London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104537

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 May 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and its failure to address them.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with an assured tenancy. The property is a two-bedroom end of terrace house.
The repair log shows there is a history of disrepair to the roof and guttering dating back to May 2016.
The repair log shows the resident reported various bathroom repairs from May 2019. These included a faulty hot water tap and a leak to the wash hand basin.
The tenancy agreement says that repairs shall be carried out within a reasonable time of receiving a report of the defect.
The landlord’s repair policy says that with routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
On 23 March 2020, the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19, this was eased from June 2020. On 1 June 2020, the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice.” In addition, that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 31 March 2020, the landlord introduced a policy “Handling Emergency and Critical Repairs” which meant it was operating a repairs service for critical repairs and emergency repairs only.
On 6 January 2021, England entered a third national lockdown. A four-step process was introduced to ease restrictions starting the 8 March 2021 with most legal limits being lifted on 19 July 2021.

Summary of events

On 9 December 2020, the resident reported issues with damp and mould in her kitchen, bathroom, and hallway. She said that the problem had been going on a long time and she was feeling frustrated and distressed.
The same day the landlord raised a complaint explaining that someone would be in contact with her to provide an update and a resolution. In addition, it advised the resident its contractors would be in contact with her to make the relevant appointments.
The case notes show that between 10 December 2020 and 4 January 2021, repair orders were raised with notification being sent to both the resident and its contractors.
On 19 December 2020, the landlord’s contractors inspected the property with regards to the damp and mould. It identified that the extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not sufficient.
On 22 December 2020, the resident requested an inspection be carried out of her kitchen due to disrepair. The repair log shows this appointment was cancelled.
On 4 January 2021, a works order was raised following the damp and mould inspection with the case notes saying that both the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans “do not pass the tissue test”.
The repair log shows on 15 January 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident explaining that due to lockdown restrictions it was cancelling all non-emergency appointments and would rebook once restrictions were lifted.
On 22 April 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord with regards to her complaint of December 2020. It confirmed via email that it “would reactivate her original case.”
The repair log shows that on 6 May 2021, the resident again requested an inspection of her kitchen which she said was in a state of disrepair. The repair log shows this was carried out on 9 July 2021.
An inspection was carried out on 18 May 2021 identifying works that were required in the bathroom. These were to:
1. Replace the bath, wash handbasin and WC.
2. Hack off the tiles and the plaster in the bathroom.
3. Renew the wall tiles and fit polysafe flooring.
On 25 May 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two.
On 9 June 2021, the repair log shows that the bathroom flooring was replaced. However, additional case notes say “awaiting further instruction from landlord” in relation to the remaining works.
The repair log evidenced that the works order for the repairs to the bathroom were cancelled on 21 June 2021.
On 6 July 2021, an inspection was carried out identifying that “major works” were needed in relation to the kitchen. These included:
1. Renewing the worktop to the base units.
2. Replacing the doors and drawer fronts to the sink base unit.
3. Resealing the boxing below the boiler.
The resident called the landlord on 6 July 2021 to discuss the “ongoing issues and her complaint”.
On 9 July 2021, the resident called again requesting confirmation of what works were to be carried out. She was concerned that a plasterer had visited to carry out the replastering works, but the sink and bath had not yet been replaced.
On 19 July 2021, the resident reported that the timber beams in the loft were “twisted”, and the roof tile underlay was ripped. She confirmed the external works were completed but no checks were made internally. She said that the loft insulation had been taken up and poorly fitted. Furthermore, she thought the cause of the damp was from a poorly connected ventilation pipe in the loft that kept coming loose.
A works order was raised the same day for an inspection to be carried out of the roof, guttering and down pipes.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 19 July 2021 saying:
1. As part of a stage two review, it would recap the stage one, confirming it acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 January 2021 by phone.
2. It then followed this up with an email apologising for the poor service and confirmed the inspection would proceed once restrictions were lifted.
3. It apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage two. The landlord said it was “experiencing high volumes of escalations” and had “recruited a number of staff to handle the increase.”
4. Following the inspection in May 2021 repairs orders were raised to:
  1. Renew the poly-safe flooring in the kitchen.
  2. Replace the worktops.
  3. Replace the door and drawer fronts.
  4. Make and install boxing to the boiler pipework.
  5. Supply and install a new bath.
  6. Supply and install a new washbasin.
  7. Hack off the defective plaster / tiled surface, re-plaster where needed and fit new tiles.
