London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202012865)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012865

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 April 2023 (original report issued 14 March 2023)

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s ongoing damp and mould concerns;
2. Response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns;
3. Complaint handling;
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

This report was reissued on 28 April 2023 after the resident disputed the rent figures underpinning the Ombudsman’s original redress calculation. Our initial calculation used the below figure taken from the tenancy agreement. The resident subsequently told us her weekly rent was £149.93 between 5 April 2021 and 3 April 2022, and £156.08 from 4 April 2022 to date. The Ombudsman confirmed these figures using statements obtained from the landlord. A revised calculation increased the Ombudsman’s total compensation by £676.58.
The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in 2008. The property is a three-bedroom mid-terrace house with a garden. The information seen suggests the resident occupies the property with her children. The Ombudsman has only seen part of the resident’s tenancy agreement. It shows the weekly rent is £111.94. It also shows a leaking roof is considered an emergency repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy details its repairing responsibilities. It shows the landlord is obliged to maintain the structure and exterior of the property, including: walls, roofs, windows and boundary fences. The resident is responsible for internal decoration, along with repairs that: require no technical ability, use common household tools and involve low cost parts. However, after undertaking repair work, such as plastering, the landlord will either decorate or offer decorating vouchers.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
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. Local authorities have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If additional investigation time is needed, a further ten working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed. After the landlord has agreed a resolution in writing it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history suggests most of the property’s wooden windows were replaced around September 2019. The corresponding repair order said, “Whole property – Windows (wood) – rotting and deteriorating…Also very draughty”. Around the same time, a further repair order said the resident needed assistance with a “mould wash kit”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2020. She said damp and mould had lifted the property’s wallpaper over the years. Further, mould had been “festering” behind the paper. Underneath, the walls were in poor condition with brickwork exposed in some places. Overall, she said the property was in a “bad state of repair” and previous repair works failed to resolve matters. She was also concerned about water ingress from outside. Her main points were:
1. Roof tiles were missing and there were problems with the front and rear doors. Two window frames were rotting and glazing was blown. In 2019, a surveyor recommended repairing the blown panes and replacing two rear windows. However, the landlord subsequently advised, on cost grounds, replacement windows could not be installed outside of a major works programme.
2. The property was “very cold” in the winter. The resident’s energy costs were high because it could not be insulated. This situation was contributing to the damp and mould. Over time, the family experienced a number of health issues including chest problems. The resident was concerned they were linked to mould under the wallpaper.
3. There was broken fencing in the garden and a wall to the front of the property was broken. Wallpaper had been used to mask various issues which the resident could not afford to fix. The situation was distressing, and the resident wanted to bring it to the landlord’s attention.
The landlord’s complaint records confirm it issued a same day acknowledgement. It said the resident would be given a resolution within days. The records show the resident was updated, around eight working days later, on 1 July 2020. The landlord said all non-emergency works were on hold due to the pandemic. However, there were four outstanding repair orders, which would address: broken fencing, radiator repairs, damage around a window and plastering under a bay. The landlord said it would try to expedite any external works and update the resident.
Between 5 and 13 August 2020 the landlord exchanged emails with an MP acting on the resident’s behalf. The MP said it failed to respond to the resident’s disrepair concerns. The landlord replied it had completed 16 repair orders since 2017. Further, aside from the window repairs, all outstanding works were now complete. It said delays occurred due to the difficulty tracing a leak, which contributed to mould growth during the interim period. However, a deep clean was completed as part of the repairs. The landlord’s key points were:
1. Window repair delays were acknowledged. An initial replacement order was amended so the landlord could determine if the windows were repairable. The landlord intended to prioritise the works once pandemic restrictions lifted.
2. Pandemic restrictions were likely to cause further delays. However, the landlord would improve its communication with the resident and her complaint was ongoing. A full response would be issued on completion of the window works. The property’s condition would be considered from a disrepair perspective and compensation may be awarded.
