North Devon Homes (202227951)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227951

North Devon Homes

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.     The resident’s reports of repairs required in her property.

b.     The resident’s reports of pests in her property.

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

d.     The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 19 September 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow. The resident has limited mobility, has the use of a catheter due to ongoing health problems and has fibromyalgia.
3. The resident reported an issue with rats in the loft on 21 November 2022. Pest control attended on the same date to inspect the issue and set bait traps in the loft for the rats. The contractor attended again on 25 November 2022 and confirmed the rats had taken no bait.
4. The resident reported to the landlord on 29 November 2022 that some areas of her property required repairs and that her TV aerial did not work which she believed was due to rats chewing the wires in the loft. Following this, the landlord undertook a visit to the property on 1 December 2022. During that visit, the contractor confirmed rats had not chewed the wires.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 December 2022. The key issues for this investigation were as follows:

a.     There had been issues with the wiring in the loft with lose wires everywhere and although she had reported this in October, no one had attended to inspect.

b.     She also reported that the TV aerial was not working, her toilet was leaking, both extractor fans did not work, and the front door was leaking.

c.      The rat infestation was common knowledge to the landlord prior to her moving into the property. She had raised this with the landlord but members of staff at the landlord had been rude to her on many occasions and said she needed to pay for pest control herself.

d.     She had spoken to social services and environmental health who had said the landlord should not treat her the way they were.

e.     She had asked for apology from the member of staff who had been rude, but the apology consisted of the staff member saying, “sorry for being a cow” which had left the resident “distraught” and “mentally frightened.” She asked for a written apology.

f.        The resident explained she had a life threatening illness and could collapse at any time and be in danger of death and therefore felt she should be a top priority for any issues she had.

g.     When she had first moved in, the landlord said it would arrange a personal alarm and other support services, but she had heard nothing.

6. The member of staff in question issued an apology via email to the resident on 6 December 2022 which the resident accepted.
7. Pest control attended again on 19 December 2022 and confirmed the rats had taken no bait and removed the bait boxes. It confirmed there was no evidence of rodent activity in the loft.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 December 2022. The key points were as follows:

a.     With regards to the loft wires, it appreciated the resident’s concerns but confirmed after the inspection, it was satisfied that there was no damage caused to the wires by rats. It also confirmed that the aerial was the resident’s responsibility as per the tenancy handbook.

b.     It confirmed it had replaced the extractor fans, renewed the double glazing in the front door, repaired a hole in the floor and replaced a kitchen cupboard. It was not aware of any further outstanding repairs but asked the resident to contact them if there were.

c.      It confirmed it had followed its void process but said it had not dealt with the extractor for which it apologised.

d.     It confirmed that pest control was a resident’s responsibility and referred the resident to the tenancy handbook.

e.     As the resident had reported the issue shortly after she had moved in, it had asked pest control to inspect the loft. It gave a chronology of the pest control visits and confirmed that it had found no rodent activity.

f.        It had listened back to the telephone call with the member of staff that the resident had said was rude and apologised for the way it made the resident feel. It confirmed the member of staff had written an apology to the resident.

g.     It confirmed it had given the resident health and support information at the tenancy signup and understood the resident was awaiting a phone call, that same date, with regards to an alarm and independent living support.

h.     It agreed it would provide an outside light for the resident.

9. Environmental health contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 following contact from the resident about the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 12 January 2023 which environmental health was satisfied with.
10. Following the surveyor visit, the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 January 2023 to confirm the actions it was taking. The key points were as follows:

a.     The contractor would continue to monitor the bait placed and would place powder to trace any entrance and exit points. It had found no evidence of rats in the neighbouring garden.

b.     As external companies would not enter the loft due to rats to inspect the aerial issue, it would consider if there was anything further it could do to help.

c.      It would contact environmental health to discuss its findings about damp and mould.

d.     The resident would report all issues including repairs to its support officers as a single point of contact.

11. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 28 January 2023. She reported the same issues as in her original complaint but also raised the following issues:

a.     The temperature in the property was freezing which meant the walls were cold and wet. The radiators in the property did not heat up the rooms.

b.     The rats continued to cause issues which the resident believed originated from a neighbouring property due to the overgrown garden.

c.      The resident discussed at the length the impact on her health and said she had rung the mental health crisis team due to how it had made her feel.

12. The landlord attended to inspect the ongoing issues with heating in the property and after replacing the batteries in the thermostat unit, the heating worked correctly.
13. On 6 February 2023, the resident and landlord agreed to place the complaint on hold to await the outcome of the outstanding repairs.
14. The resident reported damp and mould in the property again on 10 February 2023 following which a surveyor visited on 21 February 2023. It had found no mould present during the visit but had found condensation to the internal windows and elevated moisture levels in the bedroom. The landlord agreed to arrange for a cavity inspection and to carry out a mould wash in the lounge.
15. On 21 March 2023, the contractor attended the property to inspect the outside for potential entry points for rats following which the contractor removed the loft insulation and baited the area.
16. On 5 May 2023, during a visit to relay the loft insulation, the contractor found fresh rat droppings. The contractor laid more bait and tracing powder. Following this it was agreed that works were needed to the resident’s roof and that of her neighbours, to block up potential rat entry points. The scaffolders attended on 25 May 2023 to start the necessary works.
17. The resident raised a second formal complaint on 8 June 2023. The key points were as follows:

a.     When the scaffolders attended, the landlord had not informed the contractor that she would need her scaffolding erected first due a medical appointment. When the resident complained about this, the member of staff had been rude to her on the phone and said the landlord was going to great expense for her.

b.     The surveyor had tried to force the resident to have a fan that affects her health due it continually being on.

c.      The fan had made her health worse as it made a constant noise it affected her tinnitus and caused vertigo. She asked the landlord to disconnect it at once.

18. On 12 June 2023, the resident confirmed she wished the landlord to investigate the complaint previously on hold.
19. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the June complaint on 23 June 2023. The key points were as follows:

a.     With regards to staff conduct, it apologised for the confusion caused with the scaffolding and that the resident had to make arrangements on the day for her medical appointments despite raising it with the landlord previously.

b.     It confirmed it had listened to the phone call between the resident and its staff on the day. It agreed that it should not have made the comment and understood how the resident had interpreted it.

c.      It confirmed it would continue its own internal investigation into the tone and context of the phone call.

d.     Following the reports of damp & mould in the property it agreed to install a new fan. At the time the landlord found a fan with the lowest operating noise. The landlord said the fan would remain installed as it could not find another low cost solution.

e.     It partially upheld the complaint with regards to all points raised except the extractor fan as it had installed it to promote comfortable living for the resident.

20. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 26 June 2023.
21. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 June 2023. This included a response to both the first stage 1 and second stage 1 complaint. The key points were as follows:

a.     With regards to the loft wires, the landlord confirmed the property had a full rewire during the void process on 9 September 2022. Following that, contractors attended to tidy the wires up and confirmed all wires were safe but agreed they should have left them tidier.

b.     The landlord raised the toilet leak as an emergency and completed the repair on 24 December 2022.

c.      They replaced the extractor fans with humidistat fans which run constantly and boost when they detect humidity.

d.     The constant nature of the fan affected the resident’s health. The fan would be most active when it worked to reduce moisture, and it would be preferable and helpful if the fan were allowed to operate for a period. The landlord asked the resident to give the landlord more time to monitor the impact of the fans.

e.     It confirmed it would arrange for an isolator switch so the resident could control the fan but confirmed this would reduce its effectiveness.

f.        With regards to the rat infestation, it confirmed its contractor had carried out additional works which included removing roof sections from the front and rear elevations, installing meshing to cavity to prevent access and to block up every hole detected.

g.     The resident had confirmed there was no further evidence of rats, and it would arrange to relay the loft insulation on 7 August 2023.

h.     With regards to staff conduct it was sorry the resident was upset and acknowledge it could have dealt with the situation better.

i.        With regards to help with independent living, it confirmed its specialist support services were in regular contact with the resident and that while it had investigated a personal alarm, the resident did not have a phoneline or internet and therefore it was not possible.

j.        It had raised a ticket for the installation of an outside light on 19 December 2022 which it completed on 30 December 2022.

k.      With regards to the heating, the resident reported an issue on 20 December 2022 and the engineer attended on 22 December 2022.

l.        Following further concerns about the radiator’s efficiency, reported on 3 April 2023, the landlord attended to bleed them on 5 May 2023. Furthermore, it replaced a radiator that had caused the resident anguish.

m.   It reiterated its position with regards to the TV aerial.

n.     The resident had reported damp and mould on 10 February 2023, following which the surveyor attended on 21 February 2023. After the visit, the landlord rehung the lounge door and replaced 2 failed double glazing units.

o.     The surveyor attended on 24 May 2023 and found no damp or mould in the property.

p.     It confirmed it was looking to install a humidity sensor which would provide actional insights into the health of the property and would send data to the landlord to show if it could take further action to the resident.

q.     In concluding, the landlord upheld the complaint with regards to the conversations the resident had with its staff but in other aspects, its action had supported the resident and repaired her home in a timely and appropriate manner.

22. The resident referred her case to this Service for investigation on 4 July 2023. She stayed dissatisfied with the works and repairs carried out in her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

23. Throughout the duration of this complaint, the resident raised to the landlord the impact the issues raised in the complaint had on her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this, this Service is unable to make a causal link between the issues raised and the resident’s physical and mental health. Such a determination is more appropriate for a Court and the resident may wish to seek legal advice in relation to this.

Policies and procedures

24. The landlord’s void management policy sets out that it will undertake a thorough inspection of a void property to ensure the areas listed in its lettings standard are adhered to correctly. All properties will be checked for damp, mould, and ventilation. It confirms all extractor fans will be checked to ensure they are in full working order.
25. The policy confirms aerial sockets would be left but connection of the aerial is the incoming tenants responsibility.
26. The landlord provides a pest prevention guide to resident’s which sets out that residents must manage pest control within their own homes.
27. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it will respond to repairs in the following timescales:

a.     It will respond to emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours.

b.     It will respond to urgent repairs within 5 workings.

c.      It will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.

28. The landlord’s damp and condensation procedure set out that a surveyor or another member of the landlord will carry out an initial assessment, following which all related works would be raised.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property

29. On 3 October 2022, the resident reported that the extractor fan in the bathroom did not turn off. The landlord attended, in line with its policy, on 7 October 2022 to undertake a repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
30. The resident reported further issues with the extractor fan in both the kitchen and bathroom on 20 October 2022. The landlord attended appropriately on 27 October 2022 to undertake a repair which involved replacing the fans. The landlord attended and resolved the issue swiftly and in line with its policy.
31. The landlord was aware of the faulty extractor fan during the voids inspection but did not fix it at that time. Landlords need to ensure that all repairs are either completed prior to a tenancy start date or after the tenancy starts if agreed upon with the resident. Not doing so left the resident without a working extractor fan, requiring her to report the issue multiple times before it resolved the issue. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response, it must ensure that it has an effective system in place to track and monitor void repairs.
32. On 29 November 2022, the resident reported that various repairs were needed in her property which included issues with her front door, a hole in her floor, a broken kitchen cupboard and issues with the double glazing in the front door. The landlord attended to these repairs on 1 December 2022. This was just 2 working days after the resident had reported the issues. This was in line with its policy and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
33. On the same date, the resident reported that her TV aerial did not work, which she believed was due to rats chewing the wires in the loft. As part of the loft inspection for rodents, the landlord assessed the wires and confirmed rats had not chewed the aerial. The landlord confirmed to the resident that an aerial was the resident’s responsibilities and appropriately directed the resident to the tenancy handbook. Furthermore, it reiterated this position in both its complaint responses. It was reasonable in the first instances to check the wires in the loft and then appropriate to confirm the repair was, following that, the resident’s responsibility.
34. The resident reported the issue was ongoing during a visit to the property on 25 January 2023. The landlord appropriately reiterated its position, however as the resident said she had been unable to find someone willing to go into the loft to investigate the landlord said it would ask its contractor if it was something it could consider. Given the resident’s difficultly in fixing the issue, it was useful of the landlord to consider if its contractor could offer further support.
35. The resident then reported an issue with her thermostat on 22 December 2022, saying that she was unable to heat her property. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair and attended, in line with its policy, within 24 hours to resolve the issue. Given that it was December, the resident’s personal circumstances and the urgency of the need for heating, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat it as an urgent repair.
36. The resident reported further issues on 25 January 2023 as she was unsure how to work the heating correctly. The landlord attended on 6 February 2023 when the engineer changed the batteries in the thermostat and confirmed the boiler was working correctly. Given that the heating was still working, it was reasonable of the landlord to raise this as a routine repair, and it attended in line with its policy. Its attendance to help the resident in using the boiler showed a commitment to improve the living conditions for the resident and was in line with the dispute resolution principles.
37. The resident raised a request for the landlord to bleed her radiators on 3 April 2023. The landlord logged this as a routine repair on the same date and attended, in line with its policy, within 20 working days to complete the repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
38. After a surveyor visited the property on 25 April 2023, the resident asked that the landlord replace her bathroom radiator because she did not like its appearance. Although the landlord was not due to replace the radiator until 2036, it agreed to replace it as a gesture of goodwill due to the distress it caused the resident. Despite there being no requirement to replace the radiator, the landlord recognised the resident’s distress and other issues she had raised about the property, making it reasonable to replace the radiator.
39. Throughout the duration of her complaint, the resident raised with the landlord the impact the issues in her property was having on her wellbeing and that the landlord had provided her with no support. In its first stage 1 response on 20 December 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had provided the resident with all its available health and support information at tenancy signup and the evidence provided shows this to be the case. It is important that landlord’s ensure residents are aware of services available and how to access such services and therefore it was appropriate of it to provide the relevant information at tenancy sign up and reiterate the support available to the resident in its response.
40. The landlord confirmed the resident was on a waiting list for an appointment with regards to obtaining a personal alarm and independent living support. Furthermore, the evidence provided showed that the resident had an appointment with its wellbeing officer to discuss further support on that date. Given the resident assertion that she was struggling, the evidence shows that the landlord was providing support to the resident. This was appropriate and showed a commitment by the landlord to improve the resident’s personal situation.
41. The landlord then held a ‘Team around the person’ (TAP) meeting with the resident on 25 January 2023, following which the landlord decided the resident would have a single point of contact for all issues including reporting repairs. Landlords have a duty of care towards their residents and recognising the distress having to liaise with different departments may cause was an important part of the landlord’s duty of care. It would have helped the resident and ensured she did not need to contact different departments to request help and further highlighted the landlord’s commitment to support the resident.
42. After the resident reported the ongoing impact of the outstanding issues on her health and wellbeing, evidence shows she was in regular contact with the landlord’s specialist support services from 16 May 2023. The support services staff attended repair appointments at the property to help the resident and directed her to other relevant support services. This consistent support throughout the process showed the landlord’s empathy towards the resident and was appropriate given the circumstances.
43. Although the landlord knew the bathroom extractor fan needed repair during the void process, it responded according to its repairs policy when the resident reported the issue after moving in. Additionally, the landlord addressed all subsequent repairs within the policy’s specified timescales. Recognising the impact these repairs had on the resident, the landlord arranged extra support services for her. In acknowledgment of the number of repairs and the effect on the resident, the landlord also provided outside lighting and replaced the bathroom radiator as a gesture of goodwill.
44. Therefore, taking into account the above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs required in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property

45. The resident reported an issue with rats in her property 21 November 2022. While pest control was a resident’s responsibility, the landlord recognised that as the resident had only recently moved in, it would arrange for its pest control contractor to attend. This was reasonable especially given that the resident said the issue had been known prior to her moving in. It showed a commitment by the landlord to help resolve the issue for the resident.
46. Pest control attended that same date, inspected the property, and laid bait in the loft. Over the following 3 weeks, its contractor attended to complete further inspection and confirmed on 19 December 2022, it had found no rodent activity. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors when it found no rodent activity and therefore, it was reasonable that the contractor removed the bait at that stage and the pest control case closed.
47. The resident contacted environmental health following the removal of the bait who contacted the landlord, on 6 January 2023, to understand what action they had taken with regards to the resident’s report. The landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 12 January 2023. Given the further reports of an ongoing issue and the involvement of environmental health, it was appropriate of the landlord to arrange for its surveyor to attend rather than refer the resident to make her own arrangements to resolve the issue.
48. Following the surveyors visit, the landlord arranged for its contractor to remove the loft insulation and to lay trace powder to the ceiling boards to trace entry routes for the rats. The landlord raised a job for this on 23 January 2023 and its contractor attended, in line with its policy, on 16 February 2023 to lay the bait. This escalation action to remove the insulation and lay the trace powder highlighted a commitment by the landlord to fully investigate the issue for the resident and was necessary given that earlier action had not resolved the issue.
49. Furthermore, as the resident had previously raised that she believed the rat problem was due to her neighbour’s overgrown garden, the landlord confirmed on 25 January 2023 that it had cleared the neighbours garden and was working with that neighbour to gain access to the loft to undertake further investigations. It is important that landlords consider the wider picture when dealing with pest issues and therefore it was appropriate that it sought to work with the neighbour to investigate the cause of the issue. Furthermore, it was useful of it to communicate this to the resident to reassure her that it was taking action and to manage her expectations.
50. Pest control completed its works to bait and rid the loft of any rats on 3 March 2023. However, to ensure no further issues, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend and inspect the outside of the property for any potential entry points in line with the landlord’s policy, on 5 April 2023. As the issue had at this stage been reoccurring since the resident moved into the property in September 2022, it was appropriate of the landlord to escalate its response further and consider if more extensive works were needed.
51. When the contractor attended to replace the loft insulation, it found evidence of rodent activity again. As the landlord’s earlier efforts to trace entry points had been unsuccessful the landlord arranged for further trace powder to be reapplied on that same date. Although earlier efforts to trace the rat’s entry point had been unsuccessful, it was reasonable of the landlord to undertake this option again before considering at that stage if it needed to undertake more extensive works.
52. The landlord appropriately monitored this over a 3 week period and while it found no rodent activity, given the earlier evidence of rodent activity the landlord then considered that more extensive works were needed. Given the ongoing evidence of rodent activity and that its effort to trace the entry points had not been successful, consideration of further works at this stage was appropriate in the circumstances to find a more permanent solution for the resident. This was reasonable given that the issue had been going on for almost 6 months this at this stage.
53. The landlord appropriately arranged for mesh to be fitted onto the cavity in the loft to block up all entry points. The landlord raised this job on 21 April 2023 and the works began on 25 May 2023. While this is slightly outside of the landlords published repair timescales, the work involved erecting scaffolding on resident’s property and her neighbours and therefore, given the extensive nature of the works, the slight delay was reasonable in the circumstances.
54. On the date the contractor attended to erect the scaffolding, the resident had informed the landlord that she had medical appointments in the afternoon and therefore requested the scaffolding be erected on her property first. The landlord did not pass this information onto its contractor. Landlord’s need to ensure when they agree to resident’s request, they have effective communication with its contractors to ensure they are aware of any such requests. Not doing so ultimately led the resident to raise a further formal complaint.
55. The contractor completed the works to the loft on 1 June 2023 following which the landlord laid further bait boxes to check the works were successful. This was reasonable in the circumstances given the prolonged period of rodent issues.
56. Following completion of the further rodent treatment, the pest control contractor confirmed the works were successful and the landlord arranged for the resident’s loft to be reinsulated. Given that the contractor confirmed the successful elimination of the rodents, and the landlord was satisfied the work was successful in eliminating the problem, it was reasonable of it to install the insulation and close the repair.
57. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in her loft was of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It attended in the first instance and undertook the necessary investigative works and closed the case when it was satisfied there was no rodent activity. It completed further treatment each time the resident reported the rodents in the loft including after environmental health got involved. Then when its tracing activity was not successful it undertook extensive works at the property and that of the neighbouring properties to ensure a permanent resolution of the issue.
58. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of rodents in her loft.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property

59. During the TAP visit to the resident’s property on the 24 January 2023, the resident raised that she had issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord appropriately raised a job for its surveyor to attend to discuss the issue. It also confirmed it would liaise with environmental health as they had also visited the property to learn the findings following that visit. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed the landlord was taking swift, collaborative action to resolve the issue for the resident.
60. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did communicate with environmental health beyond its first contact on 6 January 2023. Where other agencies are involved, landlord’s need to ensure they take a collaborative approach and share findings to reach an effective solution for a resident. Not following through with this assured action showed a disregard for the undertaking it had made to the resident.
61. The evidence shows that the landlord did not conduct a surveyor’s visit to the property until 21 February 2023. Before this, the resident had continued to raise concerns about the damp and mould, and its impact on her health. When a resident reports damp and mould, landlords must act swiftly to assess the severity of the situation, evaluate the risk, and consider any necessary temporary solutions. This was especially important in this case due to the resident’s medical issues. It was unsatisfactory for the landlord to take a month to visit and assess the situation.
62. During the visit, the surveyor noted that no damp and mould was present in the areas of concerns raised by the resident but noted an elevated moisture reading the resident’s bedroom. The landlord appropriately gave the resident advice about ventilation in the bedroom through the night and the importance opening the curtains during the day. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy sets out that it will work with residents where internal environmental factors may contribute to issues within the home. Given there had been no evidence of damp and mould found, it was reasonable of the landlord to provide advice to the resident to help alleviate the problem and to work with her to help resolve the issue.
63. Following the visit, the resident raised that she had found a small damp patch in the lounge. The landlord, in line with its policy, arranged to carry out a mould wash out in the affected area.
64. The surveyor communicated the findings to the resident in a letter dated 2 March 2023. The letter detailed the observations made during the visit and outlined the actions the landlord would take to further investigate the issues. This communication was useful for the resident, as it managed her expectations about the next steps. It also highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issues the resident was experiencing.
65. On 2 March 2023, the landlord scheduled the necessary repairs, which included rehanging the lounge door to improve ventilation and replacing two failed double glazing units. The landlord completed these routine repairs on 30 March 2023, in accordance with the landlord’s policy. While it had found no evidence of damp and mould in the property, the landlord recognised the improvements it could make to help with the condensation and ventilation in the property and completed the necessary works swiftly.
66. Following the completion of the remedial works, the surveyor undertook a further inspection of the resident’s property in May 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of this meeting, which suggests a record keeping issue; however, the landlord agreed to move the kitchen fan to improve its effectiveness and help with the condensation in the kitchen. Given the resident’s ongoing issues, the solution to move the fan was reasonable and showed the landlord was considering all options to help the resident.
67. After the fan was moved, the resident complained on 23 June 2023, that it was noisy and ran continuously, even when unnecessary, affecting her health. In response, the landlord explained that it had extensively researched fans to ensure the one installed had the lowest operating noise. While it was reasonable for the landlord to choose the quietest fan, its response lacked empathy for the resident, who found the fan distressing. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the importance of using the fan to help the resident understand its necessity. Instead, the landlord simply said that it had decided to keep the fan installed. This lack of empathy ultimately led the resident to escalate her complaint.
68. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 29 June 2023, it set out why it felt the fan was important and advised the resident that it would help the landlord to monitor the moisture levels in the resident’s property and asked her to give them more time to monitor the fans effectiveness. Although it could have provided this explanation at the earliest opportunity, the response was clear and would have helped the resident to understand the importance of the fan in helping to resolve her condensation issue.
69. Furthermore, as the resident had raised concerns about the impact of the noise of the fan, the landlord appropriately raised a job for an isolation switch to be installed so the resident could turn the fan off if she wanted to. Furthermore, it set out the implications on the effectiveness of the fan if the resident did use the switch. The landlord’s decision to install the isolation switch shows that it had considered the direct impact on the resident and showed empathy with the impact it had on her.
70. The landlord also confirmed it was looking to install environment monitoring equipment so that it could be provided with real time data to understand the health of the resident’s property in relation to damp and mould. As the resident was continuing to report issues with damp in the property, it was appropriate of the landlord to escalate its investigations and install a sensor to help it understand if there was further actionable work it could undertake to improve the ventilation and living environment of the property.
71. Taking into account all the above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of damp and mould in the property was of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. While it did delay in the first instance in undertaking the inspection, following its attendance it took swift action to complete repairs and worked with the resident to improve ventilation in the property. Furthermore, it installed new fans and monitoring equipment to ensure it could fully understand the issues the resident was facing and to consider if it could take further action following that.
72. Therefore, in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of damp and mould in the property, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conducts

73. Following a conversation between the resident and the landlord in December, the resident raised, as part of her complaint, that the member of staff she spoke to was rude to her and unsympathetic to her situation. Landlords need to ensure its staff are empathic to residents and understanding of the situations resident’s find themselves in and how they might be feeling. In this instance, the landlord’s standards fell below that expected by the Ombudsman.
74. However, that member of staff appropriately accepted and understood that offence had been caused and apologised. While this was reasonable, the apology consisted of that staff member saying sorry for “being a cow.” This language is neither professional nor appropriate and caused the resident further frustration and upset. Landlords need to ensure its staff remember the professional environment within which they work and understand the importance of conducting themselves appropriately.
75. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that following the complaint, the landlord listened to the telephone call and had a one to one with the staff member to discuss the conversation and following apology. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately reiterated the need to remain professional and use appropriate language with residents. Where a complaint is made into staff conduct, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to undertake a thorough investigation into the issue and ascertain if further training was needed. The landlord’s action to this element of the complaint was satisfactory and showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
76. Furthermore, following the complaint the member of staff wrote to the resident to apologise for both the first conversation and the following apology. Given how the resident had been made to feel, a formal written apology was appropriate in the circumstances.
77. The resident raised a further complaint about a different member of staff on 25 May 2023 when the resident accused a member of staff of saying the landlord had gone to “great expense” for her and she had been “running around complaining.” Regardless of what a staff member may think, it is not appropriate for the landlord’s staff to make such comments to a resident. This caused significant upset to the resident and again highlighted a lack of empathy from the landlord towards the resident’s situation.
78. The evidence provided from the landlord shows that the landlord listened to the phone call and undertook an investigation into the staff conduct. The landlord appropriately gave the member of staff guidance and advice on how best to deal with some of the reactive pressures faced when speaking with resident’s and reiterated the importance of always being professional. This showed that the landlord took the concerns of the resident seriously and took reasonable actions to ensure the situation did not occur again.
79. Furthermore, the landlord undertook monitoring of that staff member over a period to ensure improvements were made with regards to communicating with staff and it made a decision to move the staff member to a less responsive, customer facing, job. This action really highlights that the landlord took the issue seriously and that it wanted to work to improve the service its customers received.
80. However, given that following the first incident the resident received a written apology for the staff conduct, it may have been useful for the landlord to have ensured the staff member on this occasion also provided a written apology. While it is satisfactory that the landlord undertook internal changes to improve its service, an apology may have gone someway to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
81. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 response the landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint into the poor communication she had received from its staff and offered an apology for the unprofessional conduct. While the landlord needs to ensure its staff are always empathic and professional when dealing with residents, it took swift steps to investigate each incident, including monitoring of staff to ensure improvements were made. It accepted that its communication with the resident was below the standard expected and offered an apology to the resident on each occasion. Furthermore, the Ombudsman is aware it undertook staff training in October 2023 to improve its team communication.
82. This Service is content that the landlord has sought to put things right by investigating the issue thoroughly, undertaking staff training and apologising at the earliest opportunity to the resident.
83. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the above amounts to reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Determination

84. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required in her property.
85. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of rodents in her loft.
86. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
87. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.