London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202117221)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202117221
London & Quadrant Housing Trust
25 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 regarding the landlord’s:
- Handling of several repair issues, including reported damp and mould.
- Response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
- This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. She has resided at the property, a two-bedroom ground floor flat, since 2014.
- Landlord records note that the resident suffers from “ill health”, but it is not clear if it holds more detailed information regarding her reported health conditions.
- The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete routine day to day repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment” rather than provide any specific timeframe. It also states it is responsible for treating condensation and mould via its Healthy Homes Programme.
- The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. Its complaint policy states it will aim to respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. At both stages, if it is unable to provide a response within its target time, it will explain why and provide a further response within another 10 working days.
Scope of investigation
- Within the information provided to this Service, the resident has referred to several other complaints she states she has submitted but to which the landlord has not responded. This Service has seen evidence of three complaints logged with the landlord: the complaint under investigation here, logged in September 2021; a complaint to which the landlord provided a stage one response in February 2021; and another made in June 2021 which does not appear to have been responded to. Although this investigation will focus mainly on the September 2021 complaint and the events leading up to it, there is some crossover with the prior complaints, which also concerned maintenance issues (electrics and boiler) and damp and mould, and these will therefore at times be referred to for context during this report. The June 2021 complaint will also be referred to during consideration of the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to a number of health issues affecting her and her children. However, paragraph 39(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether there is any causal link between the resident’s health conditions and any action, or lack thereof, of the landlord. This would more usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts, which are able to call on expert medical witnesses and evidence and make legally binding judgements. The resident should consider obtaining independent advice if she wishes to pursue this element of her complaint.
Summary of events
- On 4 June 2021, the resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website. She advised there were issues with the electrics in the property and she was waiting for a new electric board to be installed. She also raised concerns about her boiler, stating that it had experienced low pressure for 3 years even though the landlord was aware this was caused by a leak. She also reported damp in the property which had damaged personal belongings and that she was unhappy with the advice to make a claim via the landlord’s insurer (which she stated had then been ‘denied’) and the landlord’s lack of communication.
- On 7 September 2021, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord. She referenced previous complaints made in November 2020, February, June and July 2021 and others which she stated were “open but not sorted” but stated that this most recent complaint related to both new issues and others which had not been reported previously but not resolved. The resident’s email was lengthy and referenced issues both current and historic. For reasons of space, it will not be exhaustively detailed here, but in summary she raised the following concerns:
- “The ongoing mould issue”.
- That the landlord was “neglecting repairs” at her property.
- The landlord was not taking her family’s health conditions into account, including her child’s asthma.
- Her boiler had been not working properly for “almost three years”.
- The landlord failing to turn up for repair appointments and not booking appointments properly.
- Staff members not responding to her contact and the landlord failing to respond to her complaints.
- “Overgrown bushes” which covered her windows and were not being cut.
- The landlord had sent a letter to her mother’s address, which the resident did not believe it should have had details of.
- Alongside with her complaint, the resident had also contacted her local MP, who made a series of Member’s Enquiries with the landlord. In an email to her MP on 6 July 2021, the resident queried responses the landlord had provided previously, and stated it had informed the MP that works had been completed when they had not. In a subsequent response to the MP on 27 September 2021, the landlord advised it would carry out an inspection at the resident’s property so it could “gather all (her) concerns in terms of her maintenance issues” and raise orders “if there are any works identified”.
- Records indicate the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2021 and the resident requested that her complaint be escalated the same day. This Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s stage one response or the resident’s emailed reply. However, on 20 October 2021, the landlord issued a stage two complaint response which included a summary of its stage one response as part of its review of the case. It noted that at stage one it had:
- Acknowledged its complaint handling had been poor and it had offered the resident £100 compensation to reflect this.
- Carried out a visit to the resident’s home on 1 October 2021, prior to issuing the complaint response, and repair orders had subsequently been raised to fix loose plinths to kitchen units, rehang the lounge door and refit a bath panel.
- It clarified that it had not raised repairs for other concerns raised by the resident (regarding leaking boiler pipes, a faulty extractor fan and a leak from a soil pipe allegedly causing damp in her bathroom) as its inspection had not identified any faults of defects.