The MP replied on 3 September 2020. They said the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events. For example, the property had not been deep cleaned and there were four outstanding repair orders. Further, despite two chaser emails from the resident, the landlord had not responded to her formal complaint. The MP said the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s approach to complaints and its failure to provide a repair timescale.
During internal correspondence on 9 September 2020, the landlord’s maintenance representative said “my feeling is for £2000 we should have replaced the windows but now we need to look at repairing them.” This suggests the landlord previously obtained a quote to replace the remaining wooden windows. The representative said a surveyor should inspect the windows and other issues. Within days, the landlord instructed its Area Surveyor to inspect the property. It said the inspection should capture all outstanding works.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord updated the MP. It said a deep clean “was not part of the agreement with the resident.” However, she had been issued a “mould kit” which may have prompted the misunderstanding. It also confirmed the resident’s outstanding repairs would be rescheduled as soon as possible. It said, whilst it could now begin completing non-urgent repairs, the resident’s works formed part of a backlog that needed to be managed.
On 22 September 2020 the surveyor inspected the property. The Ombudsman has not seen a formal survey report. However, the surveyor submitted their findings during an internal email on 29 September 2020. The landlord subsequently asked them for supporting images to aid its decision-making. The resident later said the surveyor did not make notes and failed to capture all the required repairs. The surveyor’s email highlighted 19 areas of concern. The key points were:
1. Pebble dash to the front elevation needed repairing. Rear guttering was leaking and waste was discharging into the property from next-door. Water ingress from a roof leak was affecting the front bedroom.
2. The resident had paid for plastering and redecoration works in the lounge. The radiator was not removed during these works. Since she was reporting falling plaster and draughts, plastering works should be completed behind the radiator.
3. Wallpaper in the hallway and rear bedroom had been stripped revealing “various areas” of blown and poorly repaired plaster. The resident wanted these areas skimmed so she could decorate.
4. An FED (presumed fire exit door) multi-lock was defective. The kitchen door was missing several components, and needed repairs to ensure “satisfactory fire protection compliance”. The staircase did not conform to current regulations due to the spacing of the spindles.
5. The bathroom and back bedroom windows were single glazed and rotten. All the other windows were UPVC. UPVC replacements were recommended given their condition and the lack of consistency. There was blown glazing in bedroom and living room windows.
6. The front garden wall needed to be demolished given its condition. Paving and drainage was required to prevent the path from flooding. Two sections of the rear garden fence were “down”. Though the landlord completely replaced the property’s fence, the resident felt her neighbour would not address their fallen sections.
On 13 October 2020 the landlord updated the MP. Its email was prompted by the MP’s request for a list of works arising from the inspection. This request suggests the landlord failed to communicate its findings to the resident. Internal correspondence from the following day shows the landlord had raised three works orders comprising: roofing repairs, UPVC/window repairs and general building repairs. Repair records show the general building repairs order covered a significant amount of internal and external works.
Further emails were exchanged between 21 and 22 October 2020. The MP said the landlord failed to provide a repair timescale. They also highlighted several issues the resident said were either incorrect or overlooked. These issues included: bathroom walls in “disrepair” with mould prominent on the ceiling, damp wall in the small bedroom and a defective radiator. The landlord replied after consulting its maintenance team. The key points were:
1. The small bedroom was not inspected and no mould was present on the bathroom walls. However, a specialist damp and mould contractor would now inspect the property. An engineer would attend the radiator.
2. The identified repairs should be complete by 9 December 2020. This timescale had been shared with the resident.
During internal correspondence around this time, the landlord asked if the resident knew she would be contracted by various contractors arranging works. The email said, “I’m not sure who is keeping the customer informed other than the MP’s office”.
The landlord’s repair history shows a works order for multiple UPVC repairs was marked complete on 11 November 2020. The order referenced a blown living room window pane, a locking mechanism and beading. The landlord’s internal notes, from 18 November 2020, said the resident cancelled the works because she did not want engineers attending the property until pandemic restrictions lifted.
The specialist damp contractor inspected the property on 16 December 2020. The inspection report said there were signs of a roof leak and indications of damp within the property. It shows walls were water marked and mould was identified in the: bathroom, main bedroom, “third” bedroom and dining room. It said the roof should be repaired along with the rotten bedroom and bathroom window frames. Further, cleaning and shielding works were needed to address the mould. It shows the resident was given extensive advice about managing condensation.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord issued an informal complaint response. This was around seven months after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord’s email did not detail the complaint stage, outcome or rationale. Despite exceeding its December 2020 deadline, the landlord did not attempt to identify any delays or failures. It said the required works were being scheduled, but formed part of a Covid backlog. Further, the resident’s complaint would be closed. This was contrary to its August 2020 assurance that a full response would be issued once window repairs were complete. The main points were:
1. A complaint had been raised with the landlord’s Healthy Homes Team, which would handle any damp and mould issues. The specialist damp contractor would handle any related works.
2. The landlord’s window contractor would contact the resident to arrange the window works.
3. Fencing works were scheduled for 19 May 2021
On 25 January 2021 the MP referred the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman. They said there had been limited progress in relation to the repairs and no formal complaint response. We approached the landlord on 7 February 2021. We said it should contact the resident and clarify her concerns. The landlord’s records show it spoke to her the following day. During a follow up email to the resident, the landlord said it would respond to her concerns by 19 February 2021. It subsequently failed to meet this response deadline.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord updated the resident about the outstanding works. It said it no longer used its general building contractor, so the relevant (extensive) works were on hold until the contractor was replaced. Further, plastering works were on hold due to government guidelines. The landlord said it would not remove the radiator until these works could be scheduled. However, its window contractor and damp specialist would soon attend the property.
The repair history shows the replacement windows and multiple UPVC repairs were completed between 22 and 25 February 2021. The damp contractor’s records show it completed the recommended mould treatment works on 26 February 2021. They also confirm the rotten windows had been replaced. Around the same time, the resident reported a contractor advised there were “countless issues” with the “unsafe” patio doors. She said they also identified more blown glazing and defective hinges. She felt additional repair issues had arisen due to the time that passed since the surveyor’s inspection.
In early March 2021, the resident reported an unscheduled contractor visit to the property. She said she was told plastering works were on hold due to restrictions. Further, once lifted, the landlord would contact her to arrange an appointment. She also said the radiator needed removing beforehand, but the landlord had failed to coordinate the works. The landlord subsequently apologised for an internal communication error. Later that month, the landlord chased its roofing contractor. The contractor replied it completed the works in November 2020. The information seen indicates an inspection occurred at this time.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord told the resident it had appointed a new general building contractor. It said the contractor would contact her in due course about the repairs. Its email contained a list of the scheduled works. The resident replied the list contained errors and it overlooked previously acknowledged issues. She also said there were still issues with the patio doors despite repairs on 3 March 2021. Overall, she said, chasing repairs and correcting mistakes had caused “no end of stress”. She also said she was having health problems and the situation was contributing to her anxiety.
The repair history shows roofing repairs to the front bay window were completed on 12 April 2021. This was around ten months after the resident’s initial complaint, which raised concerns about related water ingress and damp. It was also around seven months after the surveyor’s inspection.
The MP wrote to the Housing Ombudsman on 25 May 2021. They said they were concerned the health and safety of social housing residents was being overlooked. Their correspondence included a recent letter from the resident. It said the majority of works were still outstanding, and there were quality issues with some completed repairs. Further, the resident was unable to make the property a home due to its condition. Nor could she afford to complete the required works herself. The main points were:
1. The resident was unhappy with the scope of the landlord’s agreed works. She felt all the wallpaper should be removed “to rid the house of mould”. She also said the landlord should reimburse her for plastering works in the living room. She accepted she had not obtained the landlord’s permission in advance. However, the room was in poor condition and she knew (at that time) the landlord was only responding to emergency repairs.