  8. Renew the poly-safe flooring in the bathroom.
5. Some works were progressing, and some were waiting allocation.
6. It discussed other repairs highlighted by the resident relating to the roof, guttering, ducting and an obsolete fuse board.
7. An asbestos survey may need to be carried out prior to the works being started.
8. That its repair teams have “acted quickly and orders have been placed.” Furthermore, it would be in touch to arrange an inspection.
9. It was dealing with an “extremely high volume of backlog repairs and was prioritising the most urgent, and long-awaited repairs first.”
10. It apologised for the delay in resolving the matter, saying the delay was due to adhering to “government advice.” However, it accepted that the service the resident received “fell short of acceptable standards.”
11. It awarded the resident £100 for its complaint handling failure.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident providing an update following the final response. It provided dates for when certain works were to be carried out.
The landlord said that because the relevant works orders had been raised and allocated it was closing the complaint.
On 5 August 2021, an inspection of the roof was carried out. The case notes say that all the roof timbers “were fine,” nonetheless a plumber needed to inspect the flexipipe and relay any disturbed insulation.
However, the repair log shows the order to check gutters and downpipes were noted as “no action.”
An inspection of 12 August 2021 identified the following works as required (the wording is taken directly from the repair log):
1. Kitchen extractor fan – fill existing chase to conceal wiring and fill old raw plugs.
2. Secure bathroom ducting within the loft area to existing batten, as being held in position by items in the loft. Secure in place the flexi duct.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident saying that:
1. It was waiting on quotes for the work to the kitchen and bathroom.
2. The roof had been inspected and there were no issues identified. A works order had been raised for the “pipe work” to be inspected.
3. It said that its complaints team did not manage works orders and the resident should therefore contact the contact centre for any further queries.
On 17 September 2021, the repair log shows a works order was raised for an asbestos survey to be carried out. It is evidenced that this was carried out on 4 October 2021.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord advised the resident that due to it changing its contractors, major works had been placed on hold. Furthermore, it had chased a copy of the asbestos report which was needed for further works to be carried out. It said that once works had been carried out it would “look at awarding compensation.”
On 16 November 2021, the case notes evidenced that the landlord chased the contractor regarding the asbestos survey.
On 18 November 2021, an inspection was carried out of the rainwater guttering. It recommended to “renew 20 meters of deep flow gutters and eave trays”.
The resident contacted this service on 31 January 2022 saying that there had been no progress to her complaint.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it was experiencing high demand for repairs and therefore she could be waiting several weeks to receive an appointment. It said it would chase the asbestos report as it had not yet received this. It also advised it would look at awarding compensation once the works had been completed.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord sent an email chasing its contractors regarding the asbestos survey, requesting confirmation that it had been carried out.
On 15 March 2022 it wrote to the resident saying that:
1. It apologised again for the delay in getting the works done.
2. It cited the reasons being lockdown restrictions and bad weather.
3. It had chased works to the loft area following the asbestos report.
4. An appointment had been booked for 14 April 2022 for the extraction fan vent pipe to be refitted.
5. It awarded the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in getting the repairs done.
The resident responded the same day saying that:
1. Mould had appeared in the rooms upstairs most noticeably where the ventilation pipe was not fitted securely.
2. She requested an update as to when the works to the bathroom and kitchen would be carried out.
3. What it was going to do about the mould in the rooms upstairs.
4. Was the £300 compensation for just the ventilation issues as no other work had been done.
A repair order was raised on 15 March 2022 to refit the vent pipe for the extractor and clip into place. The notes say that a plumber and electrician should attend together with an allocated time of 3 hours required. The repair log also shows this as “complete” the same day.
On 18 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord requesting a response to her previous email. She advised that there were cracks and mould appearing in one of the bedrooms which she thought was caused by problems with the roof.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident following a telephone conversation. It again apologised for the delay in the length of time it was taking to carry out the repair work. It said that due to the extent of the damage and the delay, it had arranged for another surveyor to visit on 29 March 2022, however this could be subject to change. Furthermore, it would revise the compensation offered once all the works were completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2021 advising that no one attended the inspection she says was booked for 28 March 2021.
On 19 April 2022, the landlord’s contractor visited the property in relation to the guttering. It identified that the guttering would need to be cleared on a regular basis as there were only two rainwater pipes serving the whole block.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 April 2022 listing appointment dates for the works:
