London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202227036)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227036

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of lack of heating and hot water in the property.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    3. The resident’s reports of disrepair to his property and associated remedial repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord for a 1 bedroom, second-floor flat. The resident’s partner and young child live with the resident. The child was born during the course of the complaint at the beginning of March 2023. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or his family.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 December 2021 about the state of the property. This included the windows, kitchen cupboard and damp and mould in the property. The landlord responded on 6 December 2021 with its stage 1 complaint response. In response the following work took place:
    1. The landlord had previously referred the damp and mould to its contractor. The contractor attended on 2 December 2021 finding the cause to be due to damage and gaps to windows. It found moisture in the property was caused in part by the resident not heating, drying, or ventilating the property correctly. It provided guidance to the resident on how to do this. It completed mould treatment at the property on 14 December.
    2. It referred kitchen unit work to its contractor. It would later add to the job on 14 December to fill holes in the kitchen where mice had entered. It replaced rotten kitchen panels and shelves on 24 May 2022. It is unclear if it completed the repair of mouse entry holes at this time.
    3. It raised work to reseal the resident’s windows and would complete this work on 11 December 2021.
    4. The resident would report issues with his bathroom extractor fan and the radiators in his property not heating on 31 August 2022. Evidence shows the landlord completed all repairs on the same day.
  3. From 2 March 2023 the resident raised several issues in a complaint and in correspondence with the landlord. The landlord handled each issue as follows:
    1. The resident’s immersion cylinder broke down on 2 February 2023. As a result, he said flooding damaged his flooring and he had no heating or hot water. The landlord authorised work to repair the immersion cylinder on 20 March and completed a repair on 10 April. The resident had no heating or hot water throughout this period. The resident reported a number of times through this period his partner was heavily pregnant and then that he had a newborn baby at the property. The landlord delivered temporary heaters to the property on 28 March. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, it would direct the resident to claim on its insurance for damage to his flooring.
    2. The resident reported his kitchen and bathroom extractors were not working. The landlord renewed both of these on 17 March 2023. However, it would overhaul both on 10 May 2023. It also replaced a defective bedroom window on 15 March. It raised repairs to the bathroom waste pipe on 9 May and completed this repair on 5 July.
    3. On 25 November 2022 it raised that in the kitchen rodent holes needed covering, worktops needed renewing, taps and plugs renewed and the bath needed resealing. It would complete all repairs on 4 May 2023. It explained in its stage 2 complaint response the kitchen was “fit for purpose” and did not need replacing at the current time.
    4. The landlord attended to treat damp and mould at the property on 13 May 2023. It confirmed in its complaint responses it needed all other work to be completed before it could do this.
  4. The landlord provided 2 stage 1 complaint responses on 3 and 22 March 2023 in response to the resident’s complaint of 2 February. It upheld the resident’s complaint finding its level of service was “not reflective of the standard it aims for.” It confirmed it should have managed the repairs “more effectively.” It offered no compensation in its stage 1 response but on 27 March advised the resident it would pay compensation “once all repairs were complete. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 March and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to him on 10 May. Its response confirmed all work was completed or raised. It offered compensation of £1330 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, his partner, and their new baby.
  5. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 19 May 2024. In correspondence, he confirmed the following issues:
    1. He was left with no heating and hot water between 2 February and 10 April 2023. He wanted compensation for damage the leak from the immersion cylinder failure caused to his flooring.
    2. He had reported damp and mould in his bathroom and immersion cylinder cupboard.
    3. He wished for a new kitchen to be fitted and had reported an infestation of mice in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that his and his child’s health has suffered because of how the landlord handled his reports. Whilst we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his or his family’s health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to how the landlord handled the situation involving his property.
  2. The resident has reported damage to his personal belongings. The landlord has directed the resident to refer a claim to its insurer on the matter. It is unclear if the resident has raised such a claim through the landlord or his own insurance policy. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about insurance claims. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. The Ombudsman is unable to determine liability as such matters require a legally binding decision, which an Ombudsman investigation is unable to provide.
  3. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it has acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation in its final complaint response. It stated this was for “delay to repairs” for “no heating and hot water for 68 days, kitchen work and damp and mould.” It was not clear in the breakdown provided, how much of the £400 was attributed to each of the three issues. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation, this has been attributed equally with £133 being considered to be for each complaint aspect.
  4. A number of repairs were recommended as part of the landlord’s inspection of damp and mould. This included repairs to the property’s windows and an overhaul of the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. These issues will be considered in the damp and mould complaint definition. All other works reported by the resident will be considered in the assessment of disrepair and associated remedial repairs.

The resident’s reports of lack of heating and hot water in the property.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for keeping in working order: all fixtures and fittings for space and water heating. The tenancy agreement confirms its classes total or partial space and water heating between 1 November and 30 April as an emergency. In line with its policy, it aims “to complete everyday repairs to a good standard and within a reasonable timeframe.”
  2. The landlord’s Repairs Policy classifies emergency repairs as those where there is “immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public” and will attend within 24 hours. It will attend to emergency repairs in 4 hours to make the situation safe. It will complete all other repairs as “routine day-to-day” repairs within 25 calendar days. It will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances at its discretion.
  3. The resident reported his boiler had broken on 2 February 2023 and was leaking, which was causing his floor to leak. He said his “heavily pregnant” partner was at home whilst this was going on. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy by attending the property on the same day to stop the leak and make the “burst” immersion cylinder safe. It told the resident the following day it would arrange follow-up work and notify him of the appointment.
  4. On 6 February the landlord contacted its contractor, though it is unclear if it was raising or chasing the issue. The landlord considered the issue as part of its complaint response on 3 March 2023 and stated it was “unable to find anything about the immersion being inadequate. “This was a failure in its record keeping and management of the issue. It failed to recognise the immersion cylinder had not been inspected or repaired. It also failed to consider the detriment caused to the resident by having no heating or hot water since 2 February.
  5. The resident reported to the landlord on 6 March he was bringing his newborn baby home that day. This added to the urgency to complete the work. This was on top of the resident’s partner being pregnant up to that point and the lack of heating and hot water occurring between 1 November and 30 April. The landlord failed to chase the contractor from 6 February until it did this on 6 March 2023, suggesting a breakdown in communication between the two. Following this, an inspection was completed by the contractor on 10 March finding the immersion cylinder needed to be replaced. In total, it took 36 calendar days to complete an investigation of the issue. This was an inappropriate delay, considering the circumstances stated above.
  6. The landlord considered the issue as part of its further stage 1 response on 22 March 2023. It said it had authorised the renewal of the immersion cylinder on 20 March. There is no evidence of the landlord informing the resident at the time of this decision. It should have done so, so he was clear on its approach from the earliest possible opportunity. The landlord completed the repair to the immersion cylinder on 10 April. In total, the repair took 67 calendar days to complete. The landlord failed to act in accordance with the timescales in its policy and despite making the situation safe failed to treat further repairs as an emergency. The resident was left to manage the detriment and the impact of the lack of heating and hot water throughout this period. This was compounded by the vulnerabilities to the resident’s partner, then their newborn child and the time of year.
  7. From 2 February to 28 March 2023 the landlord took no steps to support the resident or his family. There is no evidence it considered a decant, alternative wash facilities or temporary heating. Its failure to consider any of these options increased the detriment for the resident and his family through an extremely difficult period. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the resident checking the well-being of the resident or the family through this time. It did not consider supportive measures until 28 March when it sent temporary heaters to the resident. It took 38 days to provide these which was an inappropriate length of time to take supportive measures.
  8. The resident stated on 22, 29 March and 3 April 2023 that his mental health was affected by the situation in his property. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging this at any point. It had the opportunity to signpost or refer the resident for support with his health but failed to do this. In this regard, it failed in the aims on its website to “understand everyone has different needs” and to “tailor (its) care and support services to each person.”
  9. The landlord failed to address the damage caused to the resident’s flooring by the cylinder leaking in its initial stage 1 complaint responses. It referred the resident to his own or its insurer in its later stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This was appropriate in ensuring a decision regarding liability for the damage could be made and if a claim could be made on the landlord’s insurance. The landlord would also offer compensation relating to the issue at both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. There is no evidence to suggest the resident raised a claim with the insurer.
  10. The landlord offered total compensation of £543. This was £180 each (£360 total) for the distress and for the inconvenience of having no heating or hot water for 3 months. £133 for the delay in completing the repair and £50 for the delay in delivering the heaters. The compensation awards are in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy. However, the landlord’s compensation award was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report. Its award of compensation failed to acknowledge the following points:
    1. The landlord failed to acknowledge the issue in its initial complaint response of 3 March 2023. Its failure to do so delayed it taking further action at the earliest possible opportunity.
    2. The landlord failed to expedite the work and monitor the work over a prolonged period when it was aware of the vulnerabilities in the household. Furthermore, it failed to treat the issue as an emergency whilst the repair was outstanding. It failed to consider the total detriment to the resident managing the lack of hot water and heating whilst being a new parent.
    3. The landlord failed to consider alternative methods to support the resident and his family with heating, alternative wash facilities or consider a decant. Its provision of temporary heating only occurred following the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports of detriment to his mental health and did not offer appropriate support.
  11. In summary the landlord took appropriate first steps to manage the resident’s reports as an emergency. Following this it failed to manage its relationship with its contractor and did not act in accordance with its Repairs Policy. This meant it did not attend to inspect the issue for 36 days and did not resolve the issue for 67 days. It failed to support the resident with the family’s vulnerabilities and failed to act pragmatically or effectively. The discomfort to the resident was not considered by the landlord, as exemplified by its failure to offer alternatives for heating and hot water and confirm if it could offer a decant. The failings were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient record-keeping and communication.
  12. The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair space and water heating systems in the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of severe maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £1000. This equates to £5 per day for each of heating and hot water plus the delay in the landlord providing temporary heaters. has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This is £557 more than the landlord’s offer of £543. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for damp and mould at the property. Its website confirms any signs of damp and mould should be reported to it “immediately, even if the problem is only small.” It states it will focus on “tackling the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring.” It will arrange for its damp and mould contractor to visit to assess the property. They will clean any affected surfaces and “shield them with an anti-mould agent.”
  2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
  3. The resident initially reported damp and mould on 1 December 2021 and the landlord’s contractor attended on 2 December 2021, which was within the landlord’s response timescale. The contractor took appropriate action to clean mould in the property and shield them on 14 December 2021. It raised a number of issues to resolve the “root cause.” These were the “resident’s failure to ventilate or heat the property,” replacing sealant to windows and replacing mastic behind the sink. It provided appropriate advice to the resident on the same day regarding heating and ventilating his property. It resealed the windows on 14 December 2021 but did not replace the mastic behind the sink until 22 May 2022. Its failure to do this left a “root cause” of the damp and mould issue unresolved.
  4. The resident reported damp and mould in his bedroom and living room on 21 January 2022. The landlord referred the issue to its contractor to investigate and complete a mould wash. There is no evidence to suggest this was ever completed, leaving the resident to manage the effects of the damp and mould in his property without resolution.
  5. The resident would next report mould from condensation in his complaint on 2 February 2023. He informed the landlord the “mould was urgent” as his partner was “heavily pregnant” and “about to have a child.” He repeated the issue again on 3 February escalating that his partner was having “breathing problems” due to the mould. There is no evidence of the landlord taking action despite the serious report made by the resident. The landlord had the opportunity to address the issue in its complaint response of 3 March 2023 but failed to do so. This caused the resident to believe it was not taking the issue seriously or actively looking to resolve the issue. The resident would chase the issue again on 7 March, informing the landlord he had a newborn baby at home. It did not take action until its complaint response on 22 March 2023where it said it had raised a work order “to complete a mould wash.” It took 48 calendar days for it to take action. This exceeded its timescale to resolve the issue in its policy.
  6. There is no evidence the work order was completed in a timely manner following this. On 29 March 2023, the resident reported his newborn child had to go to hospital due to the “damp problem messing with their breathing” and would again chase the issue on 3 April. The landlord failed to use this as a prompt to chase the contractor and continued to leave the issue unresolved. There was a distinct lack of empathy provided by the landlord on the matter, in failing to check in on the wellbeing of the family at this point also. There is no further evidence of the landlord contacting the contractor until they attended the property on 19 April. This suggested a breakdown in communication between the two and a failure of the landlord to monitor the situation.
  7. The contractor said in its report of its visit on 19 April 2023 that a root cause of the damp and mould at the property was: extractor fans needing replacing in the bathroom and kitchen and the resident’s failure to ventilate and heat the property. It found a mould wash was also required. It provided further advice to the resident on the same day about heating and ventilating the property. It would overhaul both the extractor fans on 10 May, taking 21 calendar days and within the timescale in its policy. It would not complete a further mould wash until 13 May. From the resident’s initial report of 2 February, it took 100 calendar days to complete any treatment. The landlord exceeded the timescale in its policy by 75 days.
  8. From 21 January 2022 the landlord took no action to complete mould washes or any alternatives to manage the mould at the property. This was despite the resident raising the issue on 6 separate occasions and raising the impact it was having on his pregnant partner and his newborn child. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at his property himself over a prolonged period. This caused him distress and inconvenience and made him feel it was not serious in supporting him with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
  9. None of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged or explained its failures in relation to its handling of damp and mould at the property. As such it failed to explain how it would alter its approach in future to better manage damp and mould reports. This is evidence the landlord was not using the process to “learn and improve its service.”
  10. The landlord offered compensation of £133 in its stage 2 complaint response for delays to completing repairs for damp and mould. The Ombudsman finds the total compensation to be insufficient. This is due to the total detriment caused to the resident and also for the following reasons:
    1. The landlord failed to acknowledge it did not address the root cause of damp and mould to repair the mastic behind the sink for over 5 months. It also never recognised that it failed to follow up on its repair request raised for damp and mould in January 2022. As a result, no action was taken to tackle damp and mould for a prolonged period, causing detriment to the resident throughout.
    2. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about the issue between 2 February and 22 March 2023, nor between 3 April and 19 April 2023. This was despite the resident raising serious concerns about the impact on the health of his pregnant partner.
    3. From the resident’s further report of damp and mould on 2 February the landlord failed to take any action to tackle the issue for over 3 months. This left the resident to manage the situation and detriment at an extremely stressful time of his life.
  11. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for managing the damp and mould at the resident’s property. Appropriate action was taken to manage the initial report in December 2021 albeit with one action to tackle the root cause being delayed for 5 months. It was delayed in taking action and communicating with the resident between 2 February and 22 March 2023 and 3 April and 19 April 2023. The resident’s serious reports about the health implications caused to his family were not taken seriously by the landlord and it did not use these to expedite any work or alter its approach. The failings above were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication and failure to consider the full impact of the damp and mould on the resident day to day. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome himself whilst managing the damp and mould at the same time.
  12. The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of severe maladministration has been identified.
  13. The Ombudsman has considered that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been curtailed for a significant period and as such, has ordered the landlord to pay compensation based on 10% of the rent, for the period during which the resident was affected by damp and mould. The rent is £168.04 per week. Therefore, for the 64 weeks in which the resident was affected total compensation of £1075.20 has been awarded. This figure is not intended to act as a formal reimbursement of the resident’s rent for these periods, but rather it is considered reasonable and proportionate redress for the periods in question. The amount awarded includes the £133 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The resident’s reports of disrepair to his property and associated remedial repairs.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms the resident is responsible for completing “minor repairs and replacements.” It clarifies these are repairs that require “no technical ability and use common household tools.” The policy states it is responsible for kitchen sinks and taps, cupboards, and worktops. It is also responsible for bathroom waste, taps, basins, and toilets. Where age and wear and tear affects a kitchen, it will replace this through a planned programme of works. The landlord is responsible for dealing with mice where the resident has been “unsuccessful in dealing with the issue themselves” or there is a “wider infestation in the block.”
  2. In his complaint of 1 December 2021, the resident raised concerns that his kitchen cupboards were in disrepair. The landlord’s response on 6 December 2021 advised its carpenter would attend at the property on 21 January 2022. It said it would assess the cupboards and “carry out repairs as needed.” Prior to the appointment taking place, it added inspection of “mice holes” reported by the resident in his kitchen. It is unclear if the appointment took place on 21 January 2022. He chased the repair on 9 February 2022 and asked if it was replacing a kitchen cabinet damaged by “acid burns” and the worktops. It replied it would only be replacing 1 wall unit and 1 under-sink unit. Repairs to replace rotten panels and broken shelves in the kitchen cupboards were completed to the kitchen cupboards on 24 May 2022. From the initial report, the landlord took 174 calendar days to complete the repairs. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 149 days.
  3. The policy suggests mice are the responsibility of the resident. There is no evidence the issue was wider on the block or that the resident had attempted to resolve the issue himself. However, the landlord’s approach throughout was to arrange inspection and repairs for the issue. This was reasonable and beyond its policy. From the initial report, there was no deviance from it taking responsibility for the issue. There is no evidence the landlord completed repairs to the mice holes in the kitchen on 24 May 2022. The landlord raised a further repair for the issue on 24 October 2022 suggesting the issue was never successfully resolved up to this point. The resident would chase the issue in his complaint on 2 February 2023.
  4. The resident would also raise in his complaint of 2 February 2023 that his kitchen worktops were “coming apart” and his toilet was leaking. In its further stage 1 complaint response of 22 March 2023, it confirmed it had attended the property on 25 November 2022. As a result, it had raised a number of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. By the time of its complaint response, 117 calendar days had already passed. This exceeded the landlord’s timescale for repair by 92 days. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident through this period or managing his expectations.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said on 25 November 2022 it raised work to replace all worktops, the sink insert and mixer taps in the kitchen. It said it would also fill all mice entry points in the kitchen. On 12 April 2023, it closed the work “until further notice” as it was “hesitant due to budgeting.” It is uncertain why it took this stance at this point, seemingly against previous recommendations. There is no evidence of it updating the resident on this or seeking further advice on the matter. Following further contact from the resident on 26 April, it re-raised the kitchen repairs confirming it would “repair rather than replace.” It is uncertain if “budgeting” was the reason for this, but it never explained its reasoning for changing the proposed work from “replace” to “repair” to the resident. This left him confused about its approach.
  6. The resident raised concerns with the repair attempted in the kitchen on 28 April 2023. He said, “no mice holes were sealed” and “damage was not replaced.” Repairs were completed to the worktops, sink and taps. In total the repairs took 154 calendar days to complete, exceeding the timescale in its policy by 129 days. The resident would also raise concerns with the behaviour of the landlord’s operative. He stated they were aware work was “unfinished,” had “not flushed his toilet” and “ignored his partner when they were leaving.” However, there is no evidence of the landlord investigating or responding to this in its stage 2 complaint response. This caused uncertainty to the resident on whether it was taking all of his concerns seriously. It would complete repairs to “mice holes” on 5 May. The repairs to the mice holes took 193 calendar days, exceeding the timescale by 168 days.
  7. The landlord provided appropriate advice in its stage 2 complaint response it when it said that it was unable to replace the resident’s whole kitchen. It explained the process could take “2 years” and would be “reassessed at the time.” This managed the resident’s expectations on the matter and gave him a clear explanation of its approach. It also explained it had “laid hardboard” to cover the “scorch mark” on the shelf in the resident’s kitchen. This addressed the point raised in the resident’s initial complaint. However, the landlord should have taken steps to address this in either of its stage 1 complaint responses. This would have provided effective management of the resident’s expectations on the matter.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also stated on 25 November 2022 that it raised work to renew the bathroom waste and plug, the mixer taps and reseal the bath. It confirmed it would renew the resident’s cracked wash basin. It would review these repairs on 28 March 2023 and arrange an appointment for 3 April. It would fail to turn up for this appointment but would acknowledge this failure in its stage 2 complaint response and offer compensation, which is assessed later. It would complete all repairs to the bathroom on 19 April. This was within 22 days of the review and within its timescale. However, the repair should have been reviewed much sooner after it attended at the property on 25 November 2022.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response of 22 March 2023, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet. He had raised this in his complaint of 2 February. There is no evidence of it following up on this or communicating about the matter until 3 May, when it discussed the issue with him by phone. It asked for photos which the resident would duly provide. It would confirm in its stage 2 complaint response of 10 May it had raised work to repair the toilet leak. The repair was completed on 5 July. From the initial report on 22 March, the landlord took 105 calendar days to complete the repair. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 80 days. The resident was left through this period managing the leak in his home, with no communication for over 2 months on how it would manage the issue.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint policy awarded compensation of £403 for the disrepair issues. This was £133 for the delay in completing the kitchen repairs, £250 for right-to-repair failures and £20 for the missed appointment on 3 April 2023. The amounts awarded were in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, however, it was not reflective of the total detriment suffered by the resident.
    1. Repairs to mice holes were not completed sufficiently for over 8 months with the resident reporting this again. The landlord took a further 7 months to then complete a full repair to the issue.
    2. The landlord took over 6 months to complete full repairs to the resident’s kitchen, far exceeding the timescale in its policy.
    3. A review of the repairs required to the resident’s bathroom was not completed for over 4 months, delaying the resolution of the issue.
    4. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s report of a leaking toilet for over two months and completed the full repair over 4 months later.
    5. The landlord’s communication was inadequate throughout. It failed to communicate with the resident effectively other than in its complaint responses. As such the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations causing frustration and uncertainty on its approach.
  11. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required. It was delayed following up on repairs it found on 25 November 2022 until March 2023. It failed to prioritise repairs and failed to consider the impact on the resident and his family. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate. It failed to keep him updated with what work was scheduled or if there were changes to its scheduled work and this only exacerbated the issue.
  12. The landlord failed to rectify the issues and communicate over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified.
  13. The Ombudsman has considered that the resident’s enjoyment of both bedrooms and kitchen have been curtailed for a significant period and as such, has ordered the landlord to pay compensation based on 10% of the rent for each of the rooms that were affected, for the period during which the resident was unable to use these rooms to their full purpose. This was 28 weeks for the kitchen (£16.80 per week – £268.80) and 16 weeks for the kitchen (£16.80 per week – £333.44). The resident’s rent is £104.24 per week. The total compensation equals £602.23 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment for each room. This is also as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This figure is not intended to act as a formal reimbursement of the resident’s rent for these periods, but rather it is considered reasonable and proportionate redress for the periods in question. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it “takes complaints very seriously” and “sees them as an opportunity to work with (its) customers to find a mutually agreeable solution.” It aims to “provide a personal touch” ensuring it “understands” and discusses concerns. It “will keep in touch throughout the complaint.” It “treats complaints as an opportunity to learn from (its) mistakes and improve (its) service.” The landlord operates two-stage complaints process as follows:
    1. Stage 1 investigations will be completed by the relevant person or department “best placed to resolve the complaint.” They are responsible for discussing and understanding the complaint and will agree an action plan with the resident. The landlord will log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will provide its full response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. If it needs more time, it can extend its timescale by a further 10 working days. In this circumstance, it will explain the delay to the resident. After providing its response it will “monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.”
    2. If a resident asks to escalate a complaint the landlord will attempt to “reach a resolution without the need for escalation.” Otherwise, it will escalate the complaint “without delay.” Its customer relations team or someone not involved with the stage 1 response will carry out the review. It will provide its full response within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. It can extend the timescale by 10 working days or longer but will agree on this with the resident.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 1 December 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy, acknowledging the complaint on the same day and providing its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December. The landlord’s response covered all the points raised by the resident and raised appropriate repair jobs for each of the respective issues. Following this it failed to follow the works through to completion in accordance with its policy. Works to repair kitchen units were not completed for a further 5 months. Moreover, repairs to holes caused by mice were not completed until over 16 months later. Its failure to monitor these issues caused the issues to remain unresolved over a prolonged period.
  3. The resident raised a further complaint on 2 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint in accordance with its policy. It also failed to discuss the complaint within 5 working days and did not create an action plan with the resident. As such it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and he was left uncertain on if it was taking his concerns seriously.
  4. The landlord spoke with the resident about his complaint on 2 March 2023 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It failed to take any action on the complaint for 20 working days exceeding both its acknowledgement and response timescales in its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide a further stage 1 complaint response as over 12 months had passed since its previous stage 1 response on 6 December 2021. In its response, it told the resident it was “unable to find anything” about his “immersion heating being inadequate.” This was inaccurate as at this point the repair of the immersion cylinder was ongoing. This caused concern to the resident on how well it was managing the lack of heating and hot water at his property. Furthermore, its failure to recognise the issue meant it missed the opportunity to support the resident with temporary heating, which it would later do in its further complaint response. The response would also fail to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his bathroom and mouse holes.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and his MP on 21 March 2023 stating he had received “no stage 2 complaint response.” It is unclear why the resident believed he was waiting for a stage 2 complaint response at this point. However, the landlord contacted the resident the following day regarding his concerns and provided him with a further stage 1 complaint response. It is uncertain why it took this step, and this caused further confusion to the resident on how it was managing his complaint. This response was more comprehensive than its response of 3 March 2023 and did address all points. This included his concerns with the immersion cylinder, and it did arrange temporary heating. The response failed to acknowledge its delayed complaint acknowledgement and response.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2023 to escalate his complaint after receiving its further stage 1 response. On 27 March, the landlord recognised its error, and it advised him it should have escalated the resident’s complaint following the call on 22 March. It confirmed it had escalated his complaint and attempted to manage his expectations by stating it had “a high level of stage 2 cases.” It also advised it would “consider compensation after repairs were complete.” It should have provided this response in either of its previous stage 1 responses to ensure the resident was clear on the matter.
  7. The resident chased his complaint on 29 March 2023 after he had received no further reply from the landlord. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 3. The landlord appropriately explained on 29 March and 4 April its complaint process had only 2 stages and he should contact the Ombudsman if he was unhappy. However, on each occasion, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations on how it was progressing his stage 2 complaint. By this point it had not provided him with formal acknowledgement of his escalation, causing further uncertainty to him. The resident was further frustrated with the lack of reply and on 17 April forwarded his escalation request of 22 March to the landlord. The landlord responded the following day confirming it had escalated his complaint on 27 March and was waiting to assign it to a case manager. It should have done this between 27 March and 18 April, so the resident understood its approach.
  8. The landlord would provide a formal acknowledgement and discuss the complaint with the resident on 3 May 2023. It told him it would reply by 10 May 2023. It would provide its stage 2 complaint response to him on 10 May. This took 32 working days for it to provide, exceeding its timescale by 12 working days. The complaint response did cover all issues regarding the substantive complaints. However, the response inaccurately stated the resident had escalated his complaint on 2 May, when he had in fact done this on 22 March. This meant it was unable to establish its stage 2 response was delayed. Its stage 2 response only recognised failings with its stage 1 complaint response.
  9. The stage 2 response offered £250 compensation believed to be solely for its complaint handling at stage 1 as it acknowledged no failures with its stage 2 handling. This was £100 for the time and effort to bring the complaint and £150 for its complaint handling at stage 1. The compensation amounts are believed to be regarding its stage 1 complaint response only. The amounts offered were appropriate under its Compensation Policy for a discretionary payment. It failed to specifically advise what the issues were with its stage 1 complaint handling and offered no points to learn from. This caused uncertainty on whether the landlord was learning from the complaint to improve its approach in future.
  10. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to identify issues and trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Its inefficient communication and divergence from its policy caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. Moreover, it failed to respond to all issues and acknowledge any failures in its stage 2 complaints process causing further frustration and distress to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £350 compensation has been ordered, £100 more than the £250 offered by the landlord during its complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a period with a moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to his property and associated remedial repairs.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £3,027.43 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of a lack of heating and hot water at the resident’s property.
      2. £1075.20 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
      3. £602.23 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of disrepair and subsequent repairs.
      4. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      5. The amounts above include the £1330 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint’s procedure for the above issues.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the September 2023 government guidance – ‘understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home’ to help it address its approach to damp and mould.