Moat Homes Limited (202332876)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202332876
Moat Homes Limited
21 June 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould;
- Complaint.
- This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.
Background and summary of events
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom, end of terrace house. She has lived in the property with her family from September 2014. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident on its system. However, it has provided a copy of an email where the resident had made it aware in September 2023 that she was undergoing cancer treatment.
- On 27 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak from her roof and wet patch on her ceiling. Following this, the records show the landlord first inspected the property on 3 May 2022. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the inspection report. However, the resident has informed us that although the surveyor “did not go in the loft”, he advised that condensation was causing the damp patches on the walls and ceiling and ventilation was needed.
- Although it did not provide a specific date, the landlord stated that it had carried out a survey of the property in July 2022, the outcome of which was that no further works were needed. We have not been provided with a copy of the associated report. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2022 to chase up works to install roof vents that she said had been recommended following the first inspection. The records are not clear as to whether the landlord took any further action after this.
- On 7 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that there was mould and wet patches in all 3 bedrooms and the landing. She stated that operatives who had recently fitted her roof tiles advised that the insulation in the loft was wet and would either need drying out with dehumidifiers or to be replaced. She added that, when they opened the loft hatch, “water poured out from it”. It is not clear what action the landlord took in response.
- The resident wrote again to the landlord on 5 April 2023 and stated that:
- The upstairs of her property had problems with damp and mould. Mould in her 3 bedrooms kept spreading and wet patches were getting larger.
- A surveyor had visited on 2 occasions and some work had been completed “to a fantastic standard”. However, the insulation in the loft was “sodden”, and there were wet patches and damp in all 3 bedrooms and the landing. Furthermore, the plaster in the ceiling had blown and cracked.
- The operatives who had fitted roof tiles, 2 months previously, advised her that they would arrange further repairs subject to the landlord’s approval. However, she had not received any further contact.
- She wanted the landlord to arrange the repairs.
- The landlord responded on 12 April 2023 to say that its technical team would arrange for a surveyor to “reattend and carry out further works”. On 15 May 2023, the landlord inspected the loft and reported that full access was “not possible” due to the number of items that were stored. It recommended that contractors should replace the insulation “as required” or supply a dehumidifier for 1 week. The surveyor told the resident that someone would contact her within 2 to 4 weeks.
- On 15 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to state that the property still had mould and damp patches in all bedrooms and the bathroom, and she had still not been contacted about the repairs. She chased the landlord again on 25 June and 3 July 2023 for an update. On 5 July 2023, the landlord apologised for the lack of response and asked her if she wanted to escalate the matter. The resident responded on the same day to confirm that she wished to raise a complaint.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 7 July 2023. On 10 July 2023, it wrote again to explain that the surveyor who visited her had since left the organisation and that it had experienced delays in obtaining the inspection report. It added that it had sent the report to its contractor who would make contact with her and “take any required works forward”.
- On 13 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that the contractor had still not attended to assess her property after cancelling the appointment the previous month. She stated that the damp patches had “worsened” and her home was “looking much worse”. She added that she would be going into hospital for cancer treatment. She was hoping the matter would be resolved by then as it was nearly 3 years since she had originally raised the issue.
- The landlord replied on 14 September 2023 to say it had been trying to call her since the beginning of September 2023 but there was no answer. It apologised that the contractor had cancelled and was unaware the appointment had not gone ahead as planned. It assured her that any affected areas would be treated and decorated once the loft insulation had been checked and rectified.
- The resident confirmed on 14 September 2023 that she had received a call on 5 and 7 September 2023 while she was away but no voicemail. She added that she had no record of any calls prior to 5 September 2023 and that, whenever she called the landlord, “there was never an answer”.
- Although it did not specify a date, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that, in October 2023, it had fitted the roof vents recommended following the initial inspection in May 2022. The records show that the landlord had replaced her roof insulation on 30 October 2023.
- On 16 November 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that she had a leak in her bedroom as well as black mould that was “spreading through the whole of upstairs”. She stated that, when it rained, water leaked into the bedroom and ran down the wall and dripped onto the floor. She added that, despite the landlord’s damp and mould policy stating it provides a copies of inspection reports within 5 working days, she had had multiple surveys but had never been given a copy any of the reports.
- The landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2023 and reported that the ceiling was showing signs of mould and required “cleaning down and redecorating”. It would also require repairs once the roofer had “sorted out the leak from around the solar panels”.
- On 30 November 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update on her complaint. She stated that its communication and “handling of the situation” had been “poor”. She was having treatment for cancer and had been living in a property with damp and black mould for over 2 years. She had been advised not to use the upstairs lights as there was a wet patch over the light fitting, resulting in no first floor lighting for 4 weeks. She added that, since 2 November 2023, the main bedroom ceiling leaked when it rained, and water ran down the walls.
- The landlord wrote to her on 11 December 2023. It stated that it had been in touch with everyone who had attended her property and was getting conflicting information from its contractors and surveyor. It said it would arrange for its contractor to look at her solar panels and pipe work in her loft and asked her to let it know if the loft space was clear enough to gain access. It added that her complaint was at stage 1 and that it had opened a new complaint via phone call on 31 November 2023.
- The resident replied the same day to say that she did not open a complaint via the phone on 31 November 2023 but initially complained in July 2023. She stated that it was “simply untrue” that the landlord could not access her loft. She added that on 21 November 2023, 2 surveyors attended, “thoroughly inspected inside the loft and took photos”. She added that the loft had always been empty.
- The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. It stated that:
- It had been dealing with a previous complaint from the resident but noted that the last contact regarding this was in September 2023. It had then closed her complaint.
- When the resident contacted it on 30 November 2023, it opened a new complaint.
- It had received a report from its contractor confirming that the solar panels were not causing a leak into the loft.
- It would arrange for a roofer to attend again, “on an urgent recall to inspect the tiles and the seals around the flashing”.
- It had also arranged for a contractor to attend within 24 hours to check and make safe the electrics.
- It understood that the situation had been distressing for the resident and her family but was “fully committed” to ensuring the work was completed “as quickly as possible”.
- The resident responded on 28 December 2023 to escalate her complaint. She stated that:
- Since she had last spoken with the landlord, a roofing contractor had attended to repair the roof. It had hammered nails through the area surrounding her solar panel and this had caused water to come in through the roof.
- An electrician had attended and advised she could use the electrics when supervised, but could not guarantee they were safe to leave until the loft was dry.
- Her property still had damp and black mould that was spreading and she had still not had answers to questions she had raised in previous emails.
- She had not had an explanation as to why the landlord had closed her initial complaint without consent or discussion.
- She wanted to know why surveyors had “lied” about accessing the loft “when they were there for over half an hour and took photos”. Her loft was still “soaking wet” regardless of whether her roof leak had been repaired.
- Her extractor fan was still not working correctly, which was likely contributing to the mould.
- She was entering the fourth year since she had first reported the issue.
- On 2 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. On 1 February 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that it was not addressing the issue that was causing the mould. She stated that multiple people have looked at her loft, roof and solar panel but there seemed to be confusion over the cause. She added that she was having a “very stressful time” with her health and appointments and just wanted her “home fixed”.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the same day. It stated that:
- It had asked its contractor in March 2021 to inspect the resident’s loft. It acknowledged that the resident had not heard back about the outcome of the inspection until she chased for an update in June 2022.
- When the resident had asked it when her air vents would be installed it was unable to find a copy of the inspection report, it therefore had to arrange another survey.
- The subsequent survey in July 2022 did not recommend any further works.
- In September 2022, the resident contacted it about the air vents that the initial inspection had recommended. In November 2022, it raised a job for them to be installed, along with other works. However, the air vents were not fitted until October 2023.
- In March 2023, the resident chased it a number of times about outstanding repairs. However, following an inspection on 15 March 2023, the resident had heard nothing back.
- When the resident had told it she was undergoing cancer treatment, it had failed to take this into account.
- It had thought the water ingress was related to the solar panels but had since ruled this out.
- It could not see that, since October 2023, when it had fitted the roof vents, any further works had been carried out. This had left the resident with an ongoing leak, and damp and mould in her property. It acknowledged that this was “completely unacceptable” and apologised that it had not taken any further action.
- It had booked a contractor to attend on 5 February 2024 to assess the outstanding works to the roof. It also wanted to carry out an interim mould wash on 6 February while awaiting the roof repairs. It assured the resident it would complete a final mould wash and redecorations once the leak had been fixed.
- It would be “monitoring the works very closely” to ensure they were completed in a timely manner and would keep the resident updated on progress.
- Its communication and record keeping had been poor, and that follow on works had been “lacking”. It extended its “sincerest apologies” that the service it provided had been “far below the standard” it had expected.
- It would give feedback to all senior managers involved in the case and would look at how it could improve its services going forward.
- It wanted to offer the resident £850 compensation, which is broke down as follows:
- £500 for failure in service delivery and “the numerous missed opportunities” to resolve the matter;
- £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family;
- £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
- The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2024 to confirm that a contractor attended on 5 February 2024. However, after having waited indoors the following day, the operatives had failed to attend for the mould wash. She added that, when she contacted the contractor, it advised her that no job had been booked for her property.
- The landlord inspected the property on 17 April 2024 and the surveyor identified the following repairs:
- Move the extractor fan from the ceiling to the exterior wall to resolve the condensation issue;
- Skim and redecorate the ceiling;
- Repair the flashing around the solar panel;
- Remove the vented tile to the left hand side of the solar panel that experienced water ingress and replace it with a standard tile.
- On 8 and 19 April 2024, the resident contacted the Service for assistance. She stated that she remained unhappy about the landlord’s handling of her reports of:
- Damp and mould since 2020;
- A leak in her bedroom from her ceiling;
- No lights upstairs since 4 November 2023;
- Missed appointments; and
- The landlord’s handling of her complaint and its poor communication.
- On 23 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the contractor would attend on 13 May 2024 to complete the recommended works. Following continued correspondence with the resident regarding the upcoming works, the landlord wrote to her on 13 May 2024. It informed her that, although the electrician was on his way to the property, the roofing works had been rescheduled for 15 May 2024. It apologised if the resident had not been informed earlier and explained that the roofer was “on leave” and could not make it that day.
- The resident wrote back on 13 May 2024 to say that she had booked the day off work in advance as the repairs had been arranged “for weeks”. She stated that she had expected all the contractors to arrive so the works would be completed on the same day. She added that she had to arrange everything around her hospital appointments and work and “refused to believe” there were no other roofers who could attend. On 14 May 2024, she raised a further complaint with the landlord about the time the landlord had taken to finish the outstanding repairs at her property.
- The resident told the Service that the roofing works were completed on 20 May 2024, scaffolding was removed on 21 May 2024 and works to redecorate the property was booked for 11 June 2024.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has told the Service that her recovery from cancer treatment and wellbeing have been negatively affected by the landlord’s response to the damp and mould in her property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and the health of other family members, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Legal and policy framework
- As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in good repair. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
- The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that, when a resident reports damp and mould, it will agree a suitable and convenient time to visit the property within between 48 hours to 28 days depending on the severity of the problem. The surveyor will provide a report that identified any work that needs to be caried out and will provide the resident with a copy of the report within 5 working days of the inspection. It will complete any minor works within 21 days and, if any major works are needed, it will agree an estimated timescale with the resident within 5 working days.
- The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy lists 2 priorities of responsive repair. It aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and complete them within 24 hours. All other repairs should be completed within 21 calendar days. The policy states that the landlord is committed to being flexible and agile, recognising, adjusting and responding to residents’ individual circumstances and to evolving its repairs and maintenance service to better meet the needs of its vulnerable residents.
- The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its 2 stage complaints process. It states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It refers to its second stage as a “complaint review”, which it commits to complete within 20 working days. It states that, in exceptional circumstances, it may need to extend the timescales at stage 1 or 2 of the process. If so, it will provide the resident with an explanation and agree an extension of not more than 10 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- The landlord’s compensation policy lists 3 levels of discretionary compensation to recognise failings in service provision. It pays up to £150 for failure causing minor disruption, up to £250 for moderate disruption and up to £500 for extensive disruption. It states that extensive disruption is where there have been numerous missed opportunities to resolve a problem, and this has caused the resident a significant level of inconvenience over an extended period.
The resident’s reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
- The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have experienced a great deal of distress over a lengthy period of time, while living with damp, mould and outstanding repairs. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a property that suffered from the impacts of water ingress for a lengthy period, especially when the resident was undergoing treatment for cancer at the time.
- This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. Although the report was published after the resident first reported water ingress in December 2020, the guidance consolidates some of the good practice that would be expected of landlords for such issues. It is noted that the landlord’s own damp and mould policy, dated 27 January 2022, was developed in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
- The evidence shows that the resident first reported damp on her ceiling on 27 December 2020. The evidence shows that the landlord asked its contractor to carry out an inspection in March 2021. It is unclear why this request was not made sooner. It is also noted that the inspection did not take place for a further 16 months. It is unclear from the records whether or not the landlord had chased this up with its contractor during this time. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated it made sufficient efforts to ensure its contractor undertook the inspection within a reasonable time. In addition, there is no evidence it contacted the resident to provide any updates, explain the delays or provide any estimated timeframe for when the inspection would take place. The excessive delay in completing the initial inspection was a failing.
- Following the inspection of 3 May 2022, there is no evidence the landlord made further contact with the resident. Instead, she was left to chase up the recommended actions herself. It is not evident an inspection report was recorded or that the contractor’s recommendations from the inspection were passed to the landlord to be actioned. Furthermore, although the landlord states it had completed a further survey in July 2022, it has not provided a report or details of the findings. The only information it has provided in relation to this survey was that no further works were recommended. It is noted that this contradicts recommendations from the initial survey, which identified a requirement for works to address condensation in the loft area. The evidence shows a lack of coordination between the landlord and its contractor, and poor record keeping. Together, this would have contributed to the landlord’s failure to take the appropriate steps following its initial inspection.
- Although the landlord identified there was water ingress from the roof, and condensation in the loft, the work to rectify this was excessively delayed. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had not installed air vents until October 2023. This was around 15 months after the inspection had recommended these works. That the landlord took around a year and a half to inspect the resident’s loft, and then to complete works to address the condensation issue was a failure. The evidence does not suggest that there were any issues preventing the landlord from inspecting the loft or carrying out any works. The delay was therefore avoidable.
- The resident informed the landlord on 5 April 2023 that she had damp and mould in the upstairs of her property, which was spreading. On 13 September 2023, following an inspection on 15 May 2023, the resident made the landlord aware that the damp and mould was “looking much worse”. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that, if a resident had damp and mould in their home it will assess its severity based on the information it had and in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The evidence shows that, despite numerous inspections and reports by the resident of worsening damp and mould, the landlord made no attempts to address the immediate problem. There is no evidence it had considered carrying out a risk assessment to determine the severity and possible impact of the damp and mould on both the resident and the property. Although the landlord inspected the property in May 2023, the landlord had still not carried out any works by the time it issued its stage 1 response, some 7 months later. It is evident the landlord departed from its damp and mould policy.
- There is no evidence to indicate the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed. There are no records showing the landlord gave any advice or support to the resident on how to minimise the impact of the damp, or any indication it had offered to supply dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp within the property.
- Although the landlord had raised a job in November 2022 to carry out a mould wash, the stage 2 response acknowledges this had not taken place. On another occasion, the landlord had arranged for a mould wash to be completed on 6 February 2024. However, the contractor failed to attend due a booking issue. The landlord’s repair log does not give any indication whether it had carried out any mould washes during the time the resident was waiting for the loft and roof repairs to be completed. This is further evidence of poor service provision, poor contract monitoring and a failure to support the resident in addressing the damp and mould in her property.
- Furthermore, it is evident there were occasions when contractors had either failed to attend or re-scheduled works without prior notice. This would have resulted in distress, inconvenience and disruption to the resident who had to arrange appointments around her work commitments and medical treatments.
- On 13 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and reminded it of her health conditions, and that she had to arrange the works to her property around hospital appointments and work commitments. Despite the fact the resident had made the landlord aware a number of times that she was undergoing cancer treatment, there is no evidence the landlord had explored how it could support her. Furthermore, given she had made it aware of her vulnerabilities, there is no indication it had considered completing the outstanding repairs with any urgency. The landlord could have asked the resident if there were any adjustments it could make to accommodate her vulnerabilities. It could also have explored whether its contractors could prioritise the repairs to her property, given her circumstances. That it failed to take reasonable account of her vulnerabilities would have further aggravated the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and cancelled visits.
- In some situations, it may take more than one inspection to establish the cause of a problem, and a remedy. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out more than one visit, in order to resolve matters, particularly where the issue is complex and the root cause of the damp is unknown. It is evident that the situation was complex, and finding the root cause of the damp was difficult. In addition, the records are conflicting as to whether or not the resident’s solar panel was the source of the problem. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak and to then complete a repair. This was a failure.
- It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor and that this contributed to avoidable delays. There is no indication it made any effort to provide the resident with regular updates, provide estimated completion dates or to keep her informed at any point. The evidence shows the resident was consistently left to contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information. This suggests she made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a customer focussed approach, or provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether any works would progress.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report states that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. The lack of any handover following the departure of the surveyor who carried out an inspection on 15 May 2023, demonstrates a lack of effective internal communication. It was not until 10 July 2023, nearly 2 months after the survey, that the landlord provided the resident with an explanation for the delay.
- The evidence shows a further example of poor internal communication following cancellation of an appointment by the contractor in July 2023. After the resident chased the landlord about it, it told her it was not aware the contractor had not attended. The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, there is no evidence of any effective contract or repair monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the repairs policy of completing repairs within 21 calendar days. This would have contributed significantly to the excessive delays in completing repairs.
- There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to identify a single point of contact the resident could approach for updates or to raise any queries. Given her vulnerabilities and the initial delay organising an inspection, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances. Furthermore, there are no records to show it considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs. The failure to do so would have contributed to the protracted delays in completing necessary repairs.
- Following its stage 2 response, where the landlord stated it was fully committed to ensuring the work was completed as quickly as possible, the evidence shows there were further delays. The records indicate that it was not until May 2024 that records indicate the landlord had attended to complete the roof repair. This was around 3 and a half years after the resident first reported water ingress
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service apples these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its failings and acknowledged the delays, and its poor communication and record keeping. It also recognised and that it had failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration. Furthermore, the landlord made efforts to learn from the complaint and gave the resident details of actions it would take to improve its services. The landlord offered £850 compensation, which included what it said was the maximum it could offer “for the high level of service failure in this case”.
- Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident and her family of countless avoidable delays, which left her to live in a property that suffered from damp and mould for an unnecessarily long period of time. The landlord did not adequately consider the extent and frequency of the delays or the fact its communication was consistently poor. It also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs, and pursue her complaint. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration and will order further redress.
- The resident has paid approximately £947 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period that the repairs have been outstanding. The Ombudsman can reasonably consider this to have started at the end of December 2020, which was when the resident first reported a leak from her roof. It is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the outstanding works took to complete (41 months). It also takes into account the impact of the resulting damp and mould on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the upstairs of the property, comprising of her 3 bedrooms and bathroom. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £7,765.40 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% 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.
Complaint
- The records show that the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 5 July 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this 2 days later. However, it was not until 14 December 2023, around 6 months later, that it issued its response. There are no records to show it had made any attempt to agree an extension with the resident in line with its policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord properly updated the resident about the progress of her complaint or that it made any effort to explain why there was a delay, or to advise her when she could expect a full response. The records show the landlord was communicating with the resident about ongoing works over this period. However, this should not have prevented it from providing a timely response to her complaint
- The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay and no compensation was offered at this point. The landlord’s complaint handling was excessively protracted. In addition, it had failed to provide proper updates throughout the 6 month period. It was therefore inappropriate that it failed to recognise the poor complaint handling in its stage 1 response.
- Furthermore, the landlord’s response stated that it had closed the resident’s complaint around September 2023 and then reopened it in November 2023, following further contact. There is no evidence to show the landlord had contacted the resident to inform her it had closed her complaint or to explain why it had not provided a response. That it had closed the resident’s complaint without her consent and departed significantly from its complaint policy amounts to maladministration.
- It is noted that the landlord’s complaint handling improved when it dealt with the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It responded within 22 working days, and provided a sufficiently detailed response that addressed the concerns she had raised. However, it is noted that the response failed to provide the resident with an explanation of why it had closed her stage 1 complaint without any prior discussion with her. It had therefore failed to properly address this part of her complaint.
Record keeping
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion date”’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
- The evidence that the landlord provided to the Service in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
- The landlord has provided very limited information regarding its inspection reports. Despite evidence that the resident asked multiple times for copies of inspection reports, there are no records to show the landlord had provided her with any. This was a departure from its damp and mould policy that states residents will be sent copies of reports 5 working days after the inspection. Furthermore, its repairs logs are confusing and do not make clear when the repairs relating to this complaint had been completed, and on which days. As a result, they do not appear accurate or reliable. Contemporaneous records of internal correspondence or contact between the landlord and its contractors is also very limited. The evidence of poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management and its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify and complete repairs within a reasonable time. It would have also contributed to the excessively protracted delays in carrying out inspections and completing repairs. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was severe maladministration in this case.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Reasons
- The resident and her family were left in a property that suffered from damp and mould for over 3 years as a result of excessive delays in completing repairs, along with the landlord’s consistent lack of communication and poor record keeping.
- The landlord took around 6 months to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It failed to update her sufficiently during this time or agree any new timescales. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge its poor complaint handling or to offer any apology or compensation for its failings.
- The landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of effective tracking of outstanding repairs and inspections significantly contributed to excessive delays and poor communication. This would have caused the resident distress and uncertainty over an unnecessarily long period of time.
Orders and recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should be made by the Chief Executive.
- Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £8,765.40, which is calculated as follows;
- £7,765.40 in recognition of the amount of time that the repairs to the resident’s roof and loft were outstanding, and the impact of the outstanding works on the resident’s occupation of the property for 41 months;
- £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident;
- £500 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint,
This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £850.
- Provide a schedule for when it will carry out any outstanding works and decorations, and to continue to provide the resident with regular progress updates until completion. The landlord to provide a copy of its schedule to the Service.
- Contact the resident to confirm if there are details about her condition or other circumstances that she would like it to be aware of when arranging any support. The landlord to ask her if there are any reasonable adjustments she would like it to make. It should then ensure that its relevant systems are updated with any information the resident provides and confirm to the Ombudsman that this action has been completed
- In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. The review should 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):
- An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred;
- Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for a period from January 2021 to present;
- A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant staff:
- Respond to requests for repairs appropriately;
- Progress works involving more than 1 contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures;
- Respond to formal complaints appropriately, and keep complaints about ongoing outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses should not require new complaints to be opened for the same ongoing outstanding issue.
- A review of its record-keeping practices to ensure the appropriate recording, handling, and responding to repairs taking longer than 21 calendar days. It should consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
- The findings and learning from the review;
- Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
- The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
- The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been implemented.
The landlord to contact the Ombudsman within 12 weeks to confirm it has complied with the above order.
Recommendations
- It is acknowledged that the landlord is not bound by the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. However, given the outcome of this investigation, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its compensation policy to ensure itself that the discretionary compensation it offers is proportionate to the levels of detriment identified. It should also consider whether it would be appropriate to align its policy with the Ombudsman’s guidance.