Luton Borough Council (202222538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222538

Luton Borough Council

30 April 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. Floorboard repairs.
  2. Front door repairs.
  3. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about:
  1. The condition of the windows.
  2. The condition of the loft insulation.
3. Response to the resident’s request for heating to be installed in the toilet (WC).
This report also investigates the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. She has lived in the property owned by the landlord, a 2-bed mid terrace house, since 21 October 2019.
The landlord states it has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident or her children. The resident has not disclosed any vulnerabilities within her household to this Service.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property. This includes the floor structures, windows and doors.
The landlord does not have a specific repairs policy or procedure. The landlord’s website states that it will respond to:
1. Emergency repairs, which pose a risk to safety or security or would leave the resident without essential services, within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs, which cause some inconvenience, within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs, which are non-urgent, within 30 working days.
The landlord does not have a specific damp and mould policy or procedure. It has however provided this Service with a copy of its damp and mould risk assessment which is dated December 2023 and its draft damp and mould strategy. It is acknowledged that these documents were not operational at the time of the events in this case.

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident reported concerns about her windows in 2019 and front door and floorboards in March 2021. The resident also expressed concern that around this time one of the landlord’s operatives caused damage to her carpet. While the resident’s comments are acknowledged, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from September 2021 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. References made to events prior to September 2021 are to provide context only.
The resident has also expressed concern about the impact of having to lift carpets within the property. While her concerns are noted, the Ombudsman cannot make determinations in relation to damage to belongings. This is because it is necessary to establish liability in the first instance, and we cannot make liability decisions. This is best suited to an insurance company or court. We have, however, considered the landlord’s actions in relation to the lifting of the carpets so that repairs could be facilitated.
There are aspects of the complaint that relate to the impact of the living conditions on the resident’s health and that of her family. It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced repair issues over a prolonged period. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability for any injury to health or award damages.

Summary of events prior to the period of investigation

The resident first reported issues with the windows in the property in October 2019. She stated that the living room window had “blown” and there was condensation between the glass. The landlord attended the property on 3 occasions between July and August 2020 to replace glazed window units in the living room and kitchen but the resident did not provide access. The glazed units were replaced in December 2020.
The resident reported further issues with the bathroom window in December 2020 stating that it was letting in draughts. The landlord attended in January 2021 and February 2021 to repair the window but the resident did not provide access. The window was resealed on 8 April 2021.
The resident first reported issues with the front door in February 2021. She reported that the door was difficult to lock. The landlord attended that month and replaced the lock and front door handle and fitted a security chain. In March 2021 it fitted a new mechanism to the front door. The resident reported a “large hole” in the door on 17 August 2021.
The first record of the resident reporting issues with her floorboards was in March 2021. She reported that the floorboards in one of the bedrooms had “dropped”. The landlord’s repair records state that the landlord attended in April 2021 and “refixed” the floorboards. It raised a further repair for the floorboards the following day and the repair records state that the resident had been instructed to lift the carpets. The landlord attended on 7 June 2021 but the resident did not provide access.
The resident first reported issues with the roof of the property in May 2021. The landlord’s repair records show that on 24 May 2021 it raised a repair to inspect the roof for missing tiles which were allowing birds in. It attended on 21 June 2021 and replaced a missing tile.

Summary of events during the period of investigation

On 7 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team. She said that her carpet had been ripped by the landlord’s contractor when it had attended to fix her floorboards. She did not state on what date this occurred.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 September 2021 and reported that the living room window was draughty. It is unclear how the landlord responded.
The landlord attended on 21 September 2021 and completed a “patch repair” to the hole in the front door.
The landlord attended to inspect “various issues” in the property on 26 November 2021 and 20 December 2021 but the resident did not provide access.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 6 January 2022 it raised an inspection to determine whether a radiator could be installed in the WC which the resident reported was “always freezing”. This Service has not seen evidence that an inspection was subsequently completed.
The landlord raised a repair on 2 March 2022 in response to the resident’s reports that the floorboards in 2 bedrooms had “fallen through”. The repair notes stated that the resident would need to lift the carpets. The repair was cancelled on 7 March 2022 as the resident informed her housing officer that she was “not prepared to lift [the] carpets”.
The resident made a formal complaint (Complaint A) to the landlord on 17 March 2022. She said:
1. In 2021 she had reported to the landlord that the floorboards in several rooms in the house had “fallen through”.
2. The carpet was lifted for the landlord to repair the floorboards but the landlord did not complete the repair.
3. The landlord then raised a further repair. The resident had already had the carpet re-fitted and could not afford to pay to have it lifted and re-fitted again so “learned to live with” the floorboard issue.
4. Recently the floorboards had become unsafe for her children so she had contacted the landlord to raise the repair again.
5. The landlord had agreed that as the repair had not been carried out the first time it would consider having the carpet refitted for her. The landlord never got back to her about the repair or the carpet.
6. On 17 March 2022 the landlord had told her that she would have to clear furniture from the room, lift the carpets herself and pay for them to be re-laid after the repair.
Internal landlord emails dated 25 March 2022 said:
1. The contractor had attended and had pulled up or cut the carpet to get to the floorboards.
2. It “didn’t do a particularly good job on the repair (possibly because [the resident] had not cleared the area”.
3. The resident had implied that the floorboards were dangerous as she said the bedroom was not useable.
4. If the floorboards were dangerous and the resident or her children fell through, the landlord may be liable.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident. It is understood that this email was intended as the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint A. It said:
1. On 21 April 2021 it attended the property to repair the floorboards. The operative completed the repair “although the area around the damaged part was not cleared”.
2. The resident reported that she was unhappy with the workmanship and so a supervisor attended. The supervisor raised a further repair to the floorboards but advised that the resident would need to lift the carpet herself.
3. As the resident had not lifted the carpet, the landlord had postponed the repair.
4. The repair could not be carried out until the resident arranged for the carpet to be lifted.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint A to stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 29 March 2022. She said she was unable to afford to keep paying for the carpet to be lifted and put back down. She added that she had asked the landlord whether it would pay for the carpet lifting and re-laying but had not received a response.
The landlord has advised, in response to an information request from this Service, that it cannot locate its response to the resident’s escalation request.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord raised a repair for its contractor to lift the carpets so that the floorboards could be repaired. The repair records show the floorboards in the main bedroom and hallway were repaired on 22 April 2022.
The landlord attended again on 6 May 2022 to repair the floorboards in the second bedroom but the resident did not provide access. The landlord repaired the joists and floorboards in the second bedroom on 14 July 2022.
On 22 June 2022 the resident reported that she thought there was a hole in her roof and birds were getting in. The landlord attended on 22 July 2022 and replaced a missing tile.
The landlord raised a repair to replace cracked double-glazing in the bathroom window 20 July 2022. The glass was measured up on 4 August 2022 and replaced on 16 September 2022.
On 29 September 2022 the resident reported that she was unable to open 2 of her windows and that the trickle vents could not be closed. The landlord attended and “overhauled” the windows on 4 October 2022.
The resident made a further formal complaint (Complaint B) to the landlord on 1 October 2022. She said:
1. She had repeatedly reported for over a year that her floorboards were broken. They were dangerous and causing damage to her carpets which were only fitted in 2020.
2. The landlord had promised a year before to install a heater in her WC but it had not done so. She had repeatedly chased the landlord about this.
3. The windows in the property were over 40 years old and let cold air in. She had also repeatedly reported this to the landlord.
4. She was concerned about the increased cost of keeping the property warm.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint B on 4 October 2022. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. However, it has not provided this Service with a copy of its stage 1 complaint response.
Internal landlord emails of 5 October 2022 state that it had spoken to the resident and agreed to complete “all outstanding repairs”. The emails said that the landlord would repair the hallway floor along with “other repairs” not mentioned in her complaint.
Also on 5 October 2022 the landlord raised an order to install a downflow heater to the WC. The landlord attended on 17 October 2022 to fit the heater but was unable to do so as carpenters were working on the landing floorboards.
The landlord raised a repair on 13 October 2022 for a “gap in [the] front door” which it stated was an “ongoing problem”. It attended on 28 October 2022 and “overhauled” the door.
The landlord attended the property again on 27 October 2022 to install a heater to the WC but the resident did not provide access. It attended again on 9 November 2022 and installed the heater.
The landlord raised a repair on 28 November 2022 to replace a tile on the roof. The repair records show it attended on 20 December 2022 but the resident did not provide access.
On 3 December 2022 the resident made a third stage 1 complaint (Complaint C). She said:
1. The floorboards throughout the first floor in the property had still not been repaired.
2. The landlord had attended to repair the floorboards several times and on each occasion the work had not been completed properly.
3. As a result of her carpets being lifted so many times, they did not fit correctly anymore.
4. She had been complaining for 2 years regarding the condition of the windows in the property. They were over 40 years old and the seals were defective leading to water ingress and mould.
5. The mould was making her children sick and she was paying more for heating during a period of increased costs of living.
6. The insulation in the loft was “soaking wet”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 December 2022 and acknowledged the complaint.
On 18 December 2022 the resident contacted this Service as she was concerned about the landlord’s handling of her complaints. This Service wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2023 and advised it to provide a response to Complaint C.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint C on 12 January 2023. It said:
1. It would inspect the floorboards, flooring, damp and mould, and front door. When the inspection had been booked it would notify her of the appointment.
2. The resident’s windows were on the programmed works for the year commencing April 2023.
3. Its contractor would contact her about the required loft insulation works.
The landlord’s repair records show that it carried out an inspection of the property on 24 February 2023. Following the inspection the landlord raised repair works for the floorboards in the bedrooms and landing.
Internal landlord emails of 3 April 2023 stated that the resident wanted a new front door to be fitted. The landlord said that the door had a “small hole that [had] been repaired” and that the door opened and closed “ok” so it did not need to be replaced.
On 22 June 2023 the resident reported that she was unable to close the front door. The landlord attended on the same day and “overhauled” the door.
On 6 August 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate Complaint C to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged the request on the same day.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to Complaint C on 12 September 2023. It said:
1. Floorboards
  1. It attended in 2021 to address the resident’s report that floorboards were “dropping” in the bedroom. The resident was advised to take up the carpet and the landlord would repair the flooring. The carpet was not taken up.
  2. Following a further report of problems with the floorboards on the landing the landlord attended. It lifted and re-laid the carpet.
  3. It had replaced the chipboard flooring in the bedroom and replaced the joists and chipboard flooring on the landing.
  4. It had offered to replace the chipboard flooring in the second bedroom. It had advised the resident she would need to clear the room and then get back in touch to arrange this, she had not done so.
2. Roof
  1. It attended to check the roof for leaks on 20 December 2022 but the resident did not provide access. She had not contacted the landlord to rearrange the appointment.
3. Door
  1. The front door had been “inspected and overhauled” and there was nothing to suggest it needed replacing.
4. Windows
  1. The windows were on the programme to be replaced in the 2023 year.

Summary of events after the period of investigation

The landlord raised a repair on 14 November 2023 to adjust the front door which was out of alignment and had gaps around it. It attended on 28 December 2023 but the resident did not provide access.
On 8 December 2023 the landlord’s repair records show it raised a job to inspect a leak from the roof into the bathroom. It is unclear if or when this inspection went ahead.
On 8 January 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. This identified the following issues:
1. The front door required replacement.
2. Mould treatment was required around the loft hatch and the bathroom ceiling.
3. The carpet in both bedrooms and in the hallway would be taken up and refitted. While the carpet was lifted the landlord would identify and remedy the issues with the floorboards.
4. The roof and loft insulation would be replaced the 2024 financial year.
In response to an information request by this Service the landlord has stated:
1. An inspection carried out in January 2024 found mould around the loft hatch and on the bathroom ceiling. The “most likely” cause of the mould was the “condition of the roof and lack of insulation in the loft”.
2. It did not have any repair logs relating to damp and mould as this issue had not been identified prior to the resident’s December 2022 complaint.
3. The windows in the property were replaced in December 2023.
4. The issue with the floorboards was caused by there being too large a gap between joists. On 19 March 2024 the issue was resolved and the floorboards replaced.
5. The landlord has accepted liability for damage to the resident’s carpet and referred her to its insurer.
6. Mould treatment was carried out on 25 March 2024. The loft hatch would be replaced when the roof has been replaced.
7. The roof replacement was expected to start in May 2024. The loft insulation will be replaced at the same time.
8. A new front door had been ordered and was due to be installed on 16 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of floorboard repairs.

In March 2022 the resident reported that the floorboards in the bedrooms had fallen through. The landlord raised a repair and advised the resident that she would need to lift the carpets in order for the repair to be carried out.
The landlord does not have a repairs policy and the tenancy agreement and tenants handbook do not refer to the resident’s obligation to lift floor coverings prior to repairs. However, it was not unreasonable that the landlord asked the resident to lift the carpets. This is on the basis that the floor coverings belonged to the resident and were therefore her responsibility.
The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor has not always adhered to this ‘policy’ and had, prior to the period of investigation, lifted the resident’s carpet on a prior visit. This Service considers that this has created confusion around the obligations of each party, and has left the resident with the expectation that the landlord may lift her carpets, as necessary. As such, she has been left feeling frustrated when the landlord said it would not lift her carpets again to carry out the repairs.
The resident stated within Complaint A that in 2021, while the landlord’s contractor had lifted the carpet it had not repaired the floorboards. She acknowledged that she had not reported this again for around a year. This was on the basis that she was unable to afford to have the carpet lifted and re-laid but that the floorboards were now a danger to her children.
The landlord confirmed in internal emails in March 2022 that its contractor had “pulled up or cut up” the carpet and had not done “a particularly good job on the repair”. It also acknowledged that it may be liable if the resident or her children hurt themselves. It is therefore unclear to this Service why, when the landlord contacted the resident 4 days later, it had failed to acknowledge this. This was a failing.
This Service acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding the cost of lifting and relaying the carpet. The landlord was aware that its contractor did not carry out the repair to a satisfactory standard and there was a potential health and safety risk. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to have agreed at this stage to lift and relay the carpet to complete the repair.
It was not until the resident asked to escalate Complaint A in April 2022 that the landlord agreed to have its contractor lift the carpets so that the floorboards could be repaired. As such, while the landlord did subsequently agree to lift the carpets; in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered doing so earlier.
The landlord’s repair records state that it attended to repair the floorboards in the main bedroom and hallway on 22 April 2022. It also attended to repair the floorboards in the second bedroom on 14 July 2022.
The resident raised further issues with the floorboards in October 2022 and December 2022. She said the issues had not been resolved and that her carpets, purchased 2 years previously, were being damaged.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response to Complaint C that it had not returned to complete the repairs as the resident had failed to clear the second bedroom and get back in touch. This does not correspond with the landlord’s own repair records which state that it carried out repairs in April 2022 and July 2022.As such, it is unclear how the landlord reached its conclusion.
The survey carried out by the landlord in January 2024 confirmed that there were still issues with the floorboards and the landlord agreed to lift the carpet, repair the floorboards and relay the carpet. The floorboard repair issues were finally resolved in March 2024 and the landlord has accepted liability for the damage to the carpet.
This Service does not consider that it was reasonable that it took the landlord 2 years to resolve the reported repair. In addition, there were workmanship issues and the landlord did not effectively manage its contractor’s performance. This was a further failing.
It is also concerning that the landlord has provided conflicting information regarding the floorboard repairs both to the resident and to this Service. The failure to provide correct information about the actions that have been taken is indicative of poor record keeping.
The resident has experienced clear distress and inconvenience and has had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord to resolve the issue. Based on the evidence that is available, the landlord should reasonably have acknowledged that its handling of the repairs was inappropriate when responding to Complaint C. It did not do so and therefore missed an opportunity to try to put things right. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the floorboard repairs.

Response to the resident’s reports of front door repairs.

It is noted that, prior to the timeframe of this investigation, the resident reported issues with the front door and the landlord attended to replace the lock and front door handle, fit a security chain, and fit a new door mechanism.
In August 2021 the resident reported a “large hole” in the door which the landlord patch repaired 5 weeks later. This Service has not seen any evidence that demonstrates that the extent of the damage to the door meant that a patch repair was not appropriate. We do however consider that a hole in the front door, even if it did not cause a security concern, would reasonably be considered more pressing than a ‘routine’ repair and should have been attended to in a shorter timeframe. It is unclear why it was not.
In October 2022 the resident reported that there were gaps around the front door and the landlord raised a repair to adjust it. It attended 2 weeks later and adjusted the door. This Service considers that this timeframe was reasonable.
In April 2023 the resident requested that a new front door be fitted. The landlord stated in internal emails that, as the door opened and closed “ok”, it did not need to be replaced. The landlord’s assessment is noted. However, in addition to opening and closing, a front door should also prevent excessive heat loss and provide sufficient security to the property. The landlord has not demonstrated that it fully considered the resident’s request and the condition of the door and this was a failing.
Only 2 months later the resident reported that the front door would not close. The door was again “overhauled”. The landlord’s own comment in April 2023, that the door would not close should reasonably have been an indication that a replacement may be required. This Service considers that, as a minimum, the landlord should have carried out an inspection of the door. That it did not is a failing.
In September 2023 the landlord advised that the front door had been “inspected and overhauled” and did not require replacement. It is unclear what inspection the landlord is referring to as this Service has not seen evidence that this was completed or what this assessment was based on. We cannot therefore assess whether the landlord’s conclusion was reasonable.
Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents and to this Service. The landlord has been ordered to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management.
The resident again reported that the door was out of alignment and had gaps around it 2 months later. The landlord’s records show that it attended approximately 6 weeks later in December 2023. It is accepted that the resident failed to provide access when the landlord attended which clearly caused delays. However it was not reasonable that the landlord took 6 weeks to attend to the repair.
In January 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and agreed that the front door did in fact require replacement. While it is accepted that components can deteriorate over time, it is unclear why the decision to replace the door was not reached sooner.
At the time of this report the door has not been replaced but the work is planned for May 2024. This Service considers that the landlord has not demonstrated that it inspected the door thoroughly in June 2023. Therefore, the replacement of the door has been unduly delayed by a period of 11 months. This is a further failing.
Overall, the landlord has delayed for almost a year in replacing the front door. This has caused the resident repeated inconvenience when she has been unable to close the door and has experienced heat loss due to the door not fitting properly. She has also experienced time and trouble when she had to repeatedly report the repair issues. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding repairs required to the front door.

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

The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has stated that the health of her children has been affected by damp and mould in the property. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by residents and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint.
The resident first reported concerns regarding damp and mould to the landlord in early December 2022. She said that defective window seals had led to water ingress and mould which was making her children unwell.
In January 2023 the landlord said it would inspect the damp and mould along with other repair issues. It inspected the property on 24 February 2023 however no mention was made during the inspection of whether any damp and mould was found. As the inspection was specifically raised to look at the issue of damp and mould along with other repair issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this explicitly. That it was not, was a failing.
A year later, after the resident had complained to this Service, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the property. This identified mould around the loft hatch and on the bathroom ceiling. The landlord has stated that it believes that the likely cause of the mould was the condition of the roof and insulation rather than the windows. This Service does not consider that a resident should have to refer a complaint to the Ombudsman to affect a reasonable response from their landlord.
Overall, the landlord has delayed by a period of over a year to inspect the property and identify the source of the mould in the property. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.

On 20 July 2022 the resident reported that the glass in her bathroom window was cracked. The landlord raised a repair to replace cracked double-glazing and attended to measure for the glass 2 weeks later and fitted the new glass 6 weeks later. As the glass had to be ordered and manufactured this was not an unreasonable timeframe.
In September 2022 the resident reported problems with 2 further windows. The landlord attended 5 days later and carried out repairs. This repair was also completed within a reasonable timeframe.
When the resident raised Complaint B, she stated that the windows in the property were over 40 years old. She said they let in cold air and she was concerned about the cost of keeping the property warm. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord considered or responded to the resident’s concerns at this time. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
The resident raised her concerns again as part of Complaint C in December 2022 stating that the seals on the windows were defective and this had caused water ingress and mould. She said that the poor condition of the windows was increasing her heating costs during a cost-of-living crisis and was impacting the health of her children. That the landlord again failed to address these specific concerns when responding to Complaint C was a further failing.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that, to meet the standard, a home must be in a reasonable state of repair. If structural elements of the home (including windows and doors) are old and need replacing or require immediate major repair, then the home is not in a reasonable state of repair.
The DHS defines the lifespan of windows in houses as 40 years. The landlord has acknowledged that the windows in the property required replacement and in January 2023 advised the resident that they would be replaced during the 2023 financial year. It carried out these works in December 2023.
This Service accepts that a landlord may be unable, due to budgetary reasons, to complete costly works such as window replacement, within the same financial year they are reported. The resident clearly stated however that the draughts caused by the windows were impacting her ability to keep the property warm and the health of her children. We would therefore have expected the landlord to consider interim measures to assist the resident. This may have included a referral to support with the cost of heating, sealing the windows or applying a temporary secondary glazing. That the landlord has not been seen to have considered taking any interim action was a further failing.
The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s initial reports regarding her windows between July 2022 and September 2002. However, it failed to respond reasonably to her reports in October and December 2022. It has not demonstrated that it considered taking any interim action in response to the resident’s reports that the draughts were impacting the health of her children. Nor did it consider prioritising the window replacements earlier in the 2023 financial year. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding her windows.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the loft insulation.

The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident first reported concerns regarding the loft insulation to the landlord in December 2022 when she stated it was “soaking wet”.
In January 2023 the landlord said its contractor would contact the resident about the insulation. This Service has seen no evidence that it did so. This was a failing.
In January 2024, after the resident contacted this Service, the landlord carried out an inspection. Following this, it confirmed that it would replace the insulation at the same time as the roof was replaced in the 2024 financial year.
The evidence that is available suggests that the insulation became wet owing to the condition of the roof. The landlord has acknowledged that the roof needs replacing, and also that the issues with the insulation were likely the cause of mould within the property. This Service therefore considers that it was unreasonable that, if the works are completed in May 2024 as planned, it will have taken the landlord 18 months to satisfactorily address the issue.
The Ombudsman accepts that roof replacement works would have large budgetary impacts on the landlord. The roof is a vital structural component of the property and, as it was not watertight it could not be described as in a reasonable state of repair. The property therefore did not meet the DHS.
The DHS also advises that properties should provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort” and that at least 50mm of loft insulation would be considered appropriate for a gas central heated property. As the insulation in the property was ineffective due to being wet, the thermal comfort of the property was likely to have been lessened.
Overall, the landlord has delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the loft insulation. The insulation has been rendered ineffective by damage caused by a roof in need of replacement. This has impacted the thermal comfort of the property which has caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the loft insulation.

Compensation

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property has been inappropriate, resulting in distress and inconvenience to the resident and loss of enjoyment of the property. The resident has paid approximately £445 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration which the Ombudsman reasonably considers to have started in September 2021, which was 6 months prior to Complaint A. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s occupation of the property has been affected by outstanding repairs, (30 months). Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,335 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period in question. 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. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s request for heating to be installed in the toilet (WC).

The resident first requested that the landlord install a heater in the WC in January 2022 as she stated the room was “freezing”. The landlord raised a job for an operative to inspect but no evidence has been seen by this Service that an inspection took place. If an inspection was not carried out, this was a failing. If the landlord did complete an inspection, it would have been reasonable for it to have recorded its findings, whether it recommended a heater be installed, and if so, for installation work to have been ordered accordingly.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action until the resident raised Complaint B in October 2022. Repair records show that 4 days after the complaint, the landlord raised an order to install the heater. It therefore appears that the formal complaint prompted the landlord’s action, and this was inappropriate.
The installation of the heater was further delayed by other works being carried out and by the resident failing to provide access. It was eventually installed on 9 November 2022.
This Service considers that the landlord delayed unreasonably between January 2022 and October 2022 in installing the heater. While it is noted that the resident stated that she had chased the landlord several times to ask that the heater be installed, this Service has not seen evidence of this. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to carry out the inspection or work in a timely manner and this was a failing. We have therefore found that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a heater in the WC.

Complaint handling.

The resident raised Complaint A in March 2022. The landlord responded 8 working days later which is within the timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
The landlord’s ‘complaint response’ however was not easily identifiable as such. The email’s subject title did not distinguish it as a complaint response and the email did not contain all the components identified by the Code 2022 as essential elements in a complaint response:
1. what stage the complaint had been considered at (eg stage one or two).
2. the details of the complaint.
3. the outcome of the complaint and the reasons for the outcome
4. details of any remedy to put things right
5. details of outstanding actions.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it provided a stage 2 response to Complaint A. Therefore this Service must conclude that one was not provided. This was a serious complaint handling failure as the resident’s concerns were left unaddressed and she was not signposted to this Service.
The resident raised Complaint B in October 2022 regarding the floorboards, along with additional concerns regarding a heater and the windows. The landlord acknowledged this, but we have not been provided with evidence that a stage 1 response was issued. As such, we must therefore conclude that a response was again not provided. This is a further serious complaint handling failure.
In December 2022 the resident raised Complaint C regarding the issues previously raised and additional concerns about damp and mould and the loft insulation.
Despite the resident having raised some of these concerns as part of Complaint A and Complaint B, the landlord missed this opportunity to recognise that the previous complaints had not been properly handled. This was a missed opportunity.
It took the landlord 6 weeks to provide a response to Complaint C. This was outside the timeframe outlined in the Code 2022 and the landlord’s own complaints procedure. This was therefore a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s complaint response stated that it would inspect the floorboards, flooring, damp and mould, and front door. It also addressed her concerns regarding the windows and insulation. It did not however make any mention of the heater in the WC which was within the resident’s complaint. It was a failing that the landlord did not address all aspects of the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again 7 months after its stage 1 complaint response as the repairs issues complained about were still outstanding. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 26 working days later. This is outside the timeframe outlined in both the Code and the landlord’s own policy, a further failing.
It is of concern that the landlord has been unable to provide copies of complaint responses. This indicates serious knowledge and information management and complaint handling issues. Furthermore, given the poor complaint handling, it has been necessary for the resident to repeatedly raise the same concerns and this has ultimately delayed our consideration of her concerns by more than a year. This is not acceptable. The landlord’s complaint responses were not compliant with the Code as they failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident and failed to provide a resolution or redress. Due to the serious issues identified, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. Floorboard repairs.
  2. Front door repairs.
  3. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
  1. The condition of the windows.
  2. The condition of the loft insulation.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that heating be installed in the WC.
4. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

It was not reasonable that it took the landlord 2 and a half years to resolve the issues with the resident’s floorboards. The resident has experienced clear distress and inconvenience and has had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord to resolve the issue.
The landlord has delayed for almost a year in replacing the front door. This has caused the resident repeated inconvenience as she has at times been unable to close the door and has experienced heat loss. She has also experienced time and trouble when she had to repeatedly report the repair issues to the landlord.
The landlord has delayed by a period of over a year to identify, treat, and resolve the source of the mould in the property. It has failed to carry out repairs in line with its own policy and the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience as a result.
While the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s initial reports regarding her windows, it failed to respond reasonably to her reports in October and December 2022. It has not demonstrated that it considered taking any interim action in response to reports that the draughts were impacting the health of the resident’s children. Nor did it consider prioritising the window replacements earlier in the 2023 financial year.
The landlord has delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the loft insulation. The insulation was rendered ineffective by damage caused by a roof in need of replacement. This has impacted the thermal comfort of the property causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord delayed unreasonably between January 2022 and October 2022 in installing a heater in the WC. While this Service has not seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to chase the work as she alleges, the landlord failed to carry out the inspection or installation in a timely manner and this was a failure.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. The evidence suggests that it failed to respond to the resident’s earlier complaints in accordance with its own policy and the Code. The landlord failed to address all of the issues that were raised and departed from response timescales significantly when responding to Complaint C.
This investigation has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord has provided conflicting information regarding surveys and repairs to both the resident and to this Service. It has also been unable to provide any evidence that it responded to Complaint A at stage 2 or to Complaint B at stage 1.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord at director level or above to apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £2,635 compensation comprising:
1. £1,335 for reduced enjoyment of the property for 30 months due to the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
2. £100 for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s handling of the floorboard repairs.
3. £100 for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s handling of the front door repairs.
4. £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. £100 for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s handling of the windows repairs.
6. £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s handling of the reports regarding the condition of the loft insulation.
7. £100 for time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s handling of the installation of the WC heater.
8. £700 for time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased costs) the landlord to reimburse the resident for the increased cost of heating the property due to drafts and poor insulation. The landlord should demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and agreed a compensation amount within 2 weeks of the evidence being provided by the resident.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to provide evidence that the following works have been completed:
1. Roof replacement
2. Loft insulation replacement
3. Loft hatch replacement
4. Front door replacement.
As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is required to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024, which came into effect on 1 April 2024. As such, we have not ordered the landlord to review its policy. However, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence that it has delivered complaint handling training to all relevant staff to ensure that:
1. Complaints are managed in line with the landlord’s own procedures.
2. Staff understand the requirements of the Code 2024.
3. Complaint responses meet the requirements within the Code 2024 and include:
  1. A clear title demonstrating that it is a formal complaint response.
  2. What stage the complaint had been considered at (eg stage one or two).
  3. The details of the complaint.
  4. The outcome of the complaint and the reasons for the outcome
  5. Details of any remedy to put things right
  6. Details of outstanding actions.
4. All aspects of the complaint are considered.
5. All documentation including complaint responses are recorded.
6. Compensation is considered when it is not possible to put the resident back in the position they would have been in if not for the landlord’s service failure. This includes consideration of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and varying levels of physical and emotional impact.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review its policies and practices in knowledge and information management. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Carrying out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations.
2. A review of how it records specialist inspections, including surveyor reports. Identify how these reports inform its repairs service in a timely manner
3. The storage, retention and supply of information related to complaint responses.
4. The accuracy of records related to repairs and property surveys.

The landlord must provide a copy of the report to this Service and its Board within 12 weeks of the date of this report.