1. 23 August 2022 for the plastering work in the kitchen
2. 31 August 2022 for the plastering work in the bathroom
3. 21 June 2022 for the boxing in of the pipe work under the boiler
4. 13 May 2022 to replace the damaged bathroom sink.
In addition, it said it had repaired the bathroom radiator on 10 April 2022 and she would be contacted directly by the contractor to arrange an appointment for replacing the hallway carpet and bathroom lino.
Also, it had revised its offer of compensation to £640 as a good will gesture, considering the length of time it took to resolve this issue and for the resident’s time and effort in getting the landlord to resolve the problem.
On 13 May 2022, a plumber visited the resident with a view to replacing the sink. The same day the resident contacted the landlord raising concerns following this visit and requested a call back.
The landlord telephoned the resident and followed up the conversation in an email with the subject line stage one complaint decision saying that:
1. It had emailed her on 29 April 2022 listing the works that had been raised following the inspection of the kitchen and bathroom.
2. It confirmed its surveyor found no damage to the roof following their inspection in April 2022.
3. A works order had been raised to replace the bathroom radiator with its previous contractors, however this had not been done prior to them leaving. It therefore booked an appointment for this to be replaced on 27 May 2022.
4. It investigated the plumbers visit, and confirmed the operative raised a new works order for the bathroom sink, bath, flooring, and wall tiles to be replaced. It said that the first appointment would be to measure and assess what was required prior to carrying out the works.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience that the works had caused.
6. It would keep the complaint open until the works had started or had been completed. In addition, it would be revisiting its previous offer of £640 compensation due to the service delivery failure.
The resident responded the same day saying that:
1. The landlord put the phone down on her.
2. The works to the kitchen and bathroom should be done at the same time and not as individual works.
3. She had taken time off work to provide access and had not refused access.
4. She raised damage to her kitchen units, worktops, and tiles. Furthermore, there were holes following the removal of redundant ventilation.
5. Due to mould coming back in the bedrooms she could not utilise these rooms and the landlord’s response was to provide her with clean kits to clean the area herself.
6. She wanted to know why the works had not been carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
7. She said that the matters need to be addressed as a matter of urgency as it was affecting her “health and wellbeing.”
On 13 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with the subject line “stage three complaint decision” saying that:
1. Before terminating the call, it explained to the resident that it could not answer all her queries at that time and was “going round in circles” with the resident becoming “more frustrated.”
2. It referred the resident to its previous email of the day, repeating the information already provided.
3. Works could not always be carried out all at the same time due to availability.
4. The surveyor’s inspection did not identify works needed for the kitchen units or worktops and that her complaint was in relation to the previous inspection not being carried out.
5. It would not be addressing issues from 2016 as they should have been raised within 12 months.
On 16 August 2022, the resident raised concerns that her appointment for replacement bathroom sink, bath, flooring, and wall tiles had been cancelled. She wanted confirmation that the plastering work would be carried out prior to the bathroom being fitted. She also said that “mould had started to appear in one of the rooms again.”
The landlord responded the same day apologising for the fact the bathroom works had been cancelled. It said that the works order was closed due to the contractor not having any availability. It said it would investigate the matter and “action it as a priority.” Furthermore, it could not guarantee that the bathroom items would be replaced prior to the plastering works.
The repair log provided to this service evidenced the following works as “outstanding.” The wording has been taken straight from the log:
1. Bathroom radiator to be renewed as it is rusty.
2. Make good boxing underneath boiler not fixed due to removal when new boiler was installed.
3. Reboard waterproof and plaster bathroom wall.
4. Make good wall plastering around kitchen air vent, also all hairline cracks in kitchen area.
During recent contact with the resident, she explained that the sink and bath had been replaced in her bathroom, but the following works remain outstanding:
1. Replacement of WC.
2. Replastering in the bathroom.
3. Lack of sufficient ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. Furthermore, she is unsure if the ducting in the loft is secure.
4. Tiling in the kitchen.
5. Boxing in under the boiler.
6. She said the plastering in the kitchen was “poor and uneven.”
On 2 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident thanking her for her patience. It said that most of the works had been carried out and it was revising its award of compensation. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs to her home, it was awarding the resident £1320.00 “as a goodwill gesture”.
Following recent contact with this service the resident advised that several appointments for the works had been cancelled and she felt frustrated. Furthermore, the lack of communication from her landlord had contributed to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Although it is noted the resident has concerns about storm damage from 2016, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from December 2020 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Damp and mould repairs

Under the Housing Health and Safety rating system, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its properties are free from hazards, such as the hazard damp and mould. It outlines preventative measures for mitigating any such hazard, including:
1. Properly installed rainwater goods, including gutters and rainwater pipes capable of removing rainwater from the roof and carrying it away from the property into proper means of disposal.
2. There should be sufficient and appropriate means of ventilation to deal with moisture generated by normal domestic activities, without the need to open windows. Opening windows can result in heat loss.
3. There should be provisions for the removal of moisture-laden air. For example, extraction during cooking or bathing, either by mechanical means, or passive stack ventilation.
The landlord became aware of the damp and mould issues at the property following the resident’s report in December 2020. It instructed a damp specialist to inspect the property which was appropriate; this survey identified that follow-on works were needed.
As detailed in the timeline above there were five inspections carried out between December 2020 and April 2022, each identified repair issues with the property which could have been contributing factors to the damp and mould.
The repair log shows the work to the kitchen and bathroom fans was completed the same day as the damp specialist visit of January 2021. The resident has confirmed that the fans were replaced however, she feels they are insufficient in removing the moisture, as there is still mould spotting in the bathroom and around the pipes.
In July 2021, the resident reported issues with the roof which she considered were contributing to the damp and mould issue throughout the property. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an inspection of the loft area in August 2021. This confirmed there were no issues with the beams but identified that the flexi ducting for the extractor fans needed inspecting and that the disturbed insulation needed re-laying.
Despite identifying the need to refit the vent pipe in August 2021, it was not until March 2022 that the repair was completed. This was over seven months later which was inappropriate.
The landlord was not proactive in its response to addressing the reports of damp and mould. It would have been aware that the delay in addressing this issue could further exacerbate the damp and mould issue experienced by the resident which was unfair. This would have also caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
There were two inspections carried out in relation to the rainwater guttering in November 2021 and April 2022, that identified the need to replace the guttering and carry out regular clearance of the gutters. The repair log does not evidence that this work was carried out. An order has been made later in relation to the regular maintenance of the rainwater guttering.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord had experienced backlogs due to covid restriction and delays when changing contractor, nevertheless, that does not mitigate the significant delay the resident had experienced over the last two years.
In summary the landlord was aware of the damp and mould issues from December 2020, and although it carried out various inspections identifying contributing factors, it did not take suitable action to address it. This was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy.
It took seven months to repair the flexiduct that was contributing to the damp and mould in the bathroom. The resident says that some mould spotting remains, particularly at the pipework. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest the guttering work has been completed. There were no lockdown restrictions in place during the period of August 2021 and March 2022. This delay would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a long period of time. In addition to the frustration, she felt in pursuing the matter.

Bathroom repairs

An inspection was carried out in relation to the bathroom in May 2021, identifying works that were required. The repair log evidenced that the flooring was replaced in June 2021 which was carried out within a reasonable time frame as per its repair policy.
In relation to the remaining bathroom works its contractor said it was waiting for further instructions from the landlord and a works order for 21 June 2021 was cancelled. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek further clarification on what works were required and at what cost. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord updated the resident on 13 September 2021 that it was waiting for quotes in relation to the bathroom works.
However, the resident confirmed to this service that the bath and sink were only recently replaced on 25 March 2023. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord one year and 10 months to carry out these works, this would have caused the resident significant distress over a prolonged period.
Furthermore, it had previously advised the resident in August 2022, that it would prioritise the works given the ongoing delay she experienced. It then took another six months to complete the works.
This service acknowledges the lockdown restrictions that were in place, between January 2021 and July 2021, nevertheless those were eased in March 2021, fully lifted in July 2021 and therefore the delay was not reasonable.
It has been evidenced that several appointments had been cancelled in relation to renewing tiles and replastering the bathroom following the damp specialist inspection of 19 December 2020. The resident said that this work is still outstanding. It is not appropriate that this work remains outstanding over two years after being identified as required. Furthermore, it is not in line with its repairs policy that says it will aim to complete a repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
In summary the landlord identified the required works in the bathroom in May 2021, with follow up inspections noting the need to replace the bathroom suite. The wash hand basin and bath were not replaced until March 2023, nearly two years later. This was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy to carry out repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.

Kitchen repairs

The resident requested an inspection be carried out of her kitchen in December 2020 as she was concerned about its state of repair. The landlord did not carry out an inspection until 6 July 2021. This was reasonable because at the time of the resident’s report it was only carrying out critical or emergency repairs in light of the covid restrictions that were in place.
The inspection notes from July 2021 identified that “major works” were required. It is unclear from the evidence if the state of the kitchen was due to damage or through age or wear and tear. Its repair policy says kitchens will be replaced through a planned program of works.
Given the items identified as needing replacing – the worktops, drawer fronts and doors, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider these works under its program of works policy. The resident recently confirmed to this service that the works to the kitchen remain outstanding.
The landlord advised the resident in its email of 13 May 2022 that its contractor “did not identify works needed for the kitchen unit or worktop”. This is conflicting to previous reports which said they needed replacement. An order has therefore been made, below, to address this.
This service acknowledges that the landlord experienced backlogs due to covid restriction and delays when changing contractor, nevertheless this does not mitigate the significant delay the resident had experienced over the last two years. Had the landlord provided the resident with regular updates and communication, this could have alleviated any frustration she may have felt.
In summary it has been over two years since the resident’s initial reports regarding her kitchen and over 18 months since the landlord identified the works. The resident has confirmed that these works remain outstanding, in addition to the landlord’s repair log evidencing this.

Overall

The resident has experienced significant delays in pursuing the repairs to her property which has caused her distress and inconvenience. Over a two-year period, the property has been in some form of disrepair. Therefore, the above failings by the landlord amount to severe maladministration.

