London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202714

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
2. Aids and adaptations.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat situated on the first floor. The resident moved into the property in January 1994. The landlord’s records state the resident suffers with anxiety and depression. She is vulnerable due to physical and mental health and has support needs.
In March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint She advised that the situation in her property had got worse as works agreed in 2017 had not been actioned. The works required originally were due to water ingress which caused damage to the walls. Works were required externally and internally. The resident reported that black mould was now starting to appear. The plasterwork was blown to the brickwork, and she was unable to use her bedroom as it was causing breathing difficulties. The external wall had still not been repointed and the guttering was still blocked.
The landlord responded in March 2022 and apologised for the inconvenience the outstanding repairs had caused. It said it had raised the issue of mould in the property and its team would contact the resident directly. It said it had raised a job to deal with plant growth on the brickwork and clearance of the guttering.
On 27 April 2023, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and action taken since her stage 1 complaint. She said that no works had been completed. The living room and upstairs landing had not had a mould wash, been stripped, replastered, or redecorated. The radiator had not been removed and replaced. The handrail installation on the hallway had still not been completed as this was dependent upon the repair of the wall. The outside guttering also remained blocked.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord sent a stage 2 response. The landlord provided a chronology of what it believed had happened since March 2022 after it had issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that there had been some service failure but also advised when it had been unable to access. It considered its correspondence and acknowledged that the resident had said her sofa had been disposed of due to damp and mould. It provided its insurance details to the resident. It said the guttering had been cleared on 12 May 2023 and It had completed a mould wash on 30 May 2023. It had raised a job for a plasterer to attend and plaster the hall and landing to enable the handrail to be installed. It offered £660 compensation broken down as:
1. £50 for the stage 2 delay.
2. £100 service failure.
3. £140 distress and inconvenience
4. £80 time and effort
5. £250 right to repair.
6. £40 missed appointments.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied. She said that a damp and mould wash had not been completed. She expected the walls to be fully decorated as well as plastered. She said her mobility had been compromised as the handrail had not been installed. Despite the installation being requested by social services in June 2021. The guttering was not cleared until May 2023. She did not consider that £660 compensation was adequate.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.

The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home which includes walls, roofs and gutters. It will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at its discretion. It will make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate. For routine repairs it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The resident’s dissatisfaction relates to repairs agreed by the landlord over the past 7 years. It is acknowledged that the repairs were originally agreed as part of a stage 1 complaint raised in 2017. The repairs were not then followed up by either the resident or the landlord from March 2018 until September 2020 when the resident raised the issue again. The landlord failed to respond, and the resident raised another stage 1 complaint in December 2020. The landlord upheld her complaint and agreed to complete the works. The works were then further suspended due to covid restrictions. The landlord attempted to re-book the works, but it is unclear why these did not go ahead.
The repair issues were not raised again until March 2022 where it was reported that the situation had got worse resulting in black mould. This Service appreciates the length of time the resident states the repairs have been present and how frustrating this would have been. However, there is no evidence that the resident had made a formal complaint to the landlord (about the repairs between 2017 to 2022) that had fully exhausted its complaint process or that such a complaint had been escalated to this Service. Given the passage of time and gaps in reporting this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised from March 2022 onwards. As this is when the resident raised the matter again and fully exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Its adverse impact on her welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around any damage to her health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can however assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

Damp and Mould

The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
It is acknowledged that the landlord now has a damp and mould policy, but this was not implemented until May 2023 so was not in place for the duration of the complaint. The policy provides timescales for the landlord to complete an assessment to confirm the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It states that remedial works will be recorded and raised within 10 working days of the assessment. It will then provide a clear timescale for completion of the works to the resident.
The landlord was made aware in March 2022 that the issues within the property had now progressed, and that damp and mould was now present. It said within its stage 1 response that it had raised a task with its “healthy homes teams” in respect of the mould. It said that they would contact the resident directly. This was vague and failed to provide sufficient detail to the resident in respect of next steps and time frames. It also did not foster a zero-tolerance approach as set out in the spotlight report.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor had contacted the resident, and an appointment was arranged in April 2022. The resident had however contacted the landlord to express difficulties she was facing with the contractor and that she considered the contractor had been rude. The landlord said it had fed this back to its contractor and was investigating the matter.
The resident asked for her landlord to be present for appointments with this particular contractor due to how rude she considered it had been. The landlord responded. It said that due to limited resources it was unable to send a representative alongside its contractor. It also explained its findings in relation to her contact with its contractor. It said that there had been miscommunication about when the appointment had been scheduled for.
Although this response was not unreasonable from the landlord. The records do not show what happened after this. A full damp and mould inspection was not completed until 5 January 2023. This was 9 months after it had first raised the works with its contractor. This was unreasonable and did not show that the landlord was trying to identify and resolve the issues at the earliest stage.
There were no records to show that it had kept the resident informed or that it had adopted a zero-tolerance approach. It was aware that the resident was vulnerable and that she had said she was unable to use her room because of the damp and mould. It failed to prioritise the inspection to ensure it was aware of any potential risks that the damp and mould may pose to the resident.
In summary the landlord failed to inspect the reports of damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe and put in place an action plan to resolve the matter. Furthermore, it failed to risk assess the damp and mould to establish whether a hazard was present at the earliest point. It failed to communicate with the resident in a sufficient manner which led to distress and inconvenience to the resident. Given the resident’s vulnerability it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what adjustments it needed to make to prevent the distress from being exacerbated. That it did not is a failure of service and a failure to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Repairs to the external brickwork including the removal of ivy.

The landlord said within its stage 1 response on 25 March 2022 that it had arranged for its contractor to attend to assess the plant growth in the brickwork. It said its contactor would contact the resident directly. It also said that it would investigate the repair to the brickwork and update within 10 days. This response was vague and failed to provide sufficient detail to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident then had to chase the landlord again 11 working days later on 9 April 2022 as she had not been contacted. The evidence does not show how the landlord was monitoring the works with its contractor or whether it had oversight of appointments being made. The resident contacted the landlord several times in April and May 2022 to express her frustration that various works were not being progressed with different contractors. The evidence does not show that the landlord was providing details of what works were required in relation to the brick work and when these would be completed.
The records show that an appointment was made for its contractor to attend in respect of the plant growth on 10 May 2022. This was almost 7 weeks after the landlord had said the job was raised which was unreasonable. The resident said that she had not been informed of the appointment, so it was cancelled. The records provided do not show that she had been informed which was a further failing.
Following the resident’s expressed frustrations in her email correspondence the landlord did agree to send a surveyor to complete a full inspection on 18 May 2022. It is unclear why this action was not taken sooner so that all works could be identified, and a schedule agreed. This was a further failing. During the inspection it was determined that it was ivy that was growing on the brick work which needed to be removed.
The records indicate that the contractor was due to attend on 24 May 2022 and the resident was aware. It is unknown whether it did which is a record keeping failure. The records do state that scaffolding would be required to complete the works moving forwards. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 June 2022 to advise that in order for its contractor to complete the tree works it required a builder to remove external windowsills and some bricks. It said it would update the resident with the next steps. It then sent the resident a text informing her that scaffolding was due to be erected on 21 June 2022. It still however had not explained a schedule of the works so that the resident was aware of what action it was taking. This was inappropriate and a failing.
The scaffolding was erected on 21 June 2022. The resident chased the landlord in July 2022 as no works had been completed. The landlord responded 0n 26 July 2022 to advise that the team in charge of the scaffolding would make the necessary arrangements with her neighbour to complete the works. The landlord’s response was vague and unsatisfactory. The scaffolding had been in situ for 5 weeks and the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The works were clearly not being monitored appropriately and the resident had not been kept informed which was a failing.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting an inspection from a structural engineer. Once this had been completed the plant could be removed and remedial works actioned. At the beginning of October 2022, the issues still remained unresolved. This was over 2 months after it was established that a structural engineer was required. The evidence does not show that the resident was kept updated or that it was monitoring the matter to ensure that the works were being progressed. This was inappropriate and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident had contacted the landlord early in October 2022 to say that contractors had attended without notice. She explained that access for this was required by her neighbour as agreed so she had been unable to assist. She also said that she was yet to receive a confirmed program of works despite several requests. On 13 October 2022 the evidence shows that a contractor attended, and external pointing works were completed. It is not clear whether these works resolved the issues or not. On 21 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident it was waiting for a report from its structural engineer. It said once it had this then it would update her on what external works were required.
On 24 February 2023 the records show that the landlord advised the resident that all external works had been completed. The resident said this was incorrect. The only area of external wall repointing that had been done was where the plant was growing and causing damage. The area of the wall below the guttering had not been re-pointed.
This Service has not seen any evidence as to what happened after this. The stage 2 complaint response is also silent on the findings of the structural engineer and whether any additional works were required as a result. There is also no evidence to support that the resident was kept updated as it said it would. This shows further poor record keeping.
In summary it took the landlord at least 7 months to complete work to the brickwork. While this Service acknowledges that the works required scaffolding and further investigation this timeframe was still unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord failed to explain any delays to the resident or within its complaint response. It also failed to explain whether any further works were required. The resident clearly believed that further repointing works were required. Its communication with the resident was evidently poor. The resident had had to spend considerable time and effort chasing the landlord to try to establish what action it was taking. Its record keeping was inadequate which evidenced that it had failed to plan works and monitor its contractors appropriately.

Clearance of guttering.

The landlord was aware that the guttering required clearance at the point the stage 1 complaint was raised in March 2022. It said that it had raised the works within its stage 1 complaint response.
The damp and mould survey completed in January 2023 identified that the rear guttering was blocked and that this was the likely cause of the water ingress on the external walls.
The records evidence that on 24 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the external works had not been completed. She said that the guttering was still blocked and had never been cleared despite contractors calling her twice to advise that they would attend to do so. This was 11 months after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show how it had communicated with the resident in respect of the works. This shows again that the landlord was not monitoring the works and ensuring that they were progressed.
On 24 April 2023 the resident sent photographs to the landlord showing that the guttering was still blocked. On 12 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended and cleared the guttering. This was 14 months after it said that the job had been raised. This was an unreasonable time frame. Again, the landlord’s records lacked any detail, so it did not evidence that it had monitored the works or kept the resident informed. The landlord also missed a further opportunity to explain the delays within its stage 2 response. The resident had again spent considerable time chasing the landlord and trying to facilitate access to get the works completed. This would have not only caused stress and inconvenience but time and effort having to chase the matter. This was inappropriate and a failing by the landlord.

Remedial works to the internal walls.

The evidence shows that in April 2022 the resident reported that due to the water ingress the plaster on her walls had blown. This was affecting her living room, hallway and landing. She said re-plastering works had originally been agreed in 2017 to her living room but due to the length of the time the issue was now apparent in other areas of the property.
The landlord advised the resident in August 2022 that once it had completed the external works it would re-plaster the walls. This made sense in that it needed to stop the water ingress before it could complete the remedial works. The delays in the external works have already been assessed within this report.
Despite the landlord stating the external works needed to be completed first. An appointment was made for the landlord to attend to the walls on 3 March 2023. The contractor said the resident had cancelled the appointment and the resident denied this. There is then conflicting versions of events. The landlord believed that the resident had cancelled the appointment. The resident said the contractor had been contacting her neighbour and not her and that was why the appointment had been cancelled. She said she had then cancelled the scheduled appointment for 16 March 2023 as she wanted confirmation of the schedule of works and clarification on her complaint.
The resident’s request was not unreasonable given that she had requested a schedule of works on several occasions. The landlord failed to show that it had been clear about what works it was going to complete. Its policy states that it is within its discretion as to whether it will redecorate. It should have therefore clarified its position. That it did not was a failing.
The lack of clarity and clear communication would have caused significant stress to the resident as she was already trying to manage a considerable amount of repairs and contractors. Furthermore, the resident had mobility issues which required an installation of a handrail. The delays in the works to the internal walls meant that this could not be fitted.
The landlord did not provide any explanation of the delays within its complaint response. Neither did it confirm the schedule of works. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter and a missed opportunity to try to put matters right at an earlier stage. It said within its stage 2 response that it had raised an order to arrange for a plasterer to attend and plaster the hall and landing in order to allow the handrail to be installed. It said that its contractor would contact the resident shortly.
This Service contacted the landlord in June 2024 to ask for confirmation of when all of the plaster works had been completed. The landlord said the resident had refused access to enable it to complete the plaster works required in the kitchen. It provided evidence showing access refusal which was dated 16 March 2023. This was before the stage 2 response and the resident had already explained her reasons for refusal to the landlord in March 2023.
The landlord did provide evidence showing that it had replastered and re-decorated the hall stairs and landing. This was not signed off as completed however until 5 December 2023. This was 18 months after the resident had first raised the issue. It is acknowledged that other works were required first and that the landlord said that there were some access issues. However, this does not justify the works taking this long. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident and failure to communicate, plan, and provide a schedule of works was inappropriate. This would have caused uncertainty and confusion for the resident who was vulnerable.
Furthermore, it is unclear why the plastering works required in the kitchen are still outstanding. That they are is a further failing. An order has been made in respect of this below.
In summary the landlord’s continued failings in its handling of a series of repairs amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord’s records fail to show a clear audit trail, which has hindered this Service’s ability to fully assess its handling of the repairs. The landlord relied heavily on its contractors managing the appointments and communicating with the resident. It failed to monitor the repairs to ensure that they were planned and progressed appropriately. The landlord has failed to evidence that it had completed the repairs in a reasonable amount of time. The records also fail to show that all of the repairs have now been completed.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. The landlord failed to evidence how it had communicated with the resident about any of the repairs. The resident had to live with the uncertainty of when the repairs would be completed. The landlord failed to show that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health. It did not therefore have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord failed to assess any of its handling of the repairs within its complaint responses which was a further failing. By not assessing its failings it failed to be able to put matters right or gain any learning to improve its repairs service.
Furthermore, it is concerning that the landlord does not provide timeframes within its repairs policy. A repairs policy should clearly set out the responsibilities for both the landlord and tenant and how the landlord will deliver a repairs service. The failures identified demonstrate the lack of transparency within the landlord’s repairs service. This has affected its ability to provide a high-quality service which has led to the distress caused to the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to go some way to put matters right by offering £660 compensation. This offer however is disproportionate given the series of failings including its lack of communication, delays and poor record keeping. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to take these into account during its handling of the matter. It is also unknown whether the matter has been fully resolved and all repairs completed as the evidence does not show this.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property for a substantial period due to the various repairs. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. The period considered for this calculation is 25 March 2022 (when the landlord said it had raised the works) to 12 June 2023, (when it issued its stage 2 complaint response and showed that it had completed a substantial amount of the repairs). This period consists of 63 weeks.
As part of the calculation this Service has factored in that the rent for the first 53 weeks was £103.93 per week and £111.49 per week for the remaining 10-week period.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £662.17 compensation for loss of amenity. This figure has been calculated as follows:
1. An amenity loss calculation for the use and enjoyment of the property 53 weeks x £10.39 = £550.67 10 weeks x £11.15 = £111.50. Total amount for loss of amenity £550.67 + £111.50 = £662.17.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation may be higher where there was a severe long-term impact.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health was significant. Its poor communication, failure to complete the repairs in a reasonable period and inability to show that all repairs are now complete was a further significant failing. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to also pay the resident £1000 for distress and inconvenience.

Aids and Adaptations.

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to premises to meet the needs of residents with disabilities. It only has to make adjustments if the resident asks them to and if they are deemed reasonable, taking reasonable steps to avoid a resident being disadvantaged, and providing equipment, an aid or service if it is required.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The landlord’s minor adaptation procedure describes a minor adaption as a non-structural alteration to a home which includes handrails. A resident or an occupational therapist can make the request. The procedure states that the landlord should visit the resident to check the adaptation is practicable. The measurements and requirements should be agreed with the resident. The landlord should aim to complete the works within 5 working days.
On 14 June 2021 the local authority contacted the landlord to request minor adaptations. The adaptations included a bathroom grab rail, toilet grab rail and a stair rail mop stick. The correspondence does not show that the landlord communicated with the local authority or the resident in respect of the adaptation request. This is not in accordance with its own procedure or its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It also showed a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping, and internal communications.
The landlord then attended the resident’s property 11 months later on 3 May 2022 to fit the handrails. The works were unable to be completed due to plastering works still required as part of the remedial works. The landlord’s delays in completing the remedial works has already been assessed in this report. There is no evidence to show what the landlord did after this date to ensure that the works could be completed. Its inaction was inappropriate and a further failing.
On 10 August 2022 the resident reported a new disability/health condition on her online account. The update to her conditions included hypertension, restricted mobility, clinical depression, lymphoedema and morbid obesity. In respect of special needs, she explained that she was still waiting for grab rails which were requested following a needs assessment by the local authority in June 2021. She said the lack of grab rails was compromising her safety. It is unknown if the landlord responded. This was inappropriate, a further failing and a missed opportunity to put matters right. Furthermore, it did not foster a good tenant landlord relationship.
In December 2022 the local authority contacted the landlord twice to chase the matter. It said that it was struggling to make contact with anyone to get the adaptations actioned. It asked what the action plan was for the service user as she was still struggling. It said she required the rails to feel safe and independent in her home. The records are not clear on what action the landlord took in response. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord did acknowledge the issue within its stage 2 response. It said that it would raise works to the walls in the hall and landing to ensure that the grab rails could be fitted. It did not however offer any meaningful reflection on its handling of the matter within its stage 2 response. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. It is also of particular concern that the landlord was aware the issue dated back to 2021 but did not reflect this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The plaster works in the hall and landing were not signed off until December 2023. This is what was causing the delay in the installation of the rails. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence that the stair rail had now been fitted. It provided a work sheet showing that the stair rail had been installed in January 2023. This date did not correspond with the records provided to this Service, the stage 2 response or the resident’s version of events. This may have been a separate job to the adaptation request, or it may have been the installation of the mop stick handle. It is unclear whether the grab rails required in the bathroom and toilet have been installed yet. An order has been made to clarify these matters below.
In summary the request for adaptations was made almost 3 years ago and it is unclear whether the adaptations have been installed. The local authority had made several requests for the works to be completed and so had the resident. The records do not show that the landlord acknowledged or communicated with the resident despite the requests made.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and was struggling with her mobility. She had gone to the effort to have an assessment completed to provide her with aid and assistance within her home. She had to live with the inconvenience of not having that assistance for 3 years. The landlord’s inaction, poor communication and failure to consider its duties under The Equality Act 2010 was inappropriate.
The landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service over a significant period of time. This would have impacted the resident’s ability to move with the reassurance of additional support within her home. There was a clear lack of a risk-based approach to completing the adaptations. This would have caused concern for the resident in respect of her health and safety. These failings therefore amount to a finding of severe maladministration.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised and confirmed it had raised the relevant jobs. The response lacked any investigation into the issue raised. It did not show that it had listened to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould or that it had taken her concerns seriously. She had told the landlord she was unable to use a room as it was affecting her breathing. The landlord failed to investigate the complaint in line with its policies and good practice. It failed to offer an appropriate apology and demonstrated a dismissive and disrespectful approach to the resident.
The landlord took 30 working days to respond to the resident’s escalation request which was outside of its own policy timescales. It stage 2 response went slightly further to explain what had happened. It did not however show any investigation into its handling of the matters.
The landlord failed to set out within its complaint responses what it had identified its specific failures to be and took no learning from the resident’s complaint. As a result, it failed to put matters right. It is acknowledged that the landlord did offer compensation. However, as the landlord had not detailed its failures it was hard to understand how its break down of the compensation applied to its failings.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. There was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses at both stages demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses also failed to put things right or provide a meaningful apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Special investigation report

In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord. Within the report trends within its cases were identified and recommendations were made.
In respect of its handling of repairs this Service recommended that the landlord review the assurance section of its repairs policy to ensure the assurances can be measured and reported. This Service said the landlord should be able to:
1. Analyse and report on its response to repair requests ad complaints about repairs.
2. Ensure it is adapting its response to repair requests from vulnerable residents.
3. Quickly identify and address instances where it is not following its repair policy.
In respect of vulnerable resident’s this Service recommended that the landlord continue its review of its vulnerable resident’s policy having particular regard to its obligations under the Equality Act.
In respect of its complaint handling this Service recommended that the landlord ensure that quality assurance checks on complaint responses to both resident’s and the ombudsman are in place and happening as planned. It was also asked to complete its planned roll out of refreshed complaint handling training and design programme of regular periodic refresher training.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s aids and adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £3112.17. £660 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £662.17 for the amenity loss caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
  2. £1200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs.
  3. £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s aids and adaptations.
  4. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 6 weeks the landlord must visit the resident to complete a full assessment of the property and determine if any repairs and/or adaptations are outstanding. This assessment should include the external brickwork and windows. The findings from the visit should be communicated to the resident verbally and in writing. They should also be clearly recorded on the landlord’s system. The resident should be given an action plan which must provide dates when the repairs and/or adaptations will be completed. A copy of the advice letter and action plan should be shared with this Service also within 6 weeks.