- The landlord noted the resident remained unhappy with the following issues, some of which were raised during her escalation request:
- The length of the landlord’s visit, the fact the operative had not worn a face mask and had suggested the resident consider moving home via HomeSwapper.
- Condensation had been observed in the bathroom.
- A repair appointment on 7 September 2021 had been cancelled without notice and other repair appointments “are booked with short notice”.
- She had been given “conflicting advice” regarding windows and heating.
- Allowing operatives into her home was “high risk”.
- The landlord’s damp and mould contractor did not move furniture during their visit.
- Household items had been damaged due to mould in the property.
- She did not want to allow access to operatives whom she had already complained about.
- The landlord advised it would address each issue raised by the resident and made the following findings:
- Length of visit – it apologised if the resident felt the inspection had been short but noted it had been arranged so she could “specifically point out…what areas of (her) home needed repairs” and its operative confirmed the resident had “led” the assessment. It acknowledged that “relations…became strained” during the inspection but clarified the inspection had been “guided” by the resident and repairs had been raised “on this basis”. It therefore did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
- Operative had not worn a facemask and suggested the resident move via HomeSwapper – it noted the operative had advised he did have a facemask in his car, but as the resident had provided one herself, he accepted the “kind offer”. The landlord also clarified that while rehousing was not the operative’s “area of knowledge”, comments made about HomeSwapper were intended as “a potential solution” (to the resident’s housing situation) and there was “no intention to cause you offence”.
- Condensation in the resident’s bathroom – it clarified that condensation had been noted near the wash basin in the bathroom but advised no leaks had been identified and “evidence confirms the moisture you asked the officer to assess, was airborne moisture collating on the cold surface…of the porcelain”.
- Repair appointment on 27 September 2021 was cancelled without notice and other repair appointments are booked with short notice – it apologised for the appointment being cancelled and for others being arranged with little notice. It advised it had fed this back to the maintenance scheduling manager and “reiterated the need for all appointments to be programmed around your needs, preference and availability”. It also advised it had requested the outstanding repairs to be booked into “as few appointments as possible”.
- Conflicting advice on windows and heating – it advised it had “independently” reviewed a report completed by its damp and mould specialist contractor and noted that it had identified a “potential for rainwater ingress via defective brickwork pointing”. It noted this repair had been completed but a further recommended repair to check guttering was outstanding as a scaffold was required. The landlord advised this was due to take place once the scaffold was erected in early November 2021, subject to weather conditions. The landlord stated it was correct that the resident had been given advice on how to manage internal moisture in the property as this was the “main cause for condensation related mould and dampness” in buildings. It concluded the advice was given “in good faith (and) in accordance with industry standards” as no defects were identified as potential causes of damp and/or mould.
- High risk allowing workers into the resident’s home – it advised it was “sorry to hear” of the resident’s medical conditions but noted all its staff were obliged to “adhere to the regularly updated health and safety protocols” provided by the Government and building industry. It clarified this included “appropriate personal protective equipment”, so as to protect staff and residents. It also clarified it would take into consideration the resident’s medical conditions and she was “welcome to cancel and re-organise works if you feel at risk”, or if operatives made her feel unsafe or vulnerable.
- Damp and mould contractors did not move furniture during their visit – the landlord apologised that “the information given to you may not have been correct” and advised it had clarified that its contractors were not able to “move or alter household items while providing a clean and shield (damp treatment) service”. It noted residents should seek help from family or friends if items need moving before works are carried out and noted that staff of the landlord and its contractor were unable to move furniture due to reasons of liability, risk of damage to goods and the potential for personal injury. It further clarified that staff were “not insured” to move items should damage occur.
- Damage to household items due to mould – the landlord clarified it could not deal with this via its complaints procedure and signposted the resident to its insurance team if she wished to make a liability claim relating to damp and mould. It noted it had “already confirmed” this position with the resident.
- The resident was unhappy allowing access to operatives whom she had already complained about – the landlord advised it had reviewed previous complaints the resident had made where she had been “dissatisfied with both officers and repair technicians”. It stressed it may send “different members of staff” to her home “where it is appropriate and resources allow” but residents would not always have a choice who delivers services on its behalf.
- The landlord clarified that it had not found any failings in regard to its handling of repairs at the resident’s property and noted that following her complaint, “various repair orders were issued to resolve defects” in her property. It reiterated its apology for delays with its complaint handling but noted this had already been acknowledged in its stage one response and it had offered compensation. It acknowledged that relationships between the resident and some members of staff had become “strained” and caused her upset but advised it had not found any failings in regard to this. It clarified that “remaining works would be carried out” and signposted the resident to this Service if she remained unhappy.
- The resident responded to the landlord’s findings on 26 October 2021 and again raised the issue of the overgrown bushes outside her property while also reiterating that the damp and mould issue in the property had not been resolved. She rejected the £100 compensation (describing it as “a bribe”) and referred to a member of staff having been aggressive and threatening towards her, although she did not specify when this was or provide further details.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of repair issues, including reported damp and mould
- As noted above, the resident’s complaint of September 2021 was lengthy and cited multiple repair issues, some of which were historic and, from the evidence available, appear to have been resolved prior to the later complaint under consideration in this investigation. There were also several member enquiries submitted during the period of 2020-2021 which addressed the same, or similar issues, around repairs and maintenance. This investigation has not considered every repair issue raised by the resident across her correspondence with the landlord as some were raised in historic complaints but has concentrated on the repair issues she highlighted in her September 2021 complaint. These regarded ongoing damp and mould in the property, her faulty boiler, repairs to her kitchen and the landlord’s general handling and booking of repair appointments.
Damp and mould in the property
- Landlord records show that, during a visit to the property in October 2017, it noted there was some “mould around the window”. It did not specify which window the mould was present around, but also noted that this was “a common problem for the flats in and around (the resident’s street)”. The records do not indicate whether any orders were raised regarding the mould or if any relevant advice was offered to the resident at the time.
- The landlord’s repair records do not refer to any further reports of issues with damp and mould until 23 September 2020 when it noted that, following a visit from a damp specialist contractor, it had identified pointing that was “missing and damaged” on the wall outside the resident’s kitchen. It noted actions that “must be completed” following the contractor’s attendance which related to an “unheated common area wall opposite (the resident’s) main bedroom wall where mould occurs” and “signs of possible water ingress above DPC (Damp Proof Course) on rear kitchen wall”. However, this order was cancelled before being re-raised and closed as “complete” the following day.
- While the landlord’s records indicate it was aware of reported damp and mould in the property as early as September 2020, its repair records lack clarity and at times it has been difficult to establish the precise enquiries and actions it took in relation to reports it received, or the findings it made. As noted above, an entry in its repair records on 23 September 2020 referred to a survey having been carried out by its damp specialist contractor, but this investigation has not seen evidence of exactly when the inspection took place, or more details regarding the contractor’s findings, such as a survey report. This is not appropriate and means the landlord has been unable to fully evidence the steps it took to investigate the issue. It is also unclear why the order raised on 23 September 2020 was cancelled, and whether it is accurate to say that the same order re-raised the following day was completed within 24 hours as its records indicate.
- Several further entries on the landlord repair records refer to the presence of damp in the resident’s property and indicate that it had received several reports from the resident during that 10-month period:
- 3 November 2020: “whole flat – damp and mould probably caused by leak on central heating pipework – part treated previously but mould has come back.
- 31 March 2021: “fan in bathroom not working. Mould in bathroom”.
- 14 May 2021: “Kitchen – extractor fan not working. Mould present in property”.
- 14 June 2021: “Carry out mould inspection and referral”. Repair records suggest a survey was carried out by the landlord’s damp specialist contractor on 26 August 2021.
- 1 September 2021: “Check whole property throughout and carry out mould works/wash to rectify”. This is marked as “completed no action”.
- However, despite the repair record entries noted above, it is again difficult to establish the actions the landlord took following each report. While its 31 March 2021 entry notes a reported issue regarding the bathroom fan, orders raised the same day related only to passive vents in the bedroom and again, these were marked as ‘completed’ the same day they were raised, meaning that, assuming the orders were not treated as an urgent same day repair, it is not possible to establish if they were actioned within a reasonable timeframe.
- The landlord’s stage one response to the resident’s February 2021 complaint referred to a visit by its damp specialist contractor in November 2020 (the entry regarding 3 November 2020 referred to in the paragraph above). It noted that a repair to the resident’s boiler had been required but that this had now been rectified and no further works had been deemed necessary. However, this appears to contradict the findings of the previously referred to survey, which identified damaged or missing pointing as being a potential source of water ingress to the property and, from the landlord’s repair records, it is unclear if this work had been completed at this stage. Additionally, the contractor’s report from November 2020 has not been seen by this Service so the landlord is unable to adequately evidence that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at this time.
- The landlord subsequently, in a response sent to the resident’s MP on 25 March 2021, advised that its own surveyor had carried out an inspection of her property on 8 March 2021. Its repair records do not make any reference to a visit taking place on that date and the information provided to this investigation does not include a copy of the surveyor’s report. As part of a comprehensive set of repair records, the Ombudsman would expect to see information such as the damp specialist’s and surveyor’s reports contained within its records so the landlord can easily evidence the steps it had taken to investigate the reported issues. The landlord advised the resident’s MP that the reported damp and mould in the property was the result of all “the windows and vents (being) in the closed position” and condensation had been noted on “the inside glass panels showing (that) condensation was not able to exit the property”. It further referred to passive trickle vents in both bedrooms being closed and partially covered by furniture, which was “obstructing any air flow” and it stressed these were “crucial factors in reducing damp and mould in the home”.
- While this was consistent with the position set out in its previous complaint response that no further works were required, more comprehensive and detailed repair records would have better outlined the enquiries the landlord made and evidenced the conclusions it made. It is of note that the repair entry dated 3 November 2020 refers to mould having returned after being “part treated” previously, but it has not been possible to establish what treatment was carried out or when from the information contained within the repair records. This is not appropriate. In the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s not lifestyle”, published in October 2019), one of the recommendations made highlighted the importance of record keeping and how improved records would “result in significant benefits for both landlords and residents”. In this case, it is evident that the landlord has attended on a number of occasions, and it also took the time to arrange visits by its specialist damp contractor. However, as noted above, there are contradictions between its records and correspondence (for instance, despite advising the resident’s MP there were no further repairs required, on 31 March 2021, orders were raised to replace passive vents in both bedrooms that were described as being “hit and miss”), it is not possible to establish whether its overall response was reasonable or appropriate.
- It is also of concern that the landlord advised the resident’s MP that the damp and mould in the property was caused by her blocking the vents, before a few weeks later raising an order to install new ones as the existing vents appeared to be defective. It is unclear from its records when the landlord established there was an issue with the vents or whether it now considered that the resident’s actions were not solely responsible for exacerbating condensation in the property. It also remains unclear when these repairs were carried out, as they are marked as having been completed on 31 March 2021, but appear to have been re-raised in July 2021. This is not appropriate and again highlights the lack of detail within its repair records and the difficulty there has been in establishing a chronological summary of its management of the issues. While it is acknowledged that environmental conditions can exacerbate the presence of condensation within a property, from the evidence available, the landlord does not appear to have acted reasonably by apportioning blame for the damp and mould on the resident in its correspondence with her MP.
- The landlord’s stage two complaint response, issued in October 2021, also responded to the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould by reiterating that, following an inspection, “evidence confirms” that moisture in her bathroom was not caused by a leak, but by airborne moisture aggregating on cold surfaces. However, again the information contained within the landlord’s repair records does not include details of its assessment or the steps it took to assess the issue. Similarly, when addressing the resident’s concern that she had been given conflicting information about how to ventilate her property (she advised she had been instructed to both leave her heating on and off by different operatives), it concluded it had been appropriate to give advice on “how to manage internal moisture” as this was the “main cause for condensation related damp and mould” and it had not identified any “building defects” which may have caused the damp and mould. However, while this did not address the resident’s point that she had been given different advice at different times, it also contradicted its conclusion in the same response that it had identified defects with external pointing and a further repair to the guttering remained outstanding due to issues sourcing a scaffold. This was likely to have caused the resident confusion and, overall, points to a lack of clarity on the landlord’s part regarding how it responded to the reported damp and mould and how it managed its responses to those reports.
- Further to this, it is of note that, following the resident’s complaint in September 2021, internal landlord correspondence provided to this investigation shows a member of its Customer Relations Team (CRT) advising they were reviewing another report from its damp specialist contractor (again not seen by this Service) to establish “why (this) property’s so full of mould”. Noting that the resident’s kitchen extractor was not working properly but there appeared to be no job raised, it also referred to the resident’s boiler losing pressure and there being “stacks of mould” in an unspecified part of the property. That this investigation has not been privy to any of the reports prepared by the damp specialist (and here the CRT specifically advises a colleague it is “best you look at pages 7&8…these repairs need to be looked at”) means it is unclear if the wording in this exchange accurately reflects their findings. However, references to the property being “full of mould” and there being “stacks of mould” present is of concern and appears to suggest that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord’s repair records do not reflect the seriousness of the situation.
- Overall, while it is noted that the landlord has raised repair orders and instructed specialists to attend the property on a number of occasions, from the information seen by this Service, the landlord cannot evidence that it responded to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable and ordered manner. The findings of its damp specialist contractors and surveyors have not been seen by this Service and its advice to the resident, in its general correspondence, complaint responses and correspondence with her MP, has at times been contradictory.
- It remains unclear whether the landlord has fully established the cause of the reported damp and mould in the property, variously noting it could be caused by defective pointing, a leaking pipe from the boiler, the resident not effectively ventilating the property, or due to the vents present being “hit and miss”. It is acknowledged a combination of factors may be responsible but there is no evidence that the landlord has made the appropriate enquiries to reach this conclusion. Evidence submitted by the resident to this investigation in December 2022 indicates that mould remains present in her property, which suggests the situation has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. Due to the issues identified above, the Ombudsman considers there has been maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the reported damp and mould in the property.
The resident’s boiler
- Regarding reported issues with her boiler, it is clear that the landlord has raised a number of repairs regarding reported low pressure and a potential leak that was suspected to be the cause of this. Its records show it received reports regarding low pressure or the resident lacking hot water and/or heating on 17 June and 4 December 2019, 11 January, 15 April, 7 May, 23 September, 15 October, 19 October, 2 November 2020, 25 January, 17 May, 23 June and 20 July 2021. While it is appreciated that in some repair cases it can be difficult to establish the cause of the problem, particularly where it is suspected that there is a leak in an unidentified part of a property’s central heating system, the evidence available indicates that issues with the boiler and/or central heating system persisted for over 2 years. This is an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have been inconvenienced by the low pressure she reported, and the occasions she alleged in her complaints that she was left without heating and/or hot water.
- It is noted that the landlord’s records refer to a potential leak on the heating system as early as September 2020, but the initial job raised to “test and trace” to find the source was closed the following month without the records making clear what action was taken. Further orders were subsequently raised for a contractor to attend following the resident’s reports noted above, however the landlord’s records do not make clear what actions were taken or contain any reports from the contractor regarding any findings they made on each attendance. Again the landlord’s scant repair records do not allow it to evidence that it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports regarding her boiler and, when responding to the resident’s concerns within its stage two complaint response, it did not appear to give consideration to the inconvenience the issues would have caused her and her family, noting only that it had not identified any repairs as being necessary following a surveyor visit in October 2021.
- While it is entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor and other qualified operatives, it is unclear if the landlord has established the cause of the reported low pressure or identified that the number of reports raised by the resident over the time period above is excessive. As part of a comprehensive repair response, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence regarding the inspections carried out, or tests conducted on the heating system, but the landlord’s records do not contain any such information meaning it is unable to evidence that it has responded appropriately. Overall, considering the length of time the resident reported issues with the boiler and the landlord’s apparent inability to establish the cause of the reported low pressure and its failure to recognise the inconvenience this would have caused, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
The landlord’s failure to turn up to appointments
- In her complaints and correspondence with this Service, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s overall handling of repairs and advised there have been several instances where it has either not turned up to an appointment or arranged appointments at short notice. While it is noted the landlord’s repair records indicate some orders as being cancelled, they do not advise why. As part of a comprehensive repair record, this additional information would be useful, and the landlord should consider providing more context so it can evidence why certain orders have not been completed.
- The resident’s frustrations are acknowledged, and it is evident that she has had a large number of repair appointments over the period covered by her complaints which would have been disruptive. However, other than one appointment on 27 September 2021 that she specifically referred to in her complaint, it is unclear which other appointments she considered the landlord had failed to attend. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged this had been cancelled without notice and appropriately provided an apology for this. It also offered an apology for other repairs being arranged at short notice. Arranging appointments at short notice is not necessarily evidence of service failure, as it can be beneficial for repairs to be completed promptly were possible. However, a resident’s circumstances should be taken into account where possible and the landlord should communicate effectively regarding any short notice appointments. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised it had spoken to its maintenance scheduling manager and stressed that future appointments should consider the resident’s preferences and needs, and outstanding repairs should be grouped together to minimise disruption. This was a positive response from the landlord and showed it had taken notice of, and promised to act on, the resident’s concerns.
Overgrown bushes outside the property
- Regarding the bushes which the resident reported were “overgrown”, records show she raised this with the landlord on 18 June 2021. The landlord raised a service request for these to be attended to and “trimmed back” as they were blocking light from the resident’s property. However, there are no further entries regarding this, either in its repair or customer service records. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to evidence whether it took any reasonable steps to respond to this, which is a service failure. It also failed to address this issue when responding to the resident’s complaint, which was a further failing and meant the landlord failed to treat the resident fairly by either carrying out the work within a reasonable timeframe or setting out its position regarding when, or if, it would be done.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct
- The landlord addressed several issues of staff conduct within its stage two complaint response, issued in October 2021. Regarding an operative not wearing a facemask when attending the resident’s property, it noted that the resident had provided one herself, an offer which the operative accepted rather than return to his car where his mask was located. While it would have been preferable if, considering the circumstances at the time and requirements that were in force regarding facemasks, the operative had brought his mask with him, this was a reasonable explanation from the landlord and there appeared to be no detriment caused to the resident by the operative using the mask she offered. It also acted reasonably by acknowledging the resident’s concerns over her health issues and advising that she could “cancel and re-organise works if you feel at risk”, or if she felt vulnerable or unsafe during any attendance by its operatives.
- It also advised the operative had not intended to “cause offence” with their remarks regarding rehousing options, noting that this was not their area of expertise. While this was a reasonable explanation by the landlord, and it is acknowledged that the operative was likely simply trying to helpful, the landlord could have considered the resident an apology, given that offence did appear to have been taken, and also whether it would take any further action such as reminding its staff to avoid offering advice regarding areas outside of their knowledge base and to signpost residents to the appropriate staff instead to avoid possible confusion. However, that it did not do either of these things was not a service failure.
- The landlord also acted reasonably when, in its stage two complaint response, it advised that contractors were unable to move the resident’s furniture before carrying out works. It advised staff were not insured and that she could ask for assistance from family or friends if furniture required moving to allow works to take place. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable position for it to take.
- In response to the resident’s concerns about operatives she had previously complained about returning to her property, it advised it would send different members of staff “where it is appropriate and resources allow”. However, it also stressed that residents would “not always have a choice who delivers services”. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take as, while it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it has limited resources and staff numbers and will not always be able to avoid certain operatives delivering its services.
- It is noted the resident has also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to claims that her personal property has been damaged by damp and mould. While the resident has referred in her correspondence to damaged bedding and clothing, this Service has not seen an itemised list of what is alleged to have been damaged, or an amount the resident was seeking by way of reimbursement. Records show the landlord advised the resident how to make a claim via its insurer, which was reasonable. While it is noted the resident stated a subsequent claim was declined, this investigation has not seen details of any claims made so there is no evidence the landlord’s response was inappropriate, or that there were any failings regarding the processing of any claim.
- Overall, from the information seen by this Service and acknowledging that there is limited to no third-party evidence regarding interactions that took place between the resident and individual operatives and contractors, the landlord’s responses to concerns raised about its staff conduct appeared to be reasonable.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- Records show that the resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website in June 2021. However, this does not appear to have been responded to. This was not appropriate and amounts to a service failure. The landlord’s records show the complaint was logged appropriately but then no further action was taken. The resident’s subsequent complaint in September 2021 may have been avoided had the landlord engaged on the original complaint. While it is acknowledged that the resident sent in a number of emails, in addition to further enquiries via its MP, this Service has not seen an explanation for why this complaint was not responded to.
- It is noted that, in its response to the resident’s subsequent complaint, the landlord acknowledged failings with its complaint handling and offered an apology and compensation for this. However, this Service has not seen the landlord’s stage one response, so it is unclear precisely which failings it had identified and was offering redress for. It is therefore not possible to ascertain if the redress offered by the landlord amounted to reasonable remedy in the circumstances. However, considering the time and trouble the resident was caused by having to submit a further complaint and the distress she would have been caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to her June 2021 complaint (which would have exacerbated her stated concern that the landlord was not listening to her complaints), the Ombudsman considers that a larger award of compensation would be more appropriate in this case.
- The complaint responses following the resident’s September 2021 complaint were issued in a timely fashion and in accordance with the landlord’s stated target times. However, the landlord’s stage two response did not address all of the issues raised by the resident (such as her concerns over the bushes). Additionally, and particularly regarding the repair issues raised, it could have provided further details regarding the investigations it had carried out and, despite it determining that there had not been any failings regarding its repairs, it should have shown more understanding regarding the inconvenience and distress the resident had been caused by the repair issues occurring over such lengthy periods of time. It missed an opportunity to try and repair the customer/tenant relationship by acknowledging the distress the resident had experienced and considering an offer of redress, such as an apology or offer of compensation.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of several repair issues, including reported damp and mould.
- No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
- Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
Reasons
- While the landlord has evidently raised a number of repair orders and inspections regarding the reported damp and mould, its repair records and the information it has provided this investigation do not fully evidence the steps it took to assess the issue or present a coherent chronology of how it investigated the repairs. There are contradictions within the information contained in its records and the information it provided the resident and her representative and it remains unclear whether the landlord has fully established the cause of the damp and mould, and which parts of the property are affected.
- The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaints about various aspects of its staff conduct and indicated that it had listened to her concerns. It advised it would try and make adjustments to how it arranged repairs and assured her that she could change appointments if she felt vulnerable at any time due to her stated health conditions.
- The landlord failed to respond to the complaint made in June 2021 and, although its later complaint response acknowledged a degree of complaint handling failure, this Service has not seen what failings the landlord identified. Its final response should have provided more details regarding how it handled repairs in her property during the timeframe in question and it should have demonstrated a greater regard for the inconvenience she would have experienced as a result of certain repair issues remaining unresolved over a long period.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- In recognition of the failings identified in its repair handling, the landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
- Pay the resident £1000 compensation to reflect failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould and a faulty boiler (£500 for each issue).
- Pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect its complaint handling failings.
- The landlord is also ordered to, within 8 weeks of this determination:
- Arrange a further damp survey of the whole property and share the contractor’s findings with both this Service and the resident. The landlord should provide an action plan regarding any identified repairs and provide a timeframe for the completion of any works raised. It should then share this with both this Service and the resident.
- Arrange a further assessment of the resident’s boiler and central heating system and share the subsequent report with this Service and the resident. If it is found that issues with low pressure remain, it should draw up an action plan regarding how it will resolve this issue and provide a timeframe for the completion of any works raised. It should share this with both this Service and the resident.
- The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframes set out above.
Recommendations
- The landlord should consider carrying out a review of how it keeps records of its repairs and how it can incorporate survey and inspection reports into the records so as to easily share this information with this Service and other interested third parties when relevant.