Leeds City Council (202207559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207559

Leeds City Council

28 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to repairs required at the property.
2. Communication with the resident.
3. Record keeping.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 2013. The property is a 4 bedroom house. Each of the rooms are occupied by the resident’s adult children. The property was previously adapted for a former resident. The resident benefits from the ground floor wet room and access ramp due to his own health conditions. The landlord advised this Service that it has no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident has informed this Service of health conditions that includes fibromyalgia, prolapsed discs in his spine, anxiety and depression. He advised that he uses mobility aids. This includes a wheelchair for longer journeys. Adult social services installed additional handrails at the property to aid his mobility in or around 2021. The resident explained that the landlord was aware of his health difficulties from his tenancy start date and from each tenancy management inspection when it documents his health issues.
The resident advised that the landlord would attend his property unannounced. On these occasions it causes him difficulties with his anxiety. The resident also advised this Service in June 2023 that he has been receiving additional support for his mental health and anxiety. He considers that the property’s condition and his concerns regarding its safety has added to his stress.
A resident has the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. This means that the resident has a right to the undisturbed use and peaceful occupation and enjoyment of their home. Therefore, the landlord cannot simply enter into a property without giving either reasonable notice or the amount of time specified in the tenancy agreement that it will be attending the property.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy said at stage 1 it would respond in full within 15 working days of receipt of a complaint. If it was unable to respond within this timeframe it would provide regular updates to the resident. These updates would be at least every 2 weeks. It would explain the reason for the delay and when the resident could expect a response. It would also expect to respond in full within 15 working days at stage 2.
The landlord has a guide for financial redress. It has 4 categories referred to as moderate, substantial, severe and extreme financial redress. Each category considers the level of inconvenience, upset or distress the resident has experienced as a result of the landlord’s service failures, problems encountered or time taken to resolve. For example:
1. Severe financial redress (up to £1,000) will be considered where a resident has suffered severe distress, inconvenience & avoidable disruption for a significant period. This will include cases where the resident and/or their family have suffered reduced living standards due to the ongoing issue and/or has resulted in existing medical conditions such as stress or anxiety being exacerbated.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. It states that it will carry out repairs in a reasonable time and send written confirmation for a repair unless the repair was an emergency.
The landlord’s repair process states that its aim is to get as many repairs as possible right first time and this means keeping residents informed. This includes:
1. Telling resident’s how quickly a repair can be completed.
2. Providing target completion dates and arranging appointments where possible.
3. Phoning or sending a text to residents to let them know that the landlord is on its way to the property.
4. Keeping residents informed of work progress if the job cannot be completed in one visit.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states sometimes it may be necessary for a surveyor to carry out an inspection prior to beginning repair or maintenance work. Surveyor’s pre-inspections are only carried out for complex repair issues for example, structural repairs, reports of damp or where there is an on-going problem.

Summary of events

There is evidence from the landlord’s repair records that there may have been repairs associated with structural issues at the property from as early as 7 April 2014. The repairs included plaster coming away from walls, draught from the living room bay window, repointing to external brickwork and leaks coming through uPVC windows. It was unclear from the evidence provided if these jobs were all completed at the time as some were marked as cancelled or not marked as completed.
On 13 January 2015 the landlord’s records indicate a damp concern at the property. It noted that the possible cause was the access ramp at the front of the property. It is unclear from the evidence supplied if this job was resolved at this time as the repair record was marked as cancelled.
The landlord’s repair records in August 2016 provided further evidence of works that suggest structural issues. These included crumbling mortar and replastering requirements to hallways and downstairs rooms in the property. It was unclear from the evidence provided if these jobs were completed.
There is evidence from the landlord’s repair records that suggest a continuation of repairs associated with structural issues at the property from February 2017. These included repointing roof tiles, large cracks throughout the property, damp and mould throughout the property, water penetration from window frames, difficulties closing doors and windows, and further replastering needs. It was unclear from the evidence provided if these jobs were all completed as some were marked cancelled or not marked as completed.
The resident explained that since 2017 in particular, he has been living in a property with multiple repair needs. Structural movement has caused ongoing issues with external and internal cracks to walls, repair needs to his doors and windows, leaks and damp in walls surrounding a bay window, mould growth throughout the property, and gaps between flooring and skirting boards. The resident states that repairs by the landlord have never lasted and the issues had significantly worsened. He explained that he had been unable to resolve outstanding decoration or lay carpet since 2017 due to the active movement of the property. He says to reduce mould in the property he continues to run a dehumidifier at his own expense. He expressed concern that the property was unsafe.
The resident described that his mental health had been affected by the delays to resolve the property’s structural movement and both he and his daughter frequently cough when in the property. He said he was concerned that the mould was affecting their health.
On 9 February 2017 the landlord raised an order for a surveyor to inspect large cracks and mould throughout the resident’s property. During the inspection on 21 February 2017 it was identified that the walls in the hallway needed replastering as they were cracked. It also identified that an improved drainage channel was needed down the side of the access ramp to the property. The ramp was abutting the building and the damp course was being breached. There does not appear to have been a conclusion of the cause of these matters.
On 26 April 2017 the landlord recorded a target date of 7 June 2017 to complete drainage works to the ramp at the front of the property. The records refer to the need to fit an “aco drainage channel to the side of the ramp into gully and damp proof coarse (DPM).” It is unclear if the works were completed on this date as the records were not marked as completed.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord recorded that its contractor had completed a CCTV drain scan at the property.
On 7 November 2018 the resident reported further cracking at the property. The landlord raised an order for another technical officer to inspect the reoccurring cracks to the property and cracks surrounding the property’s rear door on 20 November 2018. A copy of this survey was not provided to this Service.
On 5 December 2018 the landlord raised additional works at the property. The landlord advised this Service that this was following its inspection on 20 November 2018. This was not clear from the repair records provided. The works raised included hacking off plaster and replastering multiple walls within the property. This included around windows and the rear door to the property. An iron lintel was considered necessary for the rear door and the door frame needed to be made square. The precise date that these works were completed was unclear from the repair records provided.
In May 2019 the landlord recorded that during a fire prevention visit the fire service expressed health and safety concerns for the resident. It recorded that 7 internal doors were sticking which could prevent him exiting the building in the event of a fire. The landlord recorded replacing internal doors.
On 23 August 2019 the landlord’s internal communications evidence that it sought advice from colleagues whether a specialist survey was required as the resident had reported that cracks had returned since the last repair. it questioned whether this was due to the quality of works undertaken or an issue with the resident’s subsidence concerns. It also recorded that the resident had been expecting an update about the cause and had not heard from the landlord. There was no evidence of a specialist survey being requested at this stage.
On 2 September 2019 the landlord raised another order for a surveyor to inspect the property. It recorded that the resident had reported that cracks had reappeared in all areas recently repaired. This included cracks to internal and external walls and the rear door was dropping again.
Between 2 to 13 September 2019 the landlord recorded arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property on 9 October 2019. The repair record was marked as issues with subsidence, and cracks internally and externally. Although communication evidence indicated that a surveyor attended the property, the repair records supplied to this Service recorded this job as cancelled.
On the 9 October 20219 the landlord reported inspecting the cracks at the property for a third time following further reports from the resident. This Service has not seen a copy of the inspection report.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord recorded that the resident had advised that cracks were getting worse and had had issues with subsidence. He asked that the landlord contact him to provide an update.
On 16 December 2019 the landlord recorded “possible subsidence in the property.” It was unclear from the evidence supplied to this Service whether the landlord raised an inspection by an independent specialist surveyor as the repair record was cancelled.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord reported inspecting the cracks at the property for a fourth time following further reports from the resident.
Following on from the survey raised on 16 December 2019, on 17 January 2020 the landlord recorded that:
1. The internal cracks were still prevalent in the property following replastering.
2. The rear door was dropping despite numerous repairs.
3. The drains required CCTV to identify any concerns.
4. A decision about the door would be made once the CCTV survey was completed.
5. An order was raised to overhaul the external guttering.
6. The floorboards had dropped below the skirting boards under the window in a bedroom.
7. A carpenter had been arranged to cut out an access chamber for it to inspect the subsidence concerns.
8. It was unclear from the evidence supplied when these actions or repairs were completed.
On 12 August 2020 the landlord recorded that the resident was unable to close and secure the rear door to the property as it had dropped. The following day the landlord recorded that it had completed the job.
On the 19 August and 16 September 2020 the resident chased an update. The resident had expected that an independent surveyor was due to inspect the possible subsidence at the property. He had not been updated by the landlord. He reported that the cracks were getting worse.
On 19 October 2020 the resident chased an update regarding the cracks to the property. He was worried that the cracks were getting worse and he was worried about the property becoming unsafe.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord’s surveyor recorded inspection notes. These notes included:
1. The property required patch plastering to various rooms due to hairline cracks.
  1. The landlord recorded this as complete on 14 September 2021.
2. Renew tiles in the bathroom.
  1. The landlord recorded this as cancelled.
3. Repair external door.
  1. The landlord made a note of the multiple repairs that had been carried out to the door previously.
  2. The landlord recorded this as complete on 5 August 2021.
4. Renew architrave to a bedroom.
  1. The landlord recorded this as complete on 20 April 2021.
5. Inspect floorboards and joists.
  1. It was unclear from the landlord’s records when this was completed.
6. Point step cracks to rear elevation that had reappeared.
  1. The landlord recorded this as complete on 5 May 2021.
7. Drop path level and form a gravel soakaway to front elevation.
  1. The landlord recorded this as complete on 5 May 2021.
8. It questioned whether a specialist survey was required.
  1. There was no evidence that a specialist survey was raised at this stage.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord’s repair records showed that there was “serious damage to the external of the property.” The evidence supplied to this Service shows that this repair record remains open.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord’s repair records showed that it considered that a specialist survey was required at the property. This survey was never raised.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord recorded that its building surveyor visited the property. The resident’s MP prompted this visit. The resident had approached his MP for help with his repair issues. This Service has not seen the communication between the landlord and MP.
The survey recorded that it had previously considered that a possible cause of the cracks was the lack of lintels [a horizontal support of timber, stone, concrete, or steel across the top of a door or window]. These had been fitted in 2018. Although some hairline cracks were visible again, it considered that it did not merit a structural referral. It suggested that a referral was made to the forestry team regarding trees that were located close to the property and to continue to monitor the cracks.
On 12 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord chasing an update on his structural repairs. The resident had not been updated since October 2021 and believed that he was waiting for a tree survey or for a tree to be removed. The resident explained that plaster was coming off the walls inside the property. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was not updating him or resolving the cause of the repairs following the previous property inspections. The resident made a formal complaint.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord a formal complaint. He said:
1. That he was reporting problems at his home and the landlord would send people in “droves but the work “never gets completed.”
2. That he was waiting for a tree to be removed following the landlord’s inspection [on 20 October 2021].
3. That plasterers were attending his property and confirming works that were required but nothing would be resolved.
4. That he had been advised that he would get a call from the surveyor but this did not happen.
5. That he felt he needed to seek legal advice as he felt the landlord was not meeting its repair obligations.
On 22 May 2022 the landlord fitted a new composite door to the rear of the property.
On 16 June 2022 the forestry team informed the landlord that any alleged subsidence from a tree would require a survey by a building surveyor. Therefore it was unable to assist with this enquiry.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord recorded that it had completed the window repair that formed part of the resident’s complaint.
On 26 June 2022 the landlord raised a job to check if trees were causing structural damage to the property. This inspection was completed on 12 July 2022 and an order for a CCTV drain survey was raised.
On 13 July 2022 the resident attempted to raise a complaint by email with the landlord. The resident explained:
1. That he remained unhappy with the repair service that the landlord was providing and this had been going on for years.
2. That the landlord had visited the property on multiple occasions over the years to assess the structural problems. However, no progress had been made to offer a permanent repair. He considered that the landlord simply filled the cracks temporarily.
3. The landlord had previously advised that a tree was causing the structural problems but he had not received an update from the landlord and the tree had not been removed.
4. That he had done a simple google search himself about the type of cracks the property was experiencing and “almost every page said there was an issue with the foundations of the house [diagonal step crack in brick work].”
5. That he sought a resolution from the landlord that included:
  1. The tree removed as the landlord had said it would do.
  2. The roof ridge tiles fixing back in place.
  3. The subsidence issues fixing.
  4. All exterior work to be done to a standard where the cracks do not keep happening.
  5. The interior walls fixing properly not just remedial work.
  6. The rear door and windows fixing so they open and close properly.
  7. The leaks to the bay window fixing.
  8. The floor fixing in a bedroom to put right the big gap between floor and skirting board.
  9. The resolution of damp issues around the bay window wall.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email. It advised that it already had an open complaint for these issues. It apologised that it was unable to meet its response target date. It said it aimed to respond by 27 July 2022.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord recorded that it had completed a CCTV drain survey at the property.
On 11 August 2022 the landlord recorded completing a borescope inspection of the property’s rear cavity wall.
On 22 August 2022 the resident emailed this Service photographs of outstanding repairs to his property. The pictures included evidence of multiple cracks to interior and exterior walls and brickwork. The resident explained that due to the movement of walls he was unable to open and close the new composite door fitted in May 2022. He was also having difficulty opening and closing interior doors. He advised that the landlord was not providing an update or explaining how it intended to permanently resolve the issues that had been on going since 2017.
On the same day the resident attempted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord advised that it was not yet able to escalate his complaint as it had not sent him a stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay and said that it had chased its investigating officer.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident its stage 1 response for his complaint dated 12 April 2022. It said:
1. His complaint had been allocated for investigation in line with its complaints policy.
2. It apologised for the time it had taken to answer his complaint.
3. It advised that it had been in contact with a drainage contractor. A CCTV survey had been carried out on 20 July 2022 and it had been waiting for information regarding the works that would be carried out to rectify the property issues.
4. It understood that its contractor had completed works [that was later referred to as a borescope inspection] and a visit had been arranged for 12 September 2022 to assess the plaster work inside the property. It would advise about the tree that was close to the property during the visit.
5. How the resident could request a review of its decision but did not include any information about this Service.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord recorded another inspection at the property where “significant cracking” was seen. This led to a specialist structural survey to assess the movement of the property.
On 22 September 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He had spoken to this Service and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of progress to resolve the issues at his property. The landlord acknowledged his request the next day and advised that it aimed to respond to him by 13 October 2022.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response.
1. It said that it understood his complaint to have been about:
  1. Reported cracks to the interior and exterior of the property and issues with doors and windows, which the resident believed were the result of structural movement.
  2. Whilst the landlord and its contractors had made visits to the property, there remained outstanding repairs and underlying issues which the landlord had not resolved. The resident believed the property condition was deteriorating. Repairs had been promised but the landlord had not provided any communication on progress.
  3. That the landlord was not fulfilling its repair responsibilities and the resident felt he needed to seek legal advice.
2. It acknowledged that during a telephone call with the resident on 13 October 2022 the resident considered subsidence was the cause of the cracks within the property and movement of windows and doors.
3. The landlord said the resident had first reported cracks in the property in April 2021. It said that it had inspected the property on 9 April 2021.
4. It explained it had identified several repairs including hairline cracks in plasterwork, issues with the external rear door, bathroom window, architrave to a bedroom window, and cracking to the rear external elevation.
  1. It advised that these repairs were undertaken in May 2021.
  2. It advised that that its inspection report from April 2021 indicated that a specialist survey may be needed. It said there was no evidence that this was obtained.
5. It said that following an inquiry received via the resident’s MP a property inspection was arranged and undertaken on 20 October 2021. The inspection photographs showed:
  1. Cracks internally to the bathroom, kitchen and hallway, and externally to brickwork close to the rear door of the property.
  2. Trees in the garden including a large tree around 4 metres from the property.
6. It said that there appeared to have been a delay in a works order being raised following the inspection in October 2021. However works were raised on 19 November 2021 for a new composite door to the rear of the property and for repairs to the bathroom window and plastering in the landing.
7. It said that its records showed that the new door was fitted on 18 May 2022, and the window repairs were undertaken on 17 June 2022.
8. It advised that following further reports of repairs and possible movement an inspection was undertaken on 12 July 2022. The following works were raised:
  1. Borescope inspection of the rear wall cavity on 11 August 2022.
  2. Fit wall ties to cracks. This job remained open on the landlord’s system.
  3. Tie bricks under the bathroom window and left side of back door.
  4. Drain survey. Undertaken on 20 July 2022.
9. It acknowledged that a specialist survey was required to determine the cause of any movement and any work required to rectify this.
10. It offered an apology for its communication regarding repairs. It said that there had been significant delays between the inspection in October 2021 to completion of repair works.
11. It offered a further apology for contractors attending the property without notice. The landlord confirmed that residents should be contacted in advance of any visit.
12. It acknowledged that the resident had reported issues on several occasions over an 18 month period. It considered that it had generally responded to the resident’s concerns promptly but had not taken appropriate action to identify the underlying causes of these issues.
13. It explained that 2 of 3 previous inspections had been completed by officers “relatively new to post.” This had caused the need for duplicate visits and repair orders recurring. It acknowledged that this would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
14. It advised that its investigation had highlighted weakness around its communication and record keeping in relation to property inspections. To prevent similar cases in the future it would take the following action:
  1. It had reviewed its process in August and September 2022 on how officers requested specialist support. This new process would be communicated internally. The new process would help utilise existing support available and improve management of cases with external providers.
  2. It had created a new folder structure where inspection reports were accessible to all officers across its property management service.
15. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused as he had had to escalate the matter.
16. It advised the resident how he could contact this Service if he felt that his complaint remained unresolved.
On 2 November 2022 preliminary inspections commenced at the property with the full inspection completed on 23 November 2022. This included an assessment of the foundations.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord received the specialist structural report. The findings of this report were:
1. There was cracking internally to the plaster in the bathroom, kitchen and first floor bedroom. It noted that these cracks were mainly on the flank wall of the property, at high level.
2. There was stepped cracking to the external brickwork joints at ground floor level on the rear wall. There was cracking to the brickwork joints above the rear window and it appeared that a lintel was not installed when the substantial timber window frames were replaced with uPVC.
3. There was a mature tree on the boundary with next door, approximately 4 metres from the rear of the property that could be having a detrimental effect on the property.
4. That two trial pits excavated at the base of the rear elevation revealed that the building has conventional strip footings, bearing onto undisturbed clay at approximately 300mm below ground level. The pits were extended locally to 150mm below the bearing level.
5. The clay was very firm and dry in one pit, firm and damp in the other. Despite the presence of a mature deciduous tree within a few metres of the house, no roots were encountered in the excavations.
6. The house is semi-detached, and the brickwork of the neighbouring property did not reflect the extent of cracking evident in the resident’s property.
7. The foundations are set at a depth which by modern standards would be considered inadequate. This makes them susceptible to movement resulting from seasonal variations in the moisture content of the ground. It is understood that the movement and cracking of the property worsened significantly during this year’s exceptionally long dry summer.
8. The nearby tree may also be contributing to this by extracting water from the clay.at lower levels.
9. It is recommended that consideration be given to underpinning of the rear elevation, either partial or whole. Conventional underpinning should extend to at least 750mm below ground level but may need to be deepened or an alternative method used if the clay is found to be shrinkable. Laboratory testing of the clay is recommended to determine this as the next step. Any underpinning should be designed to minimise effects on the neighbouring property.
During conversations with the resident in June 2023 the resident advised this Service that the landlord continues not to update him and it has not started to resolve the property’s movement. He advised that the landlord had been out to repair issues raised but nothing was actually resolved. He advised that he is living with cracks around his property, concerned about the property’s safety and unable to resolve considerable decorative issues. The resident said that this was all affecting his mental wellbeing.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord informed this Service by email that it had provided the resident with updates on 9 January 2023 and 19 April 2023. It advised that it had instructed for soil samples to be taken. This was necessary for it to establish the depth required for the underpinning work.

Assessment and findings

The remedies guidance allows the Ombudsman to recognise the emotional impact on the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that some resident’s circumstances mean that they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Where appropriate the Ombudsman will seek to recognise these circumstances in the remedies we set out.

Response to repairs required at the property

It is not disputed that the landlord has attended to repairs linked to this complaint on multiple occasions since 2014. However the resident has described that repairs are no more than a temporary make good job as the property continues to move. Particularly since 2017. He has explained to this Service that repairs never last and the problems remain ongoing. This was evidenced by the condition of the property in the photographs supplied and within the landlord’s repair records. It was evident that the landlord was asked to address reoccurring issues such as the dropped rear door and cracks throughout the property on multiple occasions. However, these repairs reoccur and have been considered by the landlord to have got “significantly worse.”
The resident reports on going issues of mould within the property and the need to use a dehumidifier. There have been repeat issues with the rear door, windows, bay window and dropped floor where the evidence suggests water ingress as a contributing factor. Some of which remained unresolved. Furthermore the landlord identified on 13 January 2015 that the access ramp was contributing to the damp at the front of the property. However there was no evidence of the landlord taking any action to resolve this until after another surveyor’s inspection in February 2017. The works appeared to take a further 4 months with records indicating completion on or around June 2017.
The landlord’s stage 2 response refers to the resident first reporting cracks at his property in April 2021. It refers to him reporting issues over a period of 18 months on “several occasions.” The issues noted by the landlord included internal and external cracking, and issues with his windows and doors. It goes on to recognise that its failure to take the appropriate action to identify causes of the repair issues would have resulted in frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
However, there is evidence that shows that the serious cracking concerns were recorded as far back as February 2017 with the landlord completing at least 6 inspections and considering the need of specialist surveyors on at least two occasions since 2019. Furthermore, repair records indicate structural concerns as early as 2014. The specialist survey was not completed until November 2022. Therefore the landlord’s stage 2 response does not fully consider the duration or impact that the outstanding repairs and living conditions have had on the resident.
The stage 2 response recognised that an inspection during May 2021 indicated the need for a specialist survey. It also acknowledged that there was no evidence that this was raised and offered an apology. Although it was reasonable to offer an apology the resident had to wait until November 2022 (approximately another 80 weeks) for the survey to take place. The resident continued to live in a property that he has been unable to decorate, lay carpet or control mould growth around doors, windows, and walls affected by moisture ingress due to the structural movement. This was a significant delay and not reasonable.
There is further evidence which the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that there had been delays replacing the rear door and to raise identified repairs to the property following an inspection on 20 October 2021. The resident received no communication regarding this delay and waited until May and June 2022 for the rear door and repairs to be addressed. This was not appropriate because the landlord’s repair policy says it will inform resident’s how quickly repairs will be completed and keep them informed. Furthermore, the resident reports that these repairs were again only a temporary fix as the property movement resulted in the issues returning almost immediately.
The landlord’s repair records show repairs for causes of damp as far back as 2015. The resident explained that the issues have continued as the structure of the property has moved. This includes water ingress from the rear door and a leak, and possible rising damp to a bay window. Although it is evidenced that the landlord has attended, repairs have not provided a permanent solution. The resident continued to raise concerns throughout his complaint that damp/mould remained an issue. This is evidenced in the communication to the landlord by the resident and from this Service.
It is understood the resident feels mould reported in 2015, 2017 and throughout his complaint was a continuation of previous issues with the property’s movement. In other words, it resulted from the landlord’s failure to address and repair the underlying issue that caused movement of the house. It is evident that there have been continuing reports about similar repair issues following the landlord completing repairs.
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. Where the source of damp and mould is not immediately obvious, the landlord should be taking steps to eliminate potential root causes. Although the landlord has recorded the completion of a borescope inspection in August 2022 and some remedial works there is no evidence that the problem has been resolved. The resident continues to wait for a decision on works following the specialist survey in November 2022 and says that he uses a dehumidifier as he is still affected by mould growth within the property.
During 2019 the landlord recorded replacing 5 internal doors. This was following health and safety concerns raised by the fire service. The resident has explained that he continues to have difficulties with his doors and reports that they continue to stick. He further explained that doors often do not open/close properly due to the structural movement and any repair by the landlord is simply temporary. This presents a clear health and safety risk and may prevent the resident’s ability to exit the property in the event of a fire.
The resident has informed this Service that the repairs made to the rear door (including the replacement door) have never permanently resolved the issue of gaps. Although a repair took place to make the recess square again, the resident has described water being able to enter the property over the years the property’s structure has moved. The resident believes this is adding to the damp and mould conditions within the property.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’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.
The landlord recognised failures within its stage 2 response and offered the resident an apology. It acknowledged that it had not taken appropriate action to identify underlying causes of the repair issues. It also wrote that it was sorry that the resident had felt “forgotten” due to the significant gaps between an inspection in October 2021 and completion of the works in May/June 2022.
The landlord demonstrated some learning from outcomes by making changes with how it would provide specialist support to its staff. It explained that access to existing support would improve its ability to speed up its referral processes. However having also apologised to the resident for operatives attending his property without prior notice the resident has informed this Service that this continues to happen. This affects his anxiety and is not in line with the landlord’s repair policy procedures.
The landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The resident has vulnerabilities and has had a reduced living standard for a considerable time. The delay could have been avoided had the landlord acted sooner when considering the need for a specialist surveyor. Repairs, although attended to, have often been delayed and the resident has been required to chase for updates. The completed repairs have offered no more than a temporary solution as the root cause remains outstanding leaving the resident living in a property with reduced living standards.
Although there is evidence to suggest that the resident had experienced the start of the structural repair issues in 2014, it is evident that the situation became significantly worse in 2017. The landlord would have been on notice that something serious was happening from at least February 2017. Therefore the landlord missed multiple opportunities to instigate robust monitoring of the property to identify the primary cause from an early stage. This failure has led to the resident with reported heath conditions living in poor conditions for more than 6 years.
The resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failure to complete the necessary actions sooner. He has lived in a property where he has been uncertain about its safety and been unable to decorate or lay carpet to improve his living conditions. This disruption has been over a significant period of time and may have been avoidable had the landlord taken the appropriate actions, such as a specialist survey, sooner. The resident has suffered reduced living standards due to the outstanding and recurrent repairs. This is evidenced in the photographic evidence supplied.
Although the landlord acknowledged some failings it has failed to put things right within a reasonable time. It has also failed to recognise the detriment that the reduced living standards have had on the resident and not offered proportionate compensation to remedy the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore there has been severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the resident’s property.
Considering both the landlord’s compensation guide as well as the remedies guidance available to this Service, it is reasonable that an order of £6,000 compensation is made. This reflects the seriousness of the reduced living standards that the resident has suffered for 6 years and the ongoing issues that remain unresolved. The landlord repeatedly failed to identify the primary cause of the repair issues and failed to put things right. The failures accumulated over a significant period of time which has undermined the landlord/resident relationship.

Communication

The resident has expressed that he has been unhappy with the level of communication that he has received from the landlord for a number of years. He considers that he has been required to chase the landlord for any updates throughout and has often felt that he has simply been left in a property that is in a poor state of repair.
There is evidence that the landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor. The resident often received no information from the landlord and frequently chased it for updates. Not only is this evidenced with the delay for a specialist survey but also when the landlord suggested in October 2021 that a tree may be contributing to the property’s structural movement. There is evidence that the landlord did not use/know the correct referral process for the tree to be inspected. Therefore this job remained outstanding until June 2022. The landlord did not contact the resident to reassure or explain what was happening and it was only progressed after the resident chased the landlord. This not in line with the landlord’s repair process that states the importance of keeping residents informed.
The resident described considerable gaps between updates and how he often felt unable to chase due to his own health. There is evidence of the resident waiting a further 6 months between October 2020 and April 2021 for an inspection to take place. There was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident regarding any possible delays. It is not reasonable that the resident felt it necessary to do this to simply receive communication from the landlord regarding the serious condition of his property.
It is not reasonable that the resident felt it necessary to approach his MP in October 2021 and this Service in 2022 as a means to seek communication and progress from the landlord.
In its stage 2 response the landlord recognised its weakness around its communication with the resident. However the £100 redress offered for the entirety of the resident’s complaint was not proportionate to the detriment caused to him. The resident had been inconvenienced by the lack of communication from the landlord. He described experiencing distress not knowing what was happening with long outstanding repairs, living in poor conditions, and with no clear end in sight. The lack of communication affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord and he lost faith that it was taking the severity of his situation seriously. Therefore for the reasons set out above there was maladministration with the landlord’s communication with the resident and an order has been made below.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigation and communications with contractors. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively.
There was evidence that the landlord’s repair records were unclear and/or incomplete. Repair records from 2014 were marked as cancelled or not marked as completed. However other communication indicated that some of the repairs had been attended to. This was an example of poor record keeping and would hamper the landlord’s ability to accurately determine what action (or inaction) had taken place to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s communication failures and the need for duplicate visits to complete inspections already carried out were evident throughout this investigation. This caused avoidable delays to identify the root cause of the resident’s repair issues. This could have been avoided had the landlord had better record keeping of the property and inspection surveys.
The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that there had been “weaknesses around its communication” with the resident. It identified required improvements for its record keeping and advised the resident it would implement a new information management folder structure. This would allow all officers across its property management services division to have access to up to date inspection records. This was a reasonable step and showed evidence of that the landlord was taking steps to address identified failures.
However the resident lives in an adapted property and has declared to this Service multiple health conditions. He explained that the landlord was aware at the start of his tenancy in 2013 and recorded his situation within its paperwork during each subsequent tenancy inspection. It is therefore concerning that the landlord supplied evidence to this Service that states it had “no vulnerabilities recorded” for the resident.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. The landlord identified that earlier failures with its record keeping meant it did not take the appropriate action earlier to identify the cause of the resident’s repair needs. However its records regarding the resident remain incomplete.
Although the landlord should be adhering to its repair process and communicating with residents in advance of appointments, the resident reports that unannounced visits have continued since the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident says this causes him anxiety which he feels could be avoided if the landlord maintained its records regarding his health and communicated with him in advance of any appointment.
The landlord has identified weakness with its record keeping and implemented changes to processes. However there is evidence that the landlord has not updated its records having recorded the resident’s health and vulnerabilities during property inspections. Therefore for the reasons set out above there has been maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping and an order has been made below.

Complaint handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as:
1. There is evidence that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2022. As he had received no acknowledgement from the landlord, he attempted to raise his complaint again on 13 July 2022. At this stage 62 working days had passed.
2. The landlord did not provide the resident with any updates or an explanation that there would be further delays to him receiving a stage 1 complaint response. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint’s policy says that it will provide regular updates at least every two weeks.
3. On the 2 September 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate. This was 99 working days after the resident made his complaint and 84 working days beyond the landlord’s 15 working day response target, as set out in its complaints policy.
4. Although the landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the time it had taken to answer the resident’s complaint it did not address all issues that he had raised. The resident had clearly repeated his repair concerns in his second complaint attempt on 13 July 2022. The landlord’s response was more of an update than a complaint response. Whilst an update was required and well overdue, there was no consideration given to how it would continue to keep the resident informed while further works and inspections were undertaken.
5. The landlord’s delay in its complaints handling at stage 1 was inappropriate and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience and, time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. There was no offer of redress made at stage 1 to recognise these service failures.
6. Following support from this Service the resident escalated his complaint on 22 September 2022.
7. The resident advised that repairs remain outstanding since the landlord’s stage 2 response on 13 October 2022.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 letter on 13 October 2022 was correct to include details of this Service, it had failed to appropriately update its letters. It advised the resident that he could contact a designated person or wait 8 weeks before referring his complaint to this Service. From 1 October 2022, a change in the law meant that residents no longer had to contact a designated person or wait 8 weeks if they remained dissatisfied at the end of their landlord’s internal complaint process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it accepted that its failure had caused the resident inconvenience and frustration through his need to escalate his complaint. It offered £100 compensation.
Although the landlord recognised its failure and offered compensation, the award was not proportionate to recognise the time and trouble, or distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced. The landlord’s offer of redress did not adequately consider that the resident had experienced poor communication, received no updates in line with its complaints policy and waited 99 working days for a stage 1 response.
Where there has been maladministration the remedies guidance available to this Service provides guidance of the appropriate level of redress. For the reasons set out within the preceding paragraphs the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

Repairs have often encountered delays and provided no more than a temporary solution and requiring further attention when completed. The landlord did not take the appropriate action to identify the underlying cause of the resident’s repeat repair issues until November 2022. This left him unable to redecorate or lay carpet. As a result of the landlord’s delays he has experienced reduced living standards for a significant time.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was consistently poor requiring him to chase for updates over a significant period of time.
The resident states that the landlord is aware of his vulnerabilities and recorded his conditions during multiple tenancy visits over the years. The landlord has not transferred this information to the resident’s records.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s original complaint. It took 62 working days for the landlord to communicate with the resident and a total of 99 working days to send its stage 1 response. The landlord did not provide the resident with regular updates as set out in its complaints policy. The resident continues to report that repairs remain outstanding since the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £6,700. This comprises:
  1. £100 offered at stage 2 if not already paid.
  2. A further £6,000 for the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication with the resident.
  4. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. A further £200 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to visit the resident at the property. It should:
1. Determine if the property is safe.
2. Provide the resident with an update regarding the structural survey and soil sampling.
3. Provide the resident with an anticipated time frame of when work will commence. If this is not currently practicable, it should agree the frequency of providing the resident with updates and commit to this.
4. Discuss the process of underpinning a property and how the landlord manages such work when a property is occupied. It should explain whether a decant would be required and how it would manage this due to the resident’s health conditions and family make up.
5. Inspect the resident’s property and assess whether there are any outstanding repairs and consider what action other than underpinning the property is required to permanently stop any reoccurring issues. Particular attention should be made to:
  1. Assess the resident’s reports of mould and agree action that it will take to minimise the moisture within the property while scheduling the underpinning work.
  2. Inspect the property’s doors and ensure that there is no health and safety concerns that would restrict the resident’s ability to exit the building in the event of a fire.
6. Ensure the resident’s vulnerabilities are appropriately recorded on system. This may include the need for a reasonable adjustment that all appointments are communicated in advance.
Within 2 weeks of the date of the inspection the landlord is to provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of any repair works identified and a timetable for their completion.
Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to review internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities and ensure the resident’s circumstances are appropriately recorded on its system.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should within 4 weeks ensure that its complaint response letters provide residents with the appropriate referral information as of 1 October 2022 regarding referring their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report.