The landlord’s repair history shows the second repair order for extensive works, raised with the landlord’s new general building contractor, was marked complete on 2 June 2021. The below events show multiple repairs from this order remained outstanding. This suggests the order was incorrectly marked complete.
On 15 June 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue a stage two response by 13 July 2021. Our letter contained details of the resident’s preferred resolution. It confirmed she wanted her plastering expenses to be reimbursed. During internal correspondence the following day, the landlord said it could not see an escalation request from the resident. Further internal correspondence, on 19 June 2021, said there was no record of the September 2020 inspection on the landlord’s systems. It also said a further inspection may be needed to identify the outstanding repairs.
The following events occurred between 29 June and 9 July 2021:
1. During internal correspondence, the landlord’s complaint handler described the complaint as “messy” due to the multiple repairs. They also said they “struggled to make sense of the repairs history”. Their correspondence shows the extensive general building repairs were outstanding. Records show the handler spoke to the resident and issued a formal complaint acknowledgement on 30 June 2021.
2. During further internal correspondence, the landlord said its new general building contractor was “proving unreliable”. However, it had no alternative contractors available within the same district. The information seen suggests the landlord was unable to contact the contractor on a number of occasions. The landlord subsequently decided not to change contractor.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 13 July 2021. The response was issued around five months after the landlord’s 19 February 2021 response deadline expired. The landlord apologised for a delay at stage two. It said repairs were delayed from March 2020 due to the pandemic. Further, it was operating a limited repair service between March 2020 and April 2021. However, repairs, communication and responses to the resident’s enquiries should have been managed more effectively. As a result, the landlord said its service fell below acceptable standards. The key points were:
1. The landlord noted the resident was not issued a formal stage one response. This was contrary to the landlord’s process. At stage two it communicated with the her by email in February, March, April and May 2021. However, delayed responses were noted and the resident should not have needed to contact the Ombudsman again.
2. The landlord would complete a joint inspection imminently with its general building contractor. Its UPVC contractor would restore the patio doors on 8 July 2021. The landlord would monitor the outstanding repairs and the complaint would remain open until works were complete.
3. The resident was awarded £320 in compensation. The landlord had briefed its senior managers about her case. Staff were interviewed, including at the contractor, and training was provided. The case was also referred to an internal “complaints learning group”.
The resident replied the same day with a list around 31 repair issues. The list detailed outstanding, completed and new repairs. It said there were ongoing leaks, including into the main bedroom – where unfinished repairs, dating from 2019, had left a “large hole” in the (external) wall. The key points were:
1. The list including the following outstanding works: remove living room and bedroom radiators to facilitate plastering works to bay, repair loose plaster in dining room and hallway, fit new fire door, replace staircase spindles and repair stair tread, demolish garden wall and repair leaking guttering.
2. New repairs included: kitchen redesign to increase storage, bathroom upgrade, noisy heating pipework and boarding under the stairs.
3. The specialist contractor’s December 2020 inspection resulted in mould washing works. However, the contractor was unable access “certain areas” because wallpaper was still on the walls. Further, mould had since returned even though the resident followed the contractor’s advice.
The landlord replied within days. It said some of the listed items were improvements and its repairs service was reactive. However, the landlord would discuss the resident’s list during the upcoming inspection.
The information seen suggests the joint inspection occurred on 22 July 2021. A different surveyor attended on the landlord’s behalf. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report. However, the landlord emailed the resident’s list to its contractor on 26 July 2021. It said the contractor should quote for the highlighted works, which were needed promptly to bring the property up to required standards. The key points were:
1. The bay should be checked for any source of water ingress. Pebble dashing to the front elevation should be renewed and “sika” treated to “mitigate water penetration”.
2. “Any leftover lining and wall paper” should be removed to prepare for plastering works
3. In relation to mould, no action was needed since advice was given to the resident during the inspection.
The following events occurred between 13 September and 2 December 2021:
1. The resident told the landlord she received no communication after the joint inspection. She said she was “stressed and depressed” with no end in sight. Further, her mutual exchange listing received no interest due to the amount of issues with the property.
2. During internal communication, the landlord said its general building contractor’s quotation was “a lot”. Further, an alternative contractor had been asked to provide a quote. However, it was having difficulty contacting the resident.
3. After it was unable to access the property on 28 September 2021, the landlord scheduled an inspection in mid-October 2021. The information seen suggests the appointment related to the alternative contractor’s quote.
4. The resident asked the landlord why it was taking so long to approve the roofing works. She said a roofing contractor inspected the property in November 2020. Further, the condition of the leak affected interior wall was worsening daily. She felt the loft insulation must be damp and rotten.
The Ombudsman has seen limited information about events relating to the period between December 2021 and October 2022. However, the landlord’s repair history shows the specialist damp contractor completed treatment works on 15 November 2022 to address damp bedroom walls. From the resident’s later correspondence, the contractor advised the issue may relate to the property’s external guttering. The correspondence suggests the guttering was ultimately cleared following this recommendation.
In December 2022 the resident exchanged emails with the landlord’s surveyor. Her correspondence included several images. The information seen suggests the resident raised a new formal complaint following the exchange. The below is a summary of the key points from the interaction:
1. The resident said the wall beside her daughter’s bed was again “soaking wet” despite two previous damp and mould treatments. Further, having peeled away the wallpaper, she was upset to find an accumulation of mould in the area next to the pillow. She said her daughter recently received treatment for a respiratory infection and she could no-longer sleep in the room. The landlord should therefore remove the wallpaper and conduct a thorough investigation.
2. The surveyor said the landlord had not installed the wallpaper in the small bedroom. Further, in line with its policies, internal decorations were a resident responsibility. They said the resident should keep the property warm and ensure air circulation. They also said it was best not to let mould develop in the first instance. The surveyor subsequently denied blaming the resident for the situation.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 15 February 2023. She said the landlord completed substantial building works around summer 2022. Further, there were no damp or mould issues in the rooms subjected to these works. However, there was damp and mould in the property’s small bedroom and noisy pipework was still an issue. The resident also said she was recently notified about an upcoming survey. However, the landlord failed to communicate the purpose of the visit. Her main points were:
1. The resident gave up reporting the ongoing damp in the small bedroom. The landlord’s surveyor disputed it was damp based on images the resident provided. Their findings contradicted the landlord’s Healthy Homes Team, which previously treated the area for damp. The surveyor also said the resident had installed the room’s wallpaper (implying the landlord’s previous instruction to remove all wall paper from 2008 did not apply).
2. Previous surveyors had been “combative”. On other occasions they acknowledged issues but advised the landlord was unlikely to address them. The landlord’s initial complaint handler failed to respond to the resident’s emails over a prolonged period.
Later that day, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for additional information. Information requested included: the property’s repair history to date, a copy of the specialist damp contractor’s inspection report, a copy of the joint inspection report from July 2021 and any subsequent inspection reports. The landlord responded around one week later. It was unable to provide any formal inspection reports from July 2021 onwards. The below is a summary of the key points from the landlord’s information:
1. The landlord’s surveyor said the general building works were completed around 5 September 2022. However, the small bedroom was not subject to works because no damp was identified when the repair works were specified. The surveyor said they subsequently noticed the bedroom wallpaper had been affected by “excessive internal humidity”.
2. The resident was responsible for the internal decorations. However, the surveyor previously agreed to reattach the disputed bedroom wallpaper as a goodwill gesture. They said, in total, works to the property exceeded £30K in value. Elsewhere, they told the landlord’s complaint handler an order could be raised to address the bedroom if the complaint escalated further.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or calculate or award damages. In other words, we cannot establish whether the damp and mould caused any health issues.
It may help to explain that this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. The resident should raise any recent concerns, such as banging pipework, with the landlord in the first instance. The Ombudsman can consider this issue once it has exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process. In contrast to the pipework, damp and mould formed part of the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord’s repair records did not reference a hole in a wall dating back to 2019.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s ongoing damp and mould concerns

The timeline shows the resident has ongoing concerns about the landlord’s approach to damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. Since the resident recently confirmed her other concerns were resolved by the landlord’s 2022 repair works, this assessment will begin by considering the live damp and mould issue.
The landlord arranged a specialist damp inspection in response to the resident’s initial mould concerns. This was appropriate action given the extent of the reported mould. Several recommendations arose from the 2020 inspection, and the resident was given extensive advice around managing the situation. On 13 July 2021 she reported mould had returned despite previous treatment works. The timeline shows the landlord initially responded by reiterating previous advice around managing condensation and mould. However, further treatment works were ultimately completed around November 2022.
By clearing the gutter, the landlord acted on the recommendations of its specialist contractor. While it was correct to say internal decorations were typically a resident responsibility, HHSRS confirms landlords have wider obligations in terms of health and safety. In this case, contrary to HHSRS, no information was seen to show the landlord attempted to implement any ongoing monitoring of the situation. The evidence suggests a proactive approach was necessary given two lots of treatment works and advice seemingly failed to resolve the issue.
The resident has said she felt the landlord blamed her for the damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on Damp and mould” report, from October 2021, said landlords should avoid actions that place the onus solely on residents. Instead, they should consider what mitigations can be put in place to support them, with a view to ensuring they are taking all reasonable steps. This is consistent with HHSRS’ approach of starting with a programme of improvement works. Landlord’s cannot keep repeating treatment works whilst blaming a resident’s lifestyle.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s approach to the resident’s ongoing damp and mould concerns. The evidence shows the landlord, contrary to HHSRS, failed to implement any ongoing monitoring to address a persistent damp and problem. In other words, it failed to adopt a proactive approach. The resident said she gave up reporting ongoing damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom and she felt she was being blamed. It is reasonable to conclude this situation was distressing.

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

The resident raised disrepair concerns in June 2020. These were confirmed informally by the surveyor’s correspondence on 29 September 2020, which highlighted around 19 areas of concern. It also referenced issues with both compliance and standards. The timeline shows the resident was chasing roofing works in December 2021. It suggests the extensive general building works were not completed until around 5 September 2022. The landlord has said these works cost in excess of £30K, which indicates the extent of problems identified.
The above points to an overall repair timeline of around 27 months between 19 June 2020 and 5 September 2022. The landlord’s stage two response, dated 13 July 2021, acknowledged that repairs were delayed. It awarded the resident a total of £320 in compensation to recognise what went wrong. Both the wording used and the amount offered suggest it largely attributed delays to the pandemic. It was noted the landlord took around 14 months to complete the repairs following this response. This timescale suggests it bears responsibility for a significant portion of the overall delay.
To estimate the proportion, the Ombudsman calculated the combined duration of lockdown restrictions from a lockdown timeline. It was found lockdown restrictions were in effect for around nine months. The above identified delay period was then adjusted by ten months to account for the pandemic’s impact on the landlord’s operations. This deduction included a one month grace period to allow the landlord’s operations time to recover. This approach was based on the premise that the resident was entitled to expect repair services within a reasonable period once restrictions were lifted.
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.
The above calculation suggests the landlord was responsible for around 17 months of delays in total. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord was obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The above identified delay was both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s legal obligations. The timeline suggests the landlord lacked resolution focus and failed to manage its contractors. It also shows the resident made significant efforts to progress the repairs.
The resident has consistently said the situation caused her distress and anxiety. The timeline shows she was concerned about its impact on the family’s health. It suggests several of the property’s rooms were impacted by the disrepair issues. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of these rooms was severely reduced. Further, given the number of affected rooms, the resident had little respite from the situation. The above shows the landlord’s offer of £320 in compensation was disproportionate.
The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The calculation will reflect the circumstances of the complaint, the resident’s rent liability and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It will be based on the premise that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent for the 17 month delay period. Given the spread of the disrepair issues around the property, the calculation will be based on a 25% rent reduction. The tenancy agreement suggests the resident’s monthly rent is £447.76
Given the above there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns. The timeline shows, contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord was responsible for an inappropriate delay of around 17 months. It also shows the landlord lacked resolution focus and failed to manage its contractors. In addition to her distress and inconvenience, the evidence suggests the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged some of these failures in its stage two response. However, from the response wording, it was unclear whether it recognised the full extent of the issues, or their impact to the resident. For example, the timeline shows it took around seven months, between June 2020 and January 2021, to issue an informal response to the resident’s initial complaint. It indicates, during the interim period, the resident approached her MP on at least three occasions to progress her concerns.
The MP’s intervention should not have been necessary to progress the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude corresponding with a third-party caused her additional inconvenience. Further, the informal response was contrary to both the landlord’s policy and, as published in July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Section 3.15 of the Code said, on completion of each complaint stage, landlords should write to the resident advising: the complaint stage, the complaint outcome and the reasons for any decisions made.
The landlord’s inappropriate response failed to include this key information. Further, despite the missed December 2020 deadline, it did not attempt to identify any failures or redress the resident. This was unfair given the circumstances. It was noted the response said a further complaint had been raised with another department. This arguably demonstrated a lack of ownership/responsibility on the landlord’s part. Further, the situation was potentially confusing for the resident. No information was seen to show the landlord responded to this additional complaint.
The situation echoed the landlord’s previous comments, from October 2020, around taking-ownership. At this point, it said “I’m not sure who is keeping the customer informed other than the MP’s office”. The timeline suggests this was a fair comment given the circumstances. It was also noted the landlord closed the complaint contrary to its previous assurance that a full response would be issued on completion of the window repairs. Overall, the evidence suggests the above identified issues caused the resident additional frustration during an already distressing situation.
The timeline points to further delays at stage two. For example, following the Ombudsman’s February 2021 intervention, the landlord said it would respond to the resident’s concerns by 19 February 2021. This suggests the landlord recognised that its recent contacts with the Ombudsman and the resident required a formal complaint response. Nevertheless, a stage two response was not issued until, around five months after this date. The evidence therefore points to combined complaint handling delays of around twelve months in total. This was an inappropriate delay overall.
It is accepted that the landlord’s stage two response was better. For example, it attempted to redress identified complaint handling failures. Its wording suggests the landlord also attempted to use the resident’s experience to improve its overall service. However, the timeline shows there were issues it did not address. For example, the Ombudsman’s 15 June 2021 letter to the landlord confirmed the resident was seeking reimbursement for her plastering expenses. Nevertheless, the response failed to reference this issue.
The landlord’s final position on the resident’s expenses was unclear from the information seen. It was noted its repairs policy shows the resident is only responsible for repairs requiring no technical skill or low cost parts.
Similarly, the stage two response did not attempt to quantify the identified delays. Nor was the landlord’s offer of £320 compensation broken down into parts. These steps could have helped the landlord to determine a proportionate level of compensation. They could also have helped the landlord to explain its decision-making. Without them, the landlord’s compensation award appears arbitrary and lacking a frame of reference. Section 5.6 of the relevant Code said “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”.
Given the previous assessment findings, the evidence suggests the landlord’s offer was disproportionate given what went wrong and the overall duration of the repair timeline. It was noted the response said the resident’s complaint would be kept open until the relevant works were complete. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show the landlord reviewed its compensation offer following completion of the works in 2022.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The timeline shows there were delays of around 12 months in total. The landlord’s complaint handling was contrary to its complaints policy and the Code. The evidence suggests the landlord’s compensation award failed to reflect the full extent of its failures or their impact to the resident.

Record keeping

The timeline also points to significant problems with the landlord’s record keeping. It indicates the landlord was unable to identify its relevant complaint stage in February 2021. Its internal correspondence on 19 June 2021 said there was no record of the September 2020 surveyor’s inspection on the landlord’s systems. It is reasonable to conclude this hampered the landlord’s complaint investigation. The Ombudsman had to refer to the surveyor’s 29 September 2020 email for an overview of their findings.
This email was dated around one week after the surveyor’s inspection. The resident subsequently reported, through her MP, that the surveyor’s list of repairs contained errors and overlooked issues. Elsewhere, she said the surveyor failed to make notes during the inspection. The landlord was also unable to produce a copy of the July 2021 joint inspection report, so the Ombudsman again relied on post-inspection emails dated several days later. This represents inappropriate record keeping given the inspections involved reports of a potential health hazards (damp and mould).
Similar issues were identified with the repair history. For example, in March 2021, the landlord appeared to accept that roofing works were complete when only an inspection had taken place. The evidence suggests in June 2021 a repair order for the general building works was marked complete whilst the majority of the repairs were outstanding. The landlord’s complaint handler later said they were struggling to interpret the repair history. Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping may have contributed to the overall delays and the landlord’s lack of coordination.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents. Given the above the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
The evidence points to inappropriate record keeping by the landlord. It was unable to produce two key survey reports. The surveys involved reported potential health hazards. The timeline shows repair orders were incorrectly marked complete and the landlord struggled to interpret its repair history. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping may have contributed to the overall delays and its lack of coordination.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns;
  2. Complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s ongoing damp and mould concerns;
  2. Record keeping.

Reasons

Contrary to HHSRS, the landlord failed to implement any ongoing monitoring to address a persistent damp and problem. In other words, it failed to adopt a proactive approach. The resident said she gave up reporting ongoing damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom and she felt she was being blamed. It is reasonable to conclude this situation was distressing.
Contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord was responsible for an inappropriate delay of around 17 months. The evidence suggests it lacked resolution focus and failed to manage its contractors. In addition to the distress and inconvenience, resident was caused the evidence suggests her enjoyment of the property was reduced.
There were complaint handling delays of around 12 months in total. The landlord’s complaint handling was contrary to its complaints policy and the Code. The landlord’s compensation award failed to reflect the full extent of its failures or their impact to the resident.
The landlord was unable to produce two key survey reports. The surveys involved reported potential health hazards. The timeline shows repair orders were incorrectly marked complete and the landlord struggled to interpret its repair history. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping may have contributed to the overall delays and its lack of coordination.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident, for the failings identified in this report, in person within four weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,229.56 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £350 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s ongoing damp and mould concerns.
2. £1,902.98 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her various disrepair concerns. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord can deduct the £320 it awarded at stage two from this total. This figure was our original calculation when this report was first issued on 14 March 2023.
3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. £676.58 to more accurately reflect the resident’s rent payments for the identified 17 month delay period between 19 April 2021 and 5 September 2022. This figure accounts for 12 months at £149.93 and five months at £156.08. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
The landlord to reinspect the property for damp and mould within four weeks. Particular attention should be paid to the small bedroom. The landlord should share its inspection report with the Ombudsman. It should include options for mitigating any damp and mould in line with HHSRS.
The landlord to formally respond to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her decorating expenses within four weeks. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its response. It should consider relevant factors including, its obligations, whether the resident’s works were consistent with works it completed to other rooms, whether it benefitted from the works and whether the resident’s costs were consistent with its own.
The landlord’s leadership to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s: approach damp and mould, with reference to HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report; capacity to promptly complete disrepair works, compliance with the Code and record keeping, with emphasis on inspection records.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks.