Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202126871)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126871

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

1 February 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 landlords handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
2. Reports of pests.
3. Concerns about an increase in service charges.
4. Reports of issues with its estate management.
5. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has raised concerns about an increase in her service charge. Under paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the increase in her service charge will not form part of this investigation. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
The resident told the Ombudsman she would like the landlord to compensate her for the belongings damaged by the damp and mould. The Ombudsman does not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence, liability or discrimination and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Under paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Therefore, this will not form part of our investigation. However, if this report finds failings, the Ombudsman can make orders and recommendations to put things right. This may mean we require the landlord to pay compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 2 bedroom ground floor flat which began on 25 February 2002. She resides in the property with her son. The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities.

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. This investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues the resident asked this Service to investigate. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the other issues were resolved.
The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. The resident first reported issues relating to this complaint in December 2021. Therefore, this Service has considered the landlord’s response from December 2021 until it’s final complaint response on 31 January 2023.
Within the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s estate management she raised concerns about her street sign and that the lids were missing from the communal bins. The landlord stated it had informed the local authority of these issues. Under paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Therefore these issues will not form part of this investigation.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould had a negative impact on her and her son’s health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

Although this investigation is considering the landlord’s handling of the complaint issues from December 2021, it is noted the resident first reported that she had pests in her property in August 2020.
On 6 December 2021 the resident reported damp and mould, that the window was rotten in her son’s bedroom, there was a leak in the bathroom and the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. The resident sent pictures of the issues to the landlord.
The landlord responded on 7 December 2021. It stated it was aware of the on-going issues the resident was having with the extractor fan and pests in her property. It had contacted the contractor about the extractor fan, and it was waiting for works to be approved which included treatment and pest proofing the ground floor of the block of flats. In relation to the damp and mould it stated it had visited the resident’s property several times in the last year and she had never complained about mould before, and said it could not see any mould in the photos she provided. It stated it “would be happy to visit the property again but right now [it did] not see a reason why”. It asked the resident to provide more information. On 20 and 21 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say the damp and mould was an on-going issue in the block of flats. She stated her bathroom was painted last year, she had to remove the carpet from her son’s bedroom due to mould and would provide photos of mould on her belongings.
On 11 January 2022 pest control visited the property due to the resident’s reports of mice. The contractor told the landlord pest proofing work was needed inside the property.
The evidence shows the landlord visited the resident on 17 January 2022 to discuss the issues she reported. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord documented this visit or sent written communication to the resident about it.
On 10 February 2022 pest control completed pest proofing works to the resident’s property.
On 15 February 2022 the resident reported an issue with her heating and stated there was a draft coming out of her newly fitted bedroom fan. She stated her son was asthmatic and had caught a cold and she had a chest infection. She asked for hotel accommodation until these issues and the damp and mould were fixed. The landlord responded the following day and stated it had visited her property in January 2022 and the damp situation did not meet the threshold for hotel accommodation. It agreed there was moisture extraction issues in the property and said it would inspect the extractor fans and instruct a surveyor to assess the damp and mould.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident chasing an update on the repairs. It told her it was not helpful that she kept chasing an update.
On 18 February 2022 the resident asked to make a formal complaint. She stated for the last 18 to 20 years she had been asking the landlord to fix the ventilation in her property. She stated:
1. The landlord visited her on 17 January 2022 and discussed new and outstanding works.
2. She showed the landlord the damp and mould, the rotten window frame and the damaged floor in her son’s bedroom.
3. The landlord agreed at this visit it would refund or replace damaged goods and furniture.
4. The vent unit in the bedroom had been faulty for 18-20 years. Surveyors had previously said if it was repositioned higher it would work more efficiently. The landlord replaced the fan but did not reposition it. The resident asked when this would be resolved and asked for compensation for this issue.
5. The tree in the car park needed pruning.
6. There were cracks in the ceilings and walls, PVC doors were being replaced, the boiler needed to be moved as it was causing issues with the water pressure.
On 3 May 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it would accept a complaint and would respond within 10 working days. On 6 May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said it would respond by 18 May 2022.
On 19 May 2022 the resident chased an update. The landlord apologised for the delay and arranged a home visit for 30 May 2022 to discuss resolving the complaint. The landlord cancelled this appointment due to staff sickness and rearranged it for 6 June 2022. The landlord cancelled this appointment due to train strikes and said it would look to rearrange the appointment soon. No evidence was provided to this Service that this appointment was rearranged.
On 15 June 2022 the Ombudsman sent a second request to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded the following day and stated it would respond by 22 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2022. It stated:
1. It understood there were on-going issues with damp and mould and it would instruct a surveyor to inspect the property. It said it would contact the resident the week commencing 13 June 2022 to arrange a visit to take photos.
2. It could not compensate the resident for damaged belongings and advised her to take out contents insurance.
3. It had requested pest control works and the contractor would contact the resident directly.
4. The contractor could not fix the extractor fans, so it had asked another contractor to carry out the repair.
The landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation for the delay with its complaint response and the inconvenience caused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5, 7 and 18 July 2022 to discuss her complaint. This Service has not been provided with any evidence the landlord responded.
On 21 July 2022 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 4 August 2022. The landlord responded the same day and said it would issue a response by 18 August 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the complaint and pest control on 18, 19 and 26 July 2022. The landlord responded on 27 July 2022 and apologised the resident had not received a call back. It asked the resident if she had been visited by pest control. It stated it had responded to her complaint on 10 June 2022, and asked her what she wanted to ask about that response.
On 2 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated she was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
An appointment was arranged for pest control to attend the property on 9 August 2022. From the evidence provided it was unclear if this appointment went ahead.
On 10 August 2022 the landlord requested a quote from its contractor to prune the tree in the car park. The landlord chased a response on the 1 September 2022 and received the quote on 14 September 2022. On 21 September 2022 the landlord requested the works to be completed.
The resident chased a response to her complaint numerous times between August and September 2022. On 30 September 2022 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the residents complaint within 5 working days.
The local authority’s environmental health team (EHT) contacted the landlord on 6 October 2022 and stated the resident had contacted them about the lack of lighting in the communal areas as she found it difficult to walk around the property due to her disability. It stated that emergency lighting was very important for fire safety and it should be prioritised.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In its response it:
1. Stated there was no evidence it had instructed a surveyor as it said it would and offered £100 compensation for this service failure. It would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property on 25 October 2022.
2. Stated its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings was inadequate. After failing to take the necessary steps to tackle the mould it had not supported the resident sufficiently and offered a good will gesture of £150.
3. Offered £150 for its failure in its complaints handling and £100 for its poor communication.
4. Stated it should have ensured the agreed actions were followed up and discussed with the resident. It stated it had learnt to ensure outstanding issues did not get lost in staff absences and it had sufficient cover in the event of any absence.
5. Stated the resident could escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and stated it had come to its attention that the surveyor did not attend the appointment on 25 October 2022. It said it had failed to instruct a surveyor and asked the resident to state when she would like the appointment to be rearranged for.
A surveyor attended the property on 16 November 2022. It stated the open plan kitchen and living room and the poor extraction had created excessive moisture and the windows had limited drip vents. It recommended the following works were completed:
1. Fit an extractor fan hood over the oven and remove the existing nearby inefficient fan.
2. Fit a new bathroom fan.
3. Remove the existing fan that had been badly fitted in the bedroom and make good to wall and fill in ducting hole.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident informing her of the above works and told her it had instructed pest control. The landlord’s internal records show it asked the local authority for permission to prune the tree due to it being in a conservation area.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 and stated there were others works outstanding that had not been looked at by the surveyor, this included her son’s rotten window frame, the gap under the kitchen sink needed to be sealed, the tree in the car park needed pruning and the communal lighting was not working. She said the damp was affecting her and her son’s health.
On 21 November 2022 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to reissue its stage 2 complaint or log a new complaint by 6 December 2022. This was because the stage 2 response did not consider all the issues raised by the resident.
On 25 November 2022 the EHT served a section 239 notice of entry and carried out an inspection of the property on 7 December 2022. It stated the following works were required:
1. Identify the final discharge point to external air for the mechanical ventilation unit(s) and communicate this to the resident.
2. Carry out all pest control works previously agreed.
3. Fill in and made good the cracks in rear left bedroom.
4. Replace the rotted timber window in rear left bedroom and the frame checked to ensure the timber was not rotten.
5. Any localised areas of mould to be removed.
6. All external lights should be working and maintained in full working order to the external common parts and the car park.
7. All trees should be pruned to ensure tenant safety.
8. Emergency lighting and artificial lighting to the common parts inside all the residential blocks should be restored as a matter of urgency with the provision of appropriate certification following works.
The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 31 January 2023. In its response it:
1. Apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered £250 compensation.
2. Stated it had not completed the works to seal the gaps under the kitchen sink. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience and stated the resident would be contacted with an appointment.
3. Confirmed it had installed a new extractor fan in the kitchen.
4. Confirmed it had installed a new extractor fan in the bathroom, however, the blockage was not cleared so another visit was needed. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
5. Said it had failed to raise the repair for her son’s window. It apologised and offered £75.
6. Stated a surveyor instructed by EHT inspected the damp and mould on 15 December 2022. It received its report on 9 January 2023. An action plan was made, and a surveyor would inspect the completed works on 6 February 2023.
7. Said it did not have a date when the tree in the car park would be pruned as it was waiting for the local authority to give permission for the works. It had expected to get a decision on 30 December 2022 and had chased this.
8. Stated the issue with the electricity in the communal areas remained unresolved. A contractor attended on 19 and 24 January 2023 but was unable to fix the fault. It apologised for the delay and said it appreciated the impact this was having on the resident. It offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
9. Acknowledged its lack of communication and updates around the repairs. The total amount of compensation offered was £750.
10. Stated in response to the complaint the housing officer and team had undergone training on how to investigate and respond to complaints.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord’s records show that pest control completed works on 10 February 2023.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to prune the tree in the car park on 27 February and 13 March 2022. It could not complete the works due to cars parked in the car park.
The landlord’s contractor attended the block of flats on 2, 16, 22, and 28 March 2023 to fix the electricity supply which was causing issues with the communal lighting. The contractor stated the new consumer unit was installed to a poor standard. It suggested changing the lock on the cupboard where it was kept as after carrying out investigations and speaking to residents it thought someone was turning the power off. On 19 January 2024 the landlord contacted the Ombudsman and stated the communal lighting had been fixed. No evidence was provided to this Service to show when the works were carried out and whether it was a lasting resolution.
On 6 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to state the works mentioned in the stage 2 response were still outstanding and asked for more compensation.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord’s surveyor visited the property and stated the two new extractor fans were working and there was no signs of damp and mould in the property. The surveyor stated he was unsure what EHT meant when they cited non-extraction. He raised that the mould wash and stain block applied should have been done on the whole wall rather than patch repaired. And he suggested that an infrared light and dummy CCTV was fitted in the courtyard.
The landlord visited the property on 17 October 2023. On 19 October 2023 it agreed to carry out the following works:
1. check the ducting in the bathroom was properly vented externally. It would instruct a specialist contractor to investigate this
2. paint the bedroom wall where we previously stain blocked areas of mould
3. fit a fan in the son’s bedroom as the room was not in full use due to claims of mould and damp
4. to ensure all external lights are working.
From this visit it stated the window frames in the property were structurally ok, however, internally they were visually poor with mould present on the timberwork. It felt this had not been caused through its lack of maintenance. On 5 December 2023 the landlord raised a job to reseal the glass in the son’s windows and an appointment was booked in for 21 December 2023 to carry out the works.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, 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 was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in a proper state of decoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its target response time was 24 hours for emergency repairs and within 20 working days for routine repairs. The landlord’s policies and procedures around its service commitments on estate management and communal repairs does not give target response times for works.
The landlord’s estate management procedure states where an issue is raised which was the result of neglect by the responsible contractor, for example lack of cleanliness or dissatisfactory care of gardens, the Estates Team or the PMO will raise the matter with the responsible contractor who will be requested to correct the failing within a specified period. Issues are then followed up during regular monthly contractor performance meetings.
The landlord’s major works criteria procedure states single windows are eligible for replacement if there is evidence they are beyond economical repair, and this has been verified by a technical team member. Complete window renewal for a property would be considered if 50% or more of the total number of windows in the property had failed. Timber window failure would usually be in the form of major timber decay/rot.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will aim to carry out improvement works and major repairs whilst the resident remains in their home. It would decide on a case by case basis and would consider the residents health, safety and wellbeing, any vulnerabilities and moving arrangements before proceeding with the decant process. It would consider an emergency decant when an event makes the property uninhabitable, for example the interruption of vital services to a property like water or electricity.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation for service failure of £50 for low impact, £125 for medium impact and £250 for high impact. It also states it will not pay compensation for loss of communal services or facilities although compensation may be paid if there is a service failure made by it in rectifying the loss. Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord’s pest control procedure states if a resident reports a problem of common pests, it is important for the landlord to establish whether it is a recurring problem by looking through the repairs history and determine the potential cause.
The landlord’s tree management procedure states where it identifies a tree that requires intervention it will request a quote from its contractor and ask them to provide a health & safety priority assessment based on its tree priority framework. Upon receipt of the quote and priority assessment, it will forward these to the estates services team who will update the programme, raise purchase orders, and schedule the works based on the urgency of the priority assessment. The tree work costs are recovered via the service charge over a 5-year period.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported issues with damp and mould and that the window frame in her son’s bedroom was rotten on 6 December 2021. The landlord visited the property on 17 January 2022, although this was just outside the 20 working day timescale given in its repairs policy, this Service recognises the Christmas period would have caused delays. The landlord agreed there were issues with the moisture extraction in the property and it would instruct a surveyor. The landlord acted reasonably in visiting the property on 17 January 2022, however this investigation has not seen evidence that it documented the visit or communicated to the resident what actions were agreed.
The language used by the landlord in its communication with the resident was unreasonable. On 6 December 2021 the landlord questioned the resident’s report of damp and mould as this had not been raised by the resident when it had visited the property previously for other matters. Landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The landlord failed to show due importance to the issue which would have left the resident feeling unsupported by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to chase an update on when the surveyor would attended. The landlord instructed a surveyor on 16 November 2022, this was 238 days after the resident’s initial report of damp and mould. This was an inappropriate delay which left the resident and her son to deal with the damp and mould themselves for a significant period of time.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the damp and mould was going to be resolved. This led her to reporting the same issues several times and repeatedly chasing updates. The landlord repeatedly failed to deliver the commitments it made to the resident and only started to address the damp and mould after the resident and this Service asked it for information and updates. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is essential if the landlord is to fulfil its statutory repair obligations. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord told the resident that its poor communication and missed appointments had been a result of staff changes, sickness and annual leave. The landlord should have effective systems in place so residents are not impacted by staffing issues. The failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management caused significant delays in reports of repairs being picked up and the works being carried out.
No evidence was provided to this Service that anyone in the organisation took overall control of resolving the damp and mould. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaints response it gave an appointment date for a surveyor, however, the repairs team failed to instruct a surveyor. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different teams, such as the complaints and repairs teams. This will ensure that all parties have access to accurate and current information which can be passed to and from the resident and will avoid unnecessary delays.
When the surveyor attended the property on 16 November 2022 to inspect the cause of the damp and mould, no evidence was provided to show the landlord told the surveyor about the resident reporting issues with the bathroom fan or the bedroom window. On 7 December 2022 the council’s EHT inspected the property and stated the landlord needed to identify the final discharge point for the air going into the mechanical ventilation unit(s) and communicate this to the resident, remove any mould, and replace the bedroom window and check the framework. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to raise these issues with its surveyor, and it contributed to further delays in establishing the cause of the damp and mould.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. When the resident told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her, and her son health issues these were escalations. We would have expected to see the landlord assess the level of risk at these clear escalation stages and evidence it had considered all options available to it to support the resident though this time. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident to seek to understand the extent of the damp, its cause and works required. There is no evidence the landlord considered loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place whilst it investigated the cause of the damp and mould. This could have included de humidifiers, a decant assessment and signposting to appropriate tenancy support services. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures were not being put in place.
On 15 February 2022 the resident asked to be placed in a hotel, the landlord said it would only provide hotel accommodation when a property is unliveable and her damp situation did not meet this threshold. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to follow its decant policy, it failed to fully evidence that it took into account the vulnerabilities of the household and the level of risk they were exposed to due to the significant delays. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident and her household living with damp and mould for over a year with no consideration of any interim measures or appropriate support.
After the internal complaints procedure a surveyor visited the property on 14 April 2023, the landlord’s records show he reported that he was unsure what EHT meant when they cited non-extraction. There was no evidence the landlord passed on the EHT’s concerns about the bathroom fan to the surveyor, showing a lack of proactivity to resolve the damp and mould and ongoing poor communication. In October 2023 the landlord visited the property again and agreed to instruct a specialist contractor to investigate the ducting in the bathroom and check it was vented externally. It also inspected the resident’s son’s bedroom window, resealed the glass and agreed to fit a heat recovery fan in the son’s bedroom. Although this shows the landlord is taking steps to put things right, this is more than a year after EHT asked the landlord to investigate these issues. The landlord’s records from October 2023 stated that the son’s bedroom was not in full use due to claims of damp and mould. The evidence provided to this Service does not show the survey on the bathroom fan has been carried out to date.
In summary, the landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The tone of its communications with the resident was unreasonable. Its recordkeeping failed to support an effective resolution to the issues raised. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment, and its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities was an exacerbating feature of this case. This investigation has seen no evidence that the landlord considered any temporary measures or offered appropriate support. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £275 compensation for issues relating to the damp and mould, this offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and did not demonstrate it understood the detriment caused to the resident and her household. The landlord has taken steps to put things right, however, there has been further significant delays with this and some of the agreed works remain outstanding at the date of this investigation report.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
It is acknowledged the landlord implemented a damp and mould policy in February 2023. The policy states it will visit a property where damp or mould is reported within 10 days. At the visit it will determine the severity of the issue, and where possible, the cause and will consider any evidence of detrimental impact the damp is having on the resident’s or anyone in the household’s health. Whilst the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published during the life of this investigation, it is positive to see these changes made by the landlord. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its current position to ensure it aligns to good practice set out by the spotlight report. This a positive step to the landlord improving its response to damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests

On 7 December 2021 the landlord told the resident it was aware of the issues she was having with pests and it was waiting for works including treatment and pest proofing to the ground floor of the block of flats to be approved. On 11 January 2022 a contractor inspected the property and recommended proofing works inside the residents property. This work was carried out on 10 February 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing a specialist to inspect the property, and the proofing works were carried out in a reasonable time after the inspection.
In the resident’s complaint on 18 February 2022, she thanked the landlord for carrying out the work and for visiting her to check the works had resolved the issue. It was unclear from the evidence provided to this Service when the resident reported the pests as an on-going issue. This was further evidence of poor record keeping.
There was evidence of poor communication and delays with the landlord resolving this issue. On 10 June 2022 the landlord emailed its contractor to inspect the property due to reports of mice. In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2022 it told the resident the contractor would be in contact with her directly to arrange this appointment. The resident chased an update on this several times. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident until 17 November 2022, this was 4 months later. It stated it had ordered its contractor to inspect the property, however the resident and EHT chased this again in January 2023. This was a significant delay which left the resident with no resolution to the issue for 7 months. The landlord acted unreasonably by not carrying out a further inspection to the cause of the pests within a reasonable time.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord responded to the resident chasing an update on pest control. It said it had spoken to its surveyor who had recommended that any pest control work for flies should wