Melton Borough Council (202234544)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234544

Melton Borough Council

9 January 2025

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs, including damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reported delays in being rehoused.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reported delays in being rehoused.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) website states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about:
1. Housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part VI.
2. The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
In this case, the resident stated in her complaint dated 25 January 2023 that she had continued to bid for properties as she needed to transfer to an alternative property, however, she believed she needed to be given a higher priority for rehousing. The decision about which priority banding an applicant should be placed in is a matter for the local authority as part of its non-landlord functions rather than its landlord function. All decisions relating to the council’s Allocations Policy fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Service. If the resident wishes to pursue this part of the complaint, she should contact the LGSCO directly.

Background

The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat.
The landlord’s records show that the resident is vulnerable due to a range of medical conditions and mental health issues.
The resident advised this Service on 5 June 2024 that her complaint was about repairs the landlord had agreed to carry out following the Ombudsman’s previous investigation (reference number 202111698). The investigation had concluded on 17 August 2022 and the Ombudsman had ordered the landlord to write to the resident to confirm the repairs that were outstanding and to outline its proposed dates for completing them. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 September 2022 with the required information and the Ombudsman considered the landlord had therefore complied.

Summary of events

On 25 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a stage one complaint. The complaint included the following points:
1. She stated that her repairs had not been done, including the toilet seat, the electrics and the removal of soil from the side of the property to stop mould.
2. The resident said that mould had already started to come through the kitchen walls again because the walls were damp.
3. The resident requested a surveyor to inspect the property as she was unhappy with the quality of work previously carried out by the contractors.
4. The resident stated that she had continued to bid for properties as she needed to transfer to an alternative property but needed to be given a higher priority for moving.
On 25 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to report a leak from above her property. She requested the landlord to add the issue to her stage one complaint.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that its out of hours team attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2023 regarding a leak from the flat above. The leak was found to have been from the washing machine in the flat above and the tenant had already sorted out the problem when the out of hours team attended.
On 3 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would visit her at home on 7 February 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 February 2023 to confirm that as discussed on 7 February 2023, it had extended the deadline for responding to her complaint from 15 February 2023 to 22 February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023 and reported that there was a smell of sewage under her bathroom floor.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2023 with its stage one reply in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had requested the landlord to re-wire the property to meet her needs, including lowering switches. The landlord stated that it would only carry out such works as a result of a social services referral, which it had not received.
2. The resident had reported a loose toilet seat but the landlord had no record of the resident previously reporting this. The landlord had now raised an order for its contractor to refix the seat.
3. The landlord had visited the property on 28 September 2022 and raised an order for its contractor to remove soil from the side wall. The work was carried out on 28 October 2022.
4. The landlord stated that it had no outstanding reports of damp and mould. The landlord said it had inspected the living room walls during its visit on 7 February 2023 and had found no new mould on the walls. The landlord also said it had not seen any new mould in the bedroom. The landlord did, however, find there was mould around a number of windows in the property and had therefore raised an order for its contractor to clean the mould and replace the silicone.
5. The landlord confirmed that when it had visited the property, the kitchen had been stripped out which revealed a wet floor and walls. There had been evidence of leaks from various pipes in the kitchen and leaks from the flat above and, as a result, water may have become trapped under the kitchen units and vinyl floor.
6. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was concerned that some of the mould may have been covered over and may return in the future. However, the landlord stated that this was not evident during its visit, but if it did become a problem, it would carry out work at that point.
7. The landlord had checked the toilet flush during its visit on 7 February 2023 and this was working. However, the landlord noted that the toilet pan was cracked. The landlord said it would raise an order to replace the toilet pan.
8. The landlord stated that it had not recent reports of a defective television aerial but said it would now raise an order.
9. The resident had requested a new bathroom, however, the landlord stated that it would not replace the entire bathroom. The landlord confirmed that it would continue repairing individual elements of the bathroom and that it would carry out any work recommended by an occupational therapist (OT).
10. The landlord confirmed that the windows had been installed in 2010 and were therefore not due for replacement for some time.
11. The landlord noticed that the stopcock in the hallway cupboard was leaking slightly and had therefore raised an order to repair it.
12. The resident had requested a transfer to an alternative property due to health needs and anti-social behaviour (ASB). The landlord confirmed that the resident had an active housing application and had been placed in a medium banding.
13. The landlord stated that it would gather further information so that the Housing Options Team could re-assess her rehousing application. However, in the meantime, the resident would need to keep her rent account up to date, engage with her social worker, ensure there was no ASB at her property and no complaints about her from other residents.
14. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint because some repairs remained outstanding and had not been completed to a high enough standard. This had resulted in the landlord needing to raise new repairs to rectify the problems such as the defective toilet and the soil near the side wall. The landlord therefore apologised.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 February 2023 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because:
1. The resident stated that she had phoned the landlord because the “sewers were flooded” and this led to water coming through her bath plughole when the toilet was flushed.
2. The resident reported various repairs issues, including:
  1. The skirting board in the living room needed to be replaced as it was rotten.
  2. The soil near the side wall had not been touched despite the landlord stating that some had attended to it.
  3. The electrical work outlined in her previous complaint had not been addressed and there were problems with the light pendant and the electrical sockets.
  4. There was mould in the kitchen and she had no running water.
3. The resident stated she had experienced ASB with one of the windows being smashed.
The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to resecure the toilet seat. An operative attended on 6 March 2023 and left a card as there was no access. The contractor attended on 7 March 2023 and refitted the old toilet seat with new bolts.
The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to attend to mould around the windows and replace the silicone sealant where necessary. The contractor attended on 2 March 2023 and during the visit it cleaned the mould and sealed around the windows. The contractor noted that it was unable to work on the kitchen windows as other works were being carried out in the kitchen. The contractor therefore attended again on 3 April 2023 and carried out a mould wash and silicone replacement around the kitchen window.
The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to investigate why the toilet was backing up and the toilet was not flushing. The contractor attended on 6 March 2023, however, there was no access. Therefore, the contractor left a no access card. The contractor attended on 3 April 2023 and replaced the toilet pan, the syphon, the inlet and all other water connections.
The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to rake back the soil and gravel around the property to give a clear gap of one brick between the ground and the damp proof course. The contractor attended on 14 March 2023 and removed the soil at the rear of the property down to the damp proof course and backfilled with pea gravel.
The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to repair a faulty TV aerial before a target date of 9 March 2023. The contractor attended on 8 March 2023.
The landlord raised an order on 3 March 2023 to repair the leaking stopcock in the hallway cupboard. The contractor attended on 7 March 2023 and completed the repair.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage 2 reply on 7 March 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord spoke to the resident on 24 February 2023 and she had mentioned a range of repairs, which the landlord said it was working through. However, some of the repairs would take longer to complete due to issues such as needing the property to dry out.
2. The landlord had provided a dehumidifier to help the property dry out and would be prepared to reimburse the resident for the additional electricity used if she provided the costs.
3. The landlord had spoken with the resident on 7 March 2023 and she had advised that the light pendant in the hallway cupboard was not working and she believed she did not have sufficient electrical sockets in the property. The landlord stated it would therefore raise the necessary jobs / inspections.
4. The landlord stated it was unable to advise the resident how long it might take to move her.
5. The landlord requested the resident to forward any recommendations from the OT regarding adaptations to the bathroom as she was due to meet the OT on 8 March 2023.
6. The landlord believed it had listened to the resident and supported her request to move.
7. Further works had been scheduled following the completion of the initial works on 28 October 2022 to deal with the soil outside her property.
8. The landlord had arranged for the light pendant and the number of sockets to be inspected.
9. The landlord had agreed with the resident on 24 February 2023 that the mould in the kitchen would be cleared and that the walls would need to dry before the new kitchen units could be installed. The resident had confirmed that operatives were working in the property on 7 March 2023.
10. The landlord agreed to refund the resident for the additional electricity costs for the dehumidifier and requested the resident to supply details of the costs.
11. The landlord had agreed to support the resident’s transfer to assist with her rehabilitation.
12. The landlord requested the landlord to reduce the rent arrears on her account.
13. The resident was assisting the council’s Environmental Protection team by providing information about fly-tipping.
14. The landlord stated it had carried out a range of repairs which should address the problems with mould in the property.
15. The landlord acknowledged that some of the repairs had taken longer than it would have wished and therefore partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised.
The landlord raised an order on 8 March 2023 to repair a faulty light pendant in the hallway cupboard and to check that the property had the correct number of electrical sockets. The landlord’s records stated that it tried to contact the resident on 10 and 13 March 2023 but was unable to contact her. An electrician attended on 3 April 2023, checked the pendant in the hallway cupboard and noted that it was working. The electrician made a note that the resident wanted 3 additional electrical sockets.
The landlord raised an order on 8 March 2023 to inspect the skirting board and door frames, which the resident had reported as being mouldy. (The landlord’s records stated that it was unable to obtain access to the property on 28 April, 23 May and 12 June 2023. Calling cards were left at the property on each visit and the landlord wrote to the resident with an appointment for 15 November 2023).
The landlord raised an order on 6 April 2023 to carry out work to the path at the side of the property. The job notes stated that the landlord had attended on 28 April 2023 but had not been able to obtain access. A further appointment was booked for 15 June 2023 and the contractor attended on this date. The contractor lifted the paving slabs to the side of the property, dug out the soil and topped up with pea gravel. The contractor also cut out a section of the path to the side of the property and refilled with pea gravel.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2023 and provided her with an update on the various works it had programmed in. The landlord’s update included the following:
1. Work to the skirting boards had been booked for 23 May 2023.
2. The landlord said it had received a referral from the occupational therapists regarding an over bath shower. It said it would be in touch with the resident shortly regarding this and would try to match the existing tiles when carrying out the work.
3. The landlord advised the resident that there had been a leak from the washing machine which the contractor rectified. It said it had made sure the kitchen was dry before finishing the work on the kitchen units and flooring.
4. The landlord said the internal doors were the resident’s responsibility and therefore it could not assist with them.
5. The work to level the ground outside had been re-scheduled for 23 May 2023.
6. The landlord advised the resident that it was actively looking for alternative accommodation for the resident, however, it presently did not have any suitable properties available.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2023 and reported not having enough electrical sockets, a loose ceiling rose and pendant and the delay in repairing the kitchen. She stated that she intended to approach the Ombudsman as the kitchen had taken 9 weeks to complete because the landlord had not investigated the mould properly.
The landlord’s records show that it was unable to obtain access for an appointment booked for 23 May 2023 to repair/renew the skirting board.
On 31 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that it would only install additional electrical sockets if stipulated on the electrical safety certificate for the property. The landlord had checked the certificate and as it did not include this stipulation, the landlord said it would not install additional sockets in the property. The email also included details regarding a light fitting, the kitchen refurbishment timescales, reimbursement of electricity costs and ensuring the ground level was reduced to the same level all the way around the flat. The landlord accepted that the kitchen refurbishment had taken longer than it should have done.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 and stated that her dissatisfaction was not just about how long the kitchen had taken. She stated that the kitchen would not have taken as long as it did if the landlord had dealt with the mould as it had been ordered to by the Ombudsman.
The landlord raised an order on 5 June 2023 to resecure the ceiling pendant in the hallway cupboard. The job notes stated that there was no access when the contractor attended on 12 June 2023. (The contractor attended on 21 June 2023 and resecured the ceiling rose cover).
An inspector attended the property on 15 June 2023 to check the contractor’s progress during the work to reduce the ground level around the property. The inspector also visited the property on 22 June 2023 to check the work after it had been completed. The job notes stated that the inspector took photos of the end result and the landlord’s records stated that he was satisfied that sufficient soil had been removed. The job had entailed the contractor raking out the soil at the back to give a clear brick space between the floor and the damp proof course (the job notes stated that the work had previously been done but the ground was still too high).
The landlord wrote to this Service on 13 June 2024 in relation to the work it had carried out to reduce the level of the soil around the property. The landlord stated that the work had been carried out because the tenant had been concerned that the soil level may have been causing rising damp. However, the landlord confirmed that it did not find evidence of rising damp in the property. Its assessment found condensation and leaks and therefore its focus had been on improving ventilation and repairing the leaks.
On 16 June 2024, the resident wrote to this Service to advise that she had been left without a bath for a month, despite needing a bath to cleanse her wounds. She also stated that she was left without a kitchen for 9 weeks. She also described how she had been rehoused into a bungalow but had to give up the property as she stated the landlord refused to install a bath, which she said she needed for health reasons.
The resident wrote to this Service on 20 June 2024 to report there was still mould on the windows and they were not closing properly. She stated that the landlord had repainted her kitchen but the mould was coming back as the landlord had not dealt with the leak from the flat above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident submitted a new stage one complaint on 25 January 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to consider how a landlord responded to complaints. Therefore, having considered the previous investigation, the landlord’s letter dated 7 September 2022 and other evidence relating to 2022, this Service has concluded that it is fair and reasonable for the focus of the current investigation to be on the period from 25 January 2023 (the date of the resident’s stage one complaint) to 7 March 2023 (the date of the landlord’s stage 2 reply). Information relating to events that occurred outside of this period have, however, been included for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs, including damp and mould

The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 25 January 2023 regarding various repairs she stated had not been carried out. She mentioned the toilet seat, electrics, removal of soil from around the property and the re-emergence of mould in the kitchen. She requested an inspection by a surveyor as she was unhappy with the quality of work carried out to date. The resident wrote again on the same day to report a leak from the flat above her property. The landlord’s out of hours team attended on the same day (25 January 2023) regarding the leak and found it had been from the washing machine in the flat above. The contractor found that the problem had already been sorted out when it attended. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for its contractor to attend to the leak on the same day it had been reported by the resident.
As the resident had requested a surveyor to inspect the property, the landlord wrote to her on 3 February 2023 to advise that it would attend on 7 February 2023 to carry out the inspection. This was reasonable as the landlord had arranged the inspection within a reasonable period and had given the resident notice of the inspection.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply dated 21 February 2023 that the resident had reported a loose toilet seat but it had no record of the resident previously reporting it. It had therefore raised an order.
The landlord raised the order on 2 March 2023 to resecure the toilet seat. An operative attended on 6 March 2023 and left the card as there was no access to the property. The contractor attended again on 7 March 2023 and refitted the old toilet seat with new bolts. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had taken over a week to raise the order after sending its stage one reply. However, once the order had been raised, the contractor attended within a reasonable timescale to resecure the toilet seat.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply that the resident had reported damp and mould, however, it had inspected the walls on 7 February 2023 and had not found any new mould on the living room or bedroom walls. However, it had found mould around some of the windows and it had therefore raised an order to clean the mould and replace the silicon sealant.
The landlord had therefore inspected the property within a reasonable timescale to identify whether there was mould present. Having identified that there was mould around the windows, it had appropriately raised an order on 2 March 2023. The contractor attended on the same day, cleaned the mould around the windows and applied new sealant. However, the contractor was unable to work on the kitchen windows as other works were in progress in the kitchen at the time. The contractor therefore returned on 3 April 2023, carried out a mould wash and silicon replacement around the kitchen window.
The landlord therefore arranged for the mould around the windows to be cleaned and resealed within a reasonable timescale. It was also reasonable that the landlord had delayed working on the kitchen windows because other works were in progress at the time. It is customary that only one contractor works in a particular part of a property at any time. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had carried out the work on the kitchen windows on a future date (3 April 2023).
The landlord agreed to remove the soil immediately around the property as a precaution to ensure it did not cause rising damp. The landlord has stressed the precautionary nature of this work as it had not found any signs of rising damp in the property. The landlord’s records show that it carried out work on 28 October 2022. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 22 February 2023 and stated that the contractor had not previously removed the soil from around the property. In response, the landlord raised an order on 2 March 2022 to rake back the soil around the property to give a clear gap between the ground and the damp proof course. The contractor attended on 14 March 2023 and carried out the work.
The landlord had therefore responded to the resident’s email within a reasonable timescale by raising a further order to remove the soil and replace it with shingle. The landlord apologised in its stage one reply that its contractor had not adequately dealt with the removal of the soil in October 2022. The apology was appropriate as the landlord’s contractor had not removed sufficient soil in October 2022 when it originally carried out the work. Given that the work was precautionary and there was no rising damp affecting the property, the Ombudsman’s view is that an apology was a proportionate response to put things right.
The landlord stated on 21 February 2023 that it would raise an order to repair a defective TV aerial. The landlord raised the order on 2 March 2023 and the contractor attended on 8 March 2023 to carry out the repairs. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the defective TV aerial was therefore reasonable.
On 25 January 2023 and 7 March 2023, the resident requested the landlord to rewire the property and install additional electrical sockets. An operative attended the property on 3 April 2023 and made a note that the resident had requested additional sockets. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2023 and stated that she did not have enough sockets. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 May 2023 and explained that it would not add additional sockets as this had not been recommended as part of the last electrical safety inspection.
It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had taken 4 months for it to respond to the resident’s request for additional sockets. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to advise her that it would only fit additional electrical sockets if this had been recommended as part of an electrical safety check. The purpose of the electrical check is to ensure the electrics are safe and functional, remedy any faults and to report back on any deficiencies or electrical failures. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its electrical contractor in deciding whether the resident required additional sockets. In this case, the landlord advised the resident that the electrical safety check had not recommended additional sockets.
The resident had requested a new bathroom, however, the landlord stated in its stage one reply that it would not replace the entire bathroom. It did, however, state that it would continue repairing individual elements of the bathroom and would carry out any work recommended by an occupational therapist (OT). This was reasonable because landlords generally only replace entire bathrooms as part of a major works programme, rather than as part of day-to-day repairs. The exception is usually where an inspection identifies the need to replace the entire bathroom. It was also reasonable for the landlord to explain that it would carry out any works recommended by an OT as this would enable the resident to use the bathroom safely.
On 22 February 2023, the resident reported a problem with the light pendant in the hallway cupboard. The landlord therefore raised an order on 8 March 2023 to repair the faulty light. The landlord tried to contact the resident on 10 and 13 March 2023 regarding the order but was unable to contact her. An electrician attended the property on 3 April 2023 and checked the pendant. The electrician noted that the pendant was working. It was appropriate that the landlord had raised an order to repair the light pendant and had tried to contact the resident within a reasonable time. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend on 3 April 2023 and the electrician had found the light to be safe and working. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the findings of the electrician.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2023 and again mentioned a loose ceiling rose and pendant in the hallway. The landlord raised an order on 5 June 2023 to resecure the ceiling pendant in the hallway cupboard. There was no access when the contractor attended on 12 June 2023. The contractor therefore returned on 21 June 2023 and carried out the repair. The landlord and its contractor had therefore responded within a reasonable period. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the problem with the light was the same issue that was reported by the resident in February 2023 or whether the defect occurred after the electrician had visited in April 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 February 2023 and reported that the skirting in the living room was rotten and needed replacing. The landlord therefore raised an order on 8 March 2023 to inspect the skirting board. However, the contractor was unable to obtain access on 28 April, 23 May and 12 June 2023 and therefore the contractor left calling cards at the property each time. The landlord subsequently made an appointment for the contractor to attend on 15 November 2023. The landlord had therefore attempted to attend on 3 occasions to inspect the skirting and left calling cards. This was reasonable and the landlord was, in the Ombudsman’s view, entitled to cancel the job after 3 attempts. Landlords are entitled to consider the time and effort they spend trying to gain access and the impact this is having on their ability to deliver other repairs.
The landlord mentioned in its stage one reply that it had noticed a leaking stopcock in the hallway cupboard when it had inspected the property. The landlord therefore raised an order on 3 March 2023 to repair the leak and its contractor completed the repair on 7 March 2023. As the landlord considered the leak to be a slow one, it responded in a reasonable timescale to address the repair.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 February 2023 and stated that water was back surging through the bath plughole when the toilet was flushed. The landlord raised an order on 2 March 2023 to investigate why the toilet was backing up and the toilet was not flushing. The contractor attended on 6 March 2023 but there was no access. The contractor left a card and then attended on 3 April 2023 to carry out the necessary repairs. The contractor replaced the WC pan, the syphon, the inlet and all other connections to the toilet. The landlord had therefore initially attended within a reasonable timescale but had not been able to access the property. When the contractor was given access, it carried out the necessary works to rectify the problem.
The resident wrote on 25 January 2023 and advised the landlord that the kitchen walls were damp. She stated that, as a result, mould was starting to re-emerge. The landlord stated in its stage one reply on 21 February 2023 that it had inspected the walls during its visit while the kitchen units had been stripped out. The landlord had seen that the kitchen walls and the floor were wet. It stated that there had been evidence of leaks from various pipes in the kitchen and leaks from the flat above. As a result, it advised that water may have become trapped under the kitchen units and vinyl floor.
The landlord said it had noted the resident’s concerns that some of the mould may have been covered over and may return in the future. However, the landlord stated that this was not evident during its visit, but it would address any problems if they arose in the future. It was appropriate that the landlord had inspected the kitchen walls for mould while the kitchen units had been removed. Having done so, the landlord was satisfied that the mould was not re-emerging. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the expertise of its inspector.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 24 February 2023 and stated it was working through the range of repairs reported by the resident but some would take longer because the property needed to dry out. The landlord had agreed with the resident on 24 February 2023 that the walls would need to dry out before the new kitchen units could be installed. The landlord had therefore provided her with a dehumidifier to help with this process. This was a reasonable step to help dry the property. It was also reasonable that the landlord had offered to reimburse the resident for the additional electricity costs of running the dehumidifier.
The landlord’s records show that the kitchen refurbishment work started on7 February 2023 and was fully completed on 12 April 2023. During this period, the resident was provided with, or offered, temporary cooking and washing facilities throughout. However, given the resident’s clear vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord could and should have acted more sensitively in managing the schedule of works to the kitchen. The landlord accepted in its response dated 31 May 2023 that its service had been short of its expected standard by stating: “I understand your frustration about the length of time the refurbishment took, it fell short of the standard that we expect for our tenants”.
The time taken to complete the work caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not offered to compensate the resident for the inconvenience and any additional costs she incurred.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord responded reasonably to the various repairs reported by the resident and carried out these repairs within reasonable timescales. The evidence also shows that the landlord often had to rearrange works because of non access to the property. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure because of the time taken to refurbish the kitchen and the landlord’s failure to offer the resident any financial redress to recognise the impact on her. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs, including damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about reported delays in being rehoused is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Reasons

Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, there was a service failure because of the time taken to refurbish the kitchen and the landlord’s failure to offer the resident any financial redress to recognise the impact of this on her.
All decisions relating to the council’s Allocations Policy fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Pay the resident £200.