Compensation

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 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
A total award of £1320 was offered to the resident “as a good will gesture” for the length of time it took to resolve the issues and for the resident’s time and effort in getting the landlord to resolve the problem. As this was offered in November 2022, 17 months after the landlord’s stage two final complaint response, it cannot fairly be considered to be redress offered during the internal complaint procedure.
In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue and over what period of time consideration had been given.
Nevertheless, this amount does not reflect the impact, the delays and outstanding repairs have had on the resident over a prolonged period of time. The property being in a state of disrepair for almost two years would have caused significant distress and inconvenience, with the resident also finding it affected her family visits too.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent related element based on a refund of around 15% for the 105-week delay period. The delay period being December 2020 to May 2023. Six months between January 2021 and July 2021, has been deducted for periods where lockdown restrictions were in place. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £2268 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 15% of the weekly rent (£144.07) at 105 weeks. Also, an additional £600 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the outstanding repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy operates a two-stage process. It says that stage one responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two responses sent within 20 working days.
The resident first raised her complaint in December 2020, and from the evidence provided, it is unclear if there was a formal stage one response sent to the resident. Various emails were sent with the subject line “stage one.” For example, an email was sent to the resident on 27 July 2021 with the subject title stage one. However, the content of the email referred to her stage two complaint. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that no formal response was sent until the resident requested an escalation of her complaint in May 2021, some six months later. This was not appropriate and would have been very confusing for the resident, adding to her frustration.
Furthermore, during the process of our investigation, the resident appeared to have been confused as to what stage her complaint was at. For instance, the resident advised this service that her complaint was at “stage four,” we clarified that there was no stage four within the complaint process.
On 25 May 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two. However, the landlord did not send its response until 19 July 2021, some 38 working days later. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the complaint handling code whereby stage two responses will be sent within 20 working days.
The landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged that its communication with the resident had not been of an acceptable standard. In recognition of this failure, it awarded the resident £100 compensation which demonstrated its attempt to put things right.
In addition, it explained to the resident that it was “experiencing high volumes of escalations” and had “recruited a number of staff to handle the increase.” The landlord acted reasonably by clarifying the reasons for the delay and what action it was taking to ensure it did not happen again.
After its final response, the landlord continued to engage with the resident via email. Although this was appropriate to continue communications to update the resident on works, the response in May 2022, was titled stage three complaint which would have been confusing. This was not appropriate as the landlord does not operate a three-stage complaints process.
It was also not appropriate to continue to increase its award of compensation after its final response. For example, the landlord significantly increased its award of compensation in November 2022 which was 17 months after its final response.
Overall, a total award of £100 compensation was offered to the resident for its complaints handling failures. This award does not reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a prolonged period of time when pursuing her complaint. It has been evidenced that the resident had been confused as to the complaints process itself. The landlord failing to follow its complaints process was a direct cause of this and would have contributed to the delay in resolving the matter promptly for the resident. Again, causing her considerable frustration.
As evidenced above there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling, therefore £250 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and its failure to address them.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration for its complaint handling failure.

Reasons

The landlord was aware of the damp and mould issues from December 2020, but did not take suitable action to address it. It took seven months to repair the flexiduct that was contributing to the damp and mould in the bathroom. Also, there is no evidence to suggest the guttering work has been completed or continued to be monitored to prevent the issue getting any worse.
The landlord identified works needed to the bathroom in May 2021. It advised the resident in August 2022 that it would prioritise the works but then took another six months to start them. The bath and sink were not replaced until nearly two years later.
The work to the kitchen remains outstanding, despite the landlord carrying out an inspection over 18 months ago and the resident reporting issues with her kitchen nearly two years ago. Furthermore, the landlord was conflicting in its reports as to what works were required by advising the resident that the worktops and base units did not need replacing.
Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on her. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing confusion and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £3118 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, consisting of:
1. £2268 to reflect the impact on the resident in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and its failure to address them.
2. An additional £600 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the outstanding repairs.
3. An additional £250 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
The £3118 replaces the landlord’s previous award of £1320. The total amount can be reduced by any of the £1320 compensation already paid.
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Provide the resident and this service with a schedule of all outstanding works and estimation of time scale for completion. The works should be completed within eight weeks of this determination.
Instruct a surveyor to inspect the kitchen to determine what requires replacement, providing a clear record detailing what criteria was used in determining this, and the outcome, and send a copy of this to the resident and this Service. Any repair should be carried out within eight weeks of this determination.
If not already done so, within 4 weeks of this determination carry out the recommendations of its roofing contractor and provide evidence to this service:
1. Renew 20 meters of deep flow gutters and eave trays.
2. Consider how it can regularly inspect and clear the guttering.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the handling of reports of damp and mould and consider whether it would be appropriate to review or introduce a specific policy in relation to how it responds to reports of damp and mould. The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report on damp and mould for further detail and recommendations.