could have been reasonably overcome with an appropriate degree of resolution-focus from the landlord. Similarly, if the resident was reporting issues through the wrong process, the onus was on the landlord to conclusively resolve the matter. For example, it could have reasonably passed her reports to its correct department.
In contrast, the timeline suggests living with a long-term roof leak, along with the resulting damp and mould, caused considerable anxiety for the resident and her family; particularly given her son’s vulnerabilities. It is reasonable to conclude facilitating failed repair attempts was inconvenient for her. The resident said scaffolding blocked the property’s natural light and caused friction with neighbours. The timeline indicates it may have been in place for around 27 months, based on the resident’s comments on 24 February 2021 and 18 May 2021.
Regardless of the overall timeframe, the landlord has not disputed that scaffolding remained in place for a protracted period. Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given what went wrong and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The calculation reflects the circumstances of the complaint, the resident’s rent liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
From the information seen, the property comprises four rooms and the resident’s monthly rent is £460. Whilst these rooms were not uninhabitable, the evidence suggests the resident’s enjoyment of several rooms was severely reduced. For example, the timeline indicates the kitchen was predominantly affected in February 2018. However, in February 2021 the resident reported the leak had spread to the living room and the bathroom was damp. In September 2022, the resident told the landlord the water was now leaking into the bedroom. The above information suggests every room was ultimately impacted by some combination of leaks, damp or mould. As mentioned, the evidence suggests scaffolding was also in place for an extended period.
Given the above, the Ombudsman’s redress calculation will be based on compensation rate of 5% rent refund for each affected room over the duration of the above identified delay period. The landlord should therefore refund the resident 20% of her total rent over 59 months. The remainder of the compensation ordered will reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s disrepair concerns. The evidence suggests, contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the roof leak over a period of around 59 months. Further, it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of potential health hazards, or a related safeguarding concern, during the interim period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. It shows the Ombudsman’s intervention was necessary, in July 2018, to ensure the landlord responded to the resident’s February 2018 complaint. The Resolver records show the landlord was aware of the resident’s complaint before the Ombudsman’s involvement. The timeline confirms the landlord’s initial failure to respond caused a delay of around five months. This is because the landlord should have responded within 20 working days in line with its complaints policy.
Further, the resulting stage one response, issued on 8 August 2018, overlooked issues of considerable importance to the resident. For example, it failed to address her concerns around the property’s interior, the landlord’s management of scaffolding, or her request for a temporary decant. It therefore represents a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at an early stage. It is reasonable to conclude the resident would have alerted the landlord to these concerns had it contacted her, to clarify the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s suggestion.
The timeline confirms events followed a similar pattern following the resident’s November 2020 complaint. For example, the Ombudsman’s intervention was again required to prompt a response. Further, the landlord’s second stage one response, issued 30 April 2021, was also delayed by around four months. The response was unfair because it again focussed on the leak. However, the evidence confirms this response was inappropriate given the Ombudsman provided the landlord the resident’s full list of issues from her email on 24 February 2021.
The response was therefore contrary to section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which said “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint…”. This provision can now be found in section 5.6 of the updated Code. Based on the list, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have arranged a full property inspection, including the roof and the interior, as part of its resolution. Further, the landlord’s apology was disproportionate given the impact of its acknowledged communication failures
The timeline confirms further intervention and delays in respect of the resident’s escalation request. Though the Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s specific stage two request, her email on 18 May 2021 shows she notified the landlord she was unhappy with its level of redress. It is therefore reasonable to conclude she escalated her complaint around this time. The timeline therefore points to further delays of around two months at stage two. This is based on the period between 18 May and 18 June 2021, plus 14 working days.
This calculation is based on the premise, in line with section 3.11 of the relevant Code, that 20 working days is a reasonable response timeframe at stage two. No information was seen to show the landlord kept the resident updated by issuing a revised timescale after 20 working days. However, the landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage two response, along with its failure to respond to the resident’s update request in May 2021. It attempted to put things right by awarding her £125 to recognise these complaint handling failures.
It is accepted the landlord’s stage two response was better than its previous complaint correspondence. However, its wording confirms the landlord failed to identify, and therefore redress, the full extent of the complaint handling delays and failures outlined above. The evidence suggests the unacknowledged delays amounted to around nine months in total. It is likely these delays were distressing for the resident. This is on the basis she was unable to progress matters while they were ongoing.
The resident previously told the landlord she felt “ignored”. It is reasonable to conclude the time and effort she spent chasing the landlord through third parties, such as the Ombudsman or local councillors, was both unnecessary and inconvenient. No information was seen to suggest the landlord considered any of these impacts, which could have reasonably been addressed had it considered the full complaint journey, from February 2018, during its stage two investigation.
Given the above there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This finding reflects the landlord’s attempt to rectify its complaint handling failures in its stage two response. Nevertheless, the above identified delays and failures confirm the landlord’s offer of £125 in compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong and the impact to the resident. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline points to persistent failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The evidence suggests they impacted the landlord’s repair and complaint handling operations. For example, scaffolding was installed and removed on a number of occasions without resolving the leak. This suggests the landlord had difficulty keeping track of its progress in relation to the repair. Similarly, the timeline suggests assurances given in the landlord’s stage two response, around additional monitoring by the landlord’s leadership and contractor, failed to spark any improvement in its response to the repair.
In addition, the landlord was unable to provide either the resident’s tenancy agreement or any inspection reports from 2017 to date. Records of this type are typically of key importance to any Ombudsman investigation. Without this information, it was more difficult to assess the landlord’s specific obligations or the condition of the property. Similarly, the landlord referenced completed repairs that the Ombudsman was unable to validate from its repair records. Overall, the missing information hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Given the above, the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate. The evidence suggest this was a key factor in the landlord’s poor performance overall. Further, the landlord was unable to improve its performance because it failed to keep track of the situation following its stage two response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s disrepair concerns, including: a roof leak, damp and mould.
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence suggests, contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the roof leak over a period of around 59 months. Further, it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of potential health hazards, including damp and mould, or a related safeguarding concern during the interim period.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s full complaint journey, the extent of its complaint handling delays and failures or their impact to the resident. This assessment identified unredressed delays amounting to around nine months in total. The landlord’s offer of £125 in compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping was a key factor in the landlord’s poor overall performance. Further, the landlord was unable to improve its performance because it failed to keep track of the situation following its stage two response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident, for the failings identified in this report, in person within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £6,478 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £5,428 for the delay in responding to the resident’s disrepair concerns.
2. £175 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £875 which the landlord awarded during its stage two response on 5 August 2021.
With the resident’s approval, the landlord to appoint an independent surveyor and inspect the property within four weeks. The landlord should share the survey’s findings with the resident and the Ombudsman. Any identified repairs should then be completed within 28 working days in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale. The landlord should share its post works inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s leadership to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising the identified improvements. Identified improvements should also be cascaded to relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include: the landlord’s processes for monitoring outstanding repairs, its failure to respond to the resident’s reports of potential hazards, its failure to respond appropriately to a safeguarding concern, its failure to respond to key complaint issues and, with reference to the failures identified above, its overall record keeping.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks.