Norwich City Council (202335119)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335119

Norwich City Council

19 December 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property.
2. Concerns around related health impacts and damage.
3. Concerns about the condition of the property’s kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a detached, 1-bedroom bungalow in a sheltered housing scheme. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. They include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma and nerve damage in her hands. She uses breathing equipment. She has experienced some distressing personal circumstances and previously attempted serious self-harm.
The resident’s complaint largely relates to leaks, damp and mould at the property. She moved to the property around October 2022. The evidence shows there were similar repair issues at her previous address. In April 2023 she reported there was damp in the kitchen cupboards at her new home. The landlord completed a damp survey soon afterwards and a range of remedial works were recommended. It subsequently completed another survey in August 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord in September 2023. She said the repairs were outstanding and she had been given conflicting information. She referred to damaged belongings and the condition of the kitchen. The landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month. It acknowledged the repairs were delayed and apologised for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It said the repairs were a priority. The evidence suggests the resident escalated her complaint in late October 2023 because the repairs were still outstanding.
In December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it had been difficult to gain access to the property. However, visits had been arranged that should allow mould treatment works to take place. It also said it was sorry the resident had cause to complain. The landlord did not award any compensation. In late January 2024, it told a local councillor that all of the necessary works to the property had been completed. The resident continued to raise concerns about leaks, damp, mould and the condition of the kitchen afterwards.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in December 2024. She said there was ongoing damp and mould at the property, her items had been damaged, and the landlord had not taken any steps to address the damage. She also said it had not contacted her about the repairs for some time. She wanted the landlord to complete them as soon as possible. She did not want to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or personal belongings.
The resident has concerns about a number of other issues. For example, she referenced mice and boiler problems during previous interactions with the Ombudsman. The landlord did not address these issues in its complaint responses. In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, this report has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. We also need sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of any complaint points.
Unless otherwise stated, any additional concerns that the resident has raised are beyond the scope of our investigation. If she remains unhappy, she can bring her concerns to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

The resident moved to the property around October 2022. A tenancy checklist shows the landlord was aware she had breathing difficulties and other vulnerabilities at this point. From the evidence both parties provided, there is no indication that the resident reported any significant repair issues for several months after she moved in. Overall, there is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this time.
On 20 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. Call notes show she reported there was damp in her cupboards. The landlord wrote to the resident 7 days later. The letter included a link to its advice around managing condensation. It said a damp inspection had been arranged for 3 May 2023. The evidence shows the inspection took place as scheduled. This was around 8 working days later. This was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances.
The inspection was completed by the landlord’s surveyor. The inspection report noted that a toilet was in the process of being refitted at the property. It said the works were nearly complete but they had been halted due to reports of damp issues. The report confirms the landlord took positive damp readings and noted mould on newly plastered walls. It said there were high ground levels outside the property and some eroded pointing was evident. It also said there was no extractor fan in the toilet. Other key points were:
1. There was mould in some kitchen cupboards and on the wall behind them. It was also apparent on cookware. There were high damp readings near the washing machine.
2. The loft insulation seemed to have been topped up previously but it was also “disturbed in places”. The surveyor was unable to access parts of the loft.
3. In the shower room, water was pooling on the floor due to a leak from a basin.
4. Dampness to the external walls in the toilet was largely due to structural issues. The lack of a fan would exacerbate the situation.
5. In the kitchen, the issues were due to a combination of ventilation and heating issues. The problem was also consistent with high external ground levels.
6. A range of remedial works was recommended. They included adding insulation and an extractor fan, external works, mould washing to the kitchen and toilet, and an assessment of the “roof slopes”.
Contact records show the resident called the landlord on 4 July 2023 to chase the repairs. On the same day, the landlord wrote to her about the initial damp inspection. The letter included a list of the recommended works. It said a contractor had been arranged to complete them and the contractor would contact her in due course. Contrary to the letter, there is no indication a contractor contacted the resident at this point. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. The contractor was acting as the landlord’s agent. The landlord was responsible for its activities and should have managed it accordingly.
There was another inspection on 30 August 2023. This was around 19 weeks after the resident’s report. An inspection report said brickwork should be repointed to address damp. It also said mould treatment and cleaning works were needed. In particular, an “approved spray” should be applied to “curtains and other infected items of furniture” to “remove [a] mould infestation”. This suggests the mould had increased significantly since the landlord’s initial survey. Repair records show none of the recommended damp or mould works were complete at this time. This is concerning in the circumstances.
On 12 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to complain. She said there were multiple damp and mould issues in the property. She also said repairs were outstanding and she had been given conflicting information by the landlord’s surveyors. Call notes show she highlighted her breathing condition. Other key points from the resident’s complaint were:
1. Her previous home had “severe damp and mould” issues. She was moved because they impacted her health conditions. Her new home had similar problems and there was also a leak from the roof.
2. The resident was unable to use the kitchen because “damp and mould spores [were] attacking her lungs”. She felt the landlord was due to upgrade the kitchen and it should be replaced as soon as possible.
3. The resident had lost “a lot of money and personal belongings” due to the condition of her previous home. She had an ongoing insurance claim with the landlord. She was concerned that more items would be damaged at her current address.
4. The resident had painted the property, but the landlord damaged her decorations during its investigations. The resident felt she would have to bear the cost of rectifying this damage.
Records show it took the landlord until 20 September 2023 to provide its contractor with full details of the repairs that were recommended during its first inspection. Given the timing, the evidence suggests the error was highlighted by the resident’s complaint. In contrast, the landlord should have been monitoring the situation. A complaint should not have been necessary for it to progress the repairs accordingly. Given its lack of progress, the evidence shows the landlord was not adequately solution-focussed. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. It said delays had occurred because there was more than 1 survey. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said the repairs were a priority and the contractor should have already contacted her to arrange them. It acknowledged that curtains and furniture (presumably the resident’s) needed to be treated for mould. This information points to a significant impact on the resident. Despite this, the landlord did not award her any compensation to put things right. Its apology was disproportionate and unfair in the circumstances.
The evidence suggests the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 25 October 2023. This is based on the landlord’s records and its subsequent complaint correspondence. The landlord did not provide a copy of her escalation request. It should be able to supply key case information.
The landlord’s manager updated their colleagues in internal correspondence on 6 November 2023. They referenced a recent visit to the property. They said the following works were agreed during the visit: a mould wash to the bathroom/toilet, cleaning of a kitchen cupboard, stain blocking of the lounge ceiling, and a “cavity clean”. They also said an operative had arrived at the property that morning. However, the resident told them that she did not want any mould washing to be completed. This was on the basis the works would release spores that could damage her health. The manager said the operative had cleaned the cupboard but they left after the resident became distressed.
In further internal correspondence on the same day, the landlord said the resident had become distressed during several previous interactions between the parties. It said someone should visit her to establish whether she had any additional support in place. This was a positive and reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances. However, from its records, we were unable to establish whether the landlord offered any additional support at this point.
Based on the period between 20 April and 1 November 2023, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 6 months to complete any works to address the mould. Information about the landlord’s approach to damp and mould can be found on its website. While the information is undated, it confirms the Regulator of Social Housing asked the landlord to clarify its approach in November 2022. Given the timing, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s information applies to the resident’s case. The information shows the landlord has committed to:
1. Ensure that any necessary damp and mould repairs are carried out swiftly (the landlord does not provide a specific timescale).
2. Expedite any substantial repairs or major works to rectify identified damp and mould issues.
3. An enhanced approach to ensure that residents “do not have to endure ongoing mould issues” while the landlord is investigating the matter.
The evidence confirms the landlord did not comply with its stated approach. It did not complete repairs swiftly, there is no indication it attempted to expedite its existing works to the bathroom, and, even though it was aware the resident has a breathing condition, it did not attempt to mitigate the situation while its investigations were ongoing. It arguably showed a lack of due care towards the resident and her vulnerabilities. Its handling was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate at times. Its internal correspondence on 6 November 2023 said the property’s toilet, kitchen and lounge had been impacted by damp and mould issues. It is reasonable to conclude this reduced the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
On 14 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs. Call notes said she had been given conflicting information about when the landlord’s operatives would attend the property. She reiterated that she was vulnerable. There was another internal update from the landlord on the same day. It referenced a recent joint visit to the resident. It said the landlord had inspected all the areas that were highlighted in the damp survey. The landlord’s key points were:
1. The resident was “turning the kitchen fan off and not using it”.
2. The property was “in quite a state of dishevelment and tenant lifestyle”.
3. The fabric of the property was sound and it did not appear to be at “a high risk of mould or condensation”.
4. Despite her breathing condition, the resident smoked an “appreciable amount”.
It is noted that the landlord’s comments were not consistent with the extensive repair issues that it had identified during its previous surveys. It is also noted that they appeared to blame the resident, and the tone was arguably dismissive. The comments are concerning in the circumstances.
Records show the landlord contacted the resident on 17 November 2023. It said its contractor had been unable to complete scheduled damp works due to access issues. The resident denied that she had refused to provide access to the property. The notes show the landlord instructed its contractor to contact her and arrange a mutually convenient appointment. Later that month, a local councillor told the landlord they had visited the resident. They said they were “extremely concerned” about the state of the property and its impact to her health. This shows a third-party had observed concerning issues at the property.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 December 2023. It said the resident had escalated her complaint as repairs were outstanding. It also said there “[had] been great difficulty with access” since September 2023. It referred to visits on 4 and 5 December 2023. It said these visits “would enable a mould wash to be completed”. Although the response was issued afterwards, it did not detail the outcome of the visits. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. Overall, the evidence indicates there were 2 incidents involving access issues and they occurred for different reasons (an incident where the operative left the property and another incident where an operative did not gain entry). From its case evidence to the Ombudsman, there is a lack of information to support the landlord’s claim about persistent access issues. Since the initial delays did not relate to access, its approach was arguably unfair in the circumstances.
The response said the landlord was sorry the resident “had cause to complain”. It did not attempt to identify any failures and no compensation was awarded. At this point, the landlord should have been aware of significant delays, numerous visits, conflicting information, and associated distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s compensation guide can be found online. The guide confirms the landlord can pay compensation if its service fails to meet expected standards. It shows the landlord can compensate residents for various issues. They include avoidable delays, damage to belongings, and loss of amenity/use. This approach is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
In this case, the evidence shows there were significant delays and it is reasonable to conclude they were avoidable. It also shows the resident experienced a related loss of amenity/enjoyment. In line with its compensation guide, the landlord should have made a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident. It is unclear why it did not do this. Ultimately, its stage 2 response was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord updated the local councillor. It said all the required works had been completed. It also said that the resident’s expectations were “greater than what we can offer in social housing”. Records show the landlord completed a programme of “remedial damp works” around this time. Corresponding repair notes show the works included: mould treatment to an area of 12 square metres, a repair to leaking basin pipework, creation of a “French drain”, a reduction of ground levels, a damp proof course injection, and refitting of some roof tiles. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord had undertaken some extensive works to address the damp and mould issues.
Damp and mould are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is a risk-based approach. It confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. Inspections are used to assess, monitor and control hazards. Reinspection is recommended to ensure any potential hazards are avoided or minimised. In other words, proactive monitoring (after extensive hazard related works) is consistent with the HHSRS approach.
Our records show the resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2024. She said the repair issues were aggravating her health conditions and she was “living out of boxes” (presumably because she was worried that her personal belongings would be damaged). This information indicates that the damp and mould were ongoing. Subsequent events will show there is further evidence to support ongoing damp and mould issues. It is reasonable to conclude that proactive monitoring would have swiftly alerted the landlord to any ongoing problems.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2024. She said her belongings “[were] being destroyed by mould again”. The records confirm she had been paid £3,500 from the landlord’s insurer for damages that had occurred at her previous address. Around the same time, she told us the landlord had said it lacked sufficient funds to address all of the property’s repair issues. If this was the case, the landlord’s comments were concerning. The resident felt it was treating her unfairly because she had complained to the Ombudsman. Later that month, the councillor told the landlord that black mould had returned to the property’s kitchen and it was also impacting a hatch into the roof space.
In early May 2024 the landlord told the councillor it had already addressed the mould during its complaints procedure. It said the resident should report any new mould issues through the landlord’s repairs process. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have handled the situation better. For example, it could have proactively contacted the resident to arrange an inspection. As mentioned, it could have monitored its previous repairs in line with the HHSRS.
The landlord has provided a “damp file note”. It shows the landlord spoke to the resident on 26 June 2024. It also shows the interaction prompted the landlord to arrange a damp survey for the following day. This was a swift and effective response from the landlord in the circumstances. The landlord did not provide a copy of the corresponding inspection report. It wrote to the resident on 28 June 2024 with a summary of its findings. The letter said a mould wash was needed in the kitchen and brickwork to the rear of the property needed to be repointed. It also said the roof needed to be inspected along with some internal joinery.
Repair records show the landlord raised a works order for “damp remedial works” on the same day. It also added a damp file note to its systems. The note said there was no damp or mould in the property. It also said the landlord should arrange a joint meeting with the resident and the local authority’s dedicated housing support service. Repair records show the landlord’s remedial works order was subsequently cancelled. It is unclear if it was cancelled due to the damp file note. Given its conflicting records, the evidence shows the landlord lacked clarity about the situation in the property. This was inappropriate given that damp and mould have potential safety implications.
The landlord’s repair records said the resident declined mould washing works on 8 August 2024. In contrast, a damp file note on 4 September 2024 reiterated that there was no damp or mould at the property. Around a week later, a further note said the landlord’s position was based on various damp surveys that had been completed. It also said the resident had declined to provide pictures of any recent damp issues. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord did not provide any inspection reports from around this time. Where we have seen them, we have made this clear in our report. Without supporting evidence, the landlord’s approach can be reasonably perceived as dismissive.
Repair notes from October 2024 referenced damp and mould issues. An initial note said the resident did not want the landlord to treat the mould. Another note said she could not have a mould wash due to her respiratory issues. In late October 2024 a separate repair note said there was mould “throughout the kitchen”. Around the same time, the landlord raised an order for a CCTV drain survey. It said the survey should include the property’s rainwater pipes. This suggests it was looking to identify the root cause of ongoing damp and mould issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore different possibilities.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 17 December 2024. She said there were ongoing damp and mould issues in the property’s toilet, shower room, kitchen, bedroom and in a storage cupboard. She told us the bedroom had always been impacted by these issues (it is not mentioned in any of the inspection reports or records that we have seen). She also told us her belongings had been damaged. She said the landlord had only treated the mould in her kitchen cupboards previously. This was on the basis she was unable to have the treatment works due to her breathing conditions. In contrast, repair records from January 2024 said mould treatment had been completed to an area of 12 square metres.
In summary, there were various issues with the landlord’s response to the reported leaks, damp and mould. There were delays and communication issues. The landlord showed a dismissive attitude towards the problem and the resident at times. It showed a lack of solution-focus and arguably a lack of care towards the resident and her vulnerabilities. Although there was evidence of a significant and prolonged impact, it did not make a reasonable attempt to put things right for her. Its handling was unreasonable, inappropriate and unfair at times. It was also contrary to the landlord’s own guidance and the HHSRS approach. It is likely these failures added to the resident’s distress. Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Though the approach has been applied in a different way, it is also consistent with the landlord’s compensation guide. In line with our approach to compensation, the calculation includes separate elements to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of enjoyment aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given her reduced enjoyment of the property.
Although it is not a rent refund, our loss of amenity calculation is broadly equivalent to 10% of the resident’s rent for the period between 20 April 2023 and 25 January 2024. This approach is approximately based on the number of rooms that were affected: kitchen, lounge, shower room and toilet. We have not seen sufficient evidence to include the bedroom in our calculation. The above identified period lasted for around 9 months. For the remaining 11 month period to date, we reduced the calculation rate to 5%. This is because the evidence shows the landlord completed some extensive damp and mould works. It also shows the resident declined mould treatment works during this period. It is reasonable to conclude that these works may have mitigated the situation.
The landlord told us the resident’s weekly rent was £93.70 in the year 2023-24 and it is currently £103.18. We calculated the resident’s average monthly rent at £393.76 for the overall loss of amenity period.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around related health impacts and damage

In her complaint, the resident said the landlord was responsible for delays and the property’s condition was impacting her health. This shows she held the landlord responsible for health impacts. She also said it had previously damaged her decorations and she was concerned her belongings would be damaged in due course. Due to procedural issues with its complaint handling, the landlord did not address her concerns adequately in its complaint responses (where it addressed them indirectly its approach was inadequate). The landlord’s complaint handling will be considered in the relevant section below.
During her call with the Ombudsman in December 2024, the resident told us the landlord had not addressed her concerns to date. The evidence supports this version of events. The resident said she was using her breathing equipment more frequently since she moved to the property. She also said personal items such as furniture and towels had been damaged by mould. She told us she had bought some of these items using the payment she received from the landlord’s insurer (for damage that occurred at her previous address). She said her bed was currently outside the property because it was mouldy. She also said a decorator was repairing the damaged decorations at her own expense. She told us she could not afford to incur any more costs.
Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for health impacts or damage to personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. Alternatively, it can address some issues through its own internal complaints procedure. This approach could be applied to a small number of damaged items. In this case, the landlord should have known the correct process when the resident complained in September 2023. Given the alleged health impacts, it should have signposted her to its insurer. It could also have offered to help her raise a claim. There is evidence it has previously provided administrative support to help the resident. Ultimately, it should have ensured her concerns were being addressed accordingly.
In addition, landlords are obliged to ‘make good’ following repairs. This means they are responsible for rectifying any damage to decorations that resulted from their repair works. A landlord can arrange for its own operatives to make good or it can cover a resident’s costs. Ultimately, it must comply with any legal obligations either way. In this case, there is no indication the landlord recognised this information or that it acted accordingly. It should have promptly inspected the damaged decorations and decided how to proceed. In other words, it should have confirmed whether it had a responsibility to make good. If it did, the landlord should have responded in line with its obligations.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord did not respond to the resident’s various concerns around damages. This is concerning in the circumstances. Based on the period from 12 September 2023 to date, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 15 months. It is noted that insurance claims can be time sensitive. The situation is unfair to the resident and it is reasonable to conclude it was distressing for her. In mitigation, the resident’s complaint shows she was aware that some damages could be handled by the landlord’s insurer.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was inappropriate and its failures amount to maladministration in the circumstances. Its compensation policy shows the landlord can pay a discretionary amount of compensation in similar situations. In line with this approach, the Ombudsman has made a proportionate award to put things right for the resident. It reflects the evidence we have seen and our own guidance on remedies. For clarity, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s kitchen

In her complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2023, the resident said the kitchen was due for an upgrade and it should be replaced as soon as possible. Again, the landlord did not address these concerns in either of its subsequent complaint responses and its complaint handling will be considered below.
A local councillor raised similar concerns with the landlord over the next few months. On 25 January 2024 the landlord told them that the property’s kitchen had been upgraded around 2013. It said kitchens had a 20-year lifespan in line with the government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS). As a result, it would not consider upgrading the property’s kitchen until 2033. The landlord was entitled to refer to the DHS. However, there is no indication it had completed a full inspection of the kitchen at this point. This would have been a reasonable course of action to improve its decision-making.
In late April 2024 the councillor raised the issue again. They said the resident had asked why neighbouring homes were receiving replacement kitchens and the property was not. This shows the resident felt she was being treated differently to other residents in the sheltered housing scheme. The landlord replied to the councillor on 3 May 2024. It said it had a “rolling programme” to upgrade kitchens and bathrooms. However, the property did not need a new kitchen at present. Again, there is no indication that the landlord had based its position on a thorough inspection of the kitchen. This points to flaws in its decision making.
On 1 July 2024 the landlord raised a repair order that related to the kitchen. The notes said “previous issues with mice leaving kitchen … mould issues on cupboards and units”. A follow-up note on 29 October 2024 said, “the kitchen is mouldy throughout, various visits from previous [operatives] have stated new kitchen required … it is pointless sending ops to look at it time and time again”. This shows the landlord had received professional advice about the condition of the kitchen. The advice shows the kitchen was impacted by various repair issues and it had deteriorated. It is reasonable to conclude this may have reduced its overall lifespan. The landlord should have taken this advice into account.
The evidence points to problems with the landlord’s overall approach. It is reasonable to conclude that any decision about replacing the kitchen should include a thorough assessment of the kitchen’s condition. There is no indication the landlord did this until later in the timeline. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. It is also reasonable to conclude that any decision should reflect the professional opinion of relevant operatives. There is no indication the landlord has taken its operatives’ advice into account. Ultimately, it is unfair for the landlord to rely solely on the guidance in the DHS given the circumstances.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s decision making was flawed and its approach was unfair. The resident feels she was treated unfairly in comparison to other residents of its sheltered housing scheme. This information suggests that the landlord’s limited approach has impacted the landlord and tenant relationship. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to revisit its decision about whether or not to replace the property’s kitchen. In line with the approach outlined in the previous section, we have also awarded the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained on 12 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. This was 10 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy is available on its website. It shows the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. The evidence shows the response was issued within an appropriate timescale. However, it also shows there were problems with its contents.
Although it acknowledged them, the response did not address some of the resident’s key complaint points. They included her concerns that damp and mould were exacerbating her health conditions, and her concerns around damage to personal items and decorations. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said landlords “must address all points raised in the complaint”. The landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code.
Similarly, the response did not address the resident’s comments around damp and mould at her previous address. In her complaint the resident said she had already lost “a lot of money and personal belongings” due to these issues. It is reasonable to conclude this was distressing for her. The landlord’s website states it considers “an expression of dissatisfaction however made” to be a complaint. The resident’s comments were consistent with this criteria and they warranted a response from the landlord. If it was unsure what to do, it should have asked the resident if she wanted to include her previous address in the complaint. There is no indication it did this. Its approach was unfair and the evidence indicates her concerns have not been fully addressed to date.
The response did not confirm the case outcome or provide a clear supporting rationale. Section 5.8 of the Code said, among other details, responses must include the landlord’s decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide information that would have helped the resident to understand its response. It is also noted that the response included some conflicting and potentially confusing wording. The landlord said it was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused by “the matter”. It also said it was sorry that it “did not meet [the resident’s] expectations”. Since it referenced delays and related inconvenience, the landlord should have admitted it was responsible for service failures.
This approach would have been consistent with an open and transparent complaint handling culture. Given the wording the landlord used, it is reasonable to conclude that it showed a degree of reluctance to admit to any failures. It is noted the landlord did not award any compensation to the resident. It is also reasonable to conclude that there is a link between the landlord’s approach to failures and its approach towards compensation.
The evidence points to further problems at stage 1. It suggests the resident escalated her complaint on 25 October 2023. This was around 1 month after the stage 1 response was issued. The landlord has said she did this because the damp and mould repairs were outstanding. This information shows the landlord was unable to use its complaints process to expedite the works or bring about a positive change in the resident’s situation. This is concerning in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude it stems from an inappropriate lack of monitoring and/or follow-up by the landlord’s complaints team.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 December 2023. This was around 30 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. The evidence points to a delay of at least 10 working days. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised to the resident. For clarity, an apology would have been sufficient to address a one-off issue such as a short delay of 2 or 3 days. Given the duration of the delay, an apology was disproportionate.
The same problems also occurred in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It acknowledged complaint points that it did not address (the same points from stage 1). It did not include a decision (upheld/not upheld) or a clear supporting rationale. It also included an apology with similar wording. Ultimately, the response was unfair and the landlord missed an opportunity to rectify its previous failures. In addition, there is no indication the landlord attempted to learn from the resident’s experience. It could have reasonably highlighted her situation internally or supplied feedback to relevant teams or colleagues. Its lack of awareness/learning was concerning given the failures in this case.
In summary, there were various issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident was impacted. There was a lack of engagement, monitoring, follow-up and learning on the landlord’s part. It appeared to be reluctant to admit failures or award compensation. Its approach was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate at times. It was also contrary to the Code. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s concerns. Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Review of policies and practice

The landlord failed to comply with its stated approach to damp and mould. In addition, similar failures occurred at both stages of its complaints procedure. The evidence points to problems with the landlord’s approach to damp/mould and complaint handling. It is reasonable to conclude these problems will reduce its chances of resolving these matters through its own internal processes. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. Complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s concerns around health impacts and damage.
  2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in person. It must also follow-up its visit with a written apology. The apology must acknowledge the key failures that are identified in this report. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks (adjusted for the Christmas period).
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the property. The inspection should address the issues referenced in this report and any issues raised by the resident. The landlord must share a comprehensive inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. Any identified repair issues should be addressed accordingly.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,421.01 in compensation within 6 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £571.01 for the corresponding loss of amenity/enjoyment (£39.38 x 9 = £354.42, £19.69 x 11 = £216.59).
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around related health impacts and damage.
4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about the condition of the property’s kitchen.
5. £400 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to revisit its decision about replacing the property’s kitchen. Any decision must reflect the relevant information. This includes a thorough assessment of the kitchen’s condition and any professional recommendations that the landlord has received about it. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident about her outstanding concerns (damage to health, personal belongings and decorations). This is to ensure they are addressed accordingly. It should signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. It should also gather details of her decorating expenses. It must then assess them and respond in line with its compensation policy. If the resident wants to pursue this, it should raise a new complaint to address the damp and mould at her previous address if necessary. During this contact, it should check to ensure it has accurate information about the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, the landlord must review aspects of its damp and mould and complaint handling practices based on our findings. The review must be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord must share the review’s findings with the Ombudsman within 16 weeks. It must also report the findings to the landlord’s governing board or body. The review must include (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this report occurred given the landlord had relevant procedures/processes in place. It should detail the steps the landlord will take to ensure similar issues do not occur in future.
2. An exploration of whether any additional damp and mould complaints have been impacted by similar delays or failures.
3. Consideration of a small random sample of its other complaint responses (for other residents) over the previous 6 months. The sample should involve cases with varying levels of complexity.
4. Consideration, based on its sample cases and the Code, of its ability to use its complaints process as an effective tool for resolving disputes. This includes each of the aspects referenced in the complaint handling section above (its approach to apologies, compensation, learning and so on).
5. Details of the overall number of cases that are impacted along with details of the number of residents that are affected.
6. Cascading any improvements identified during the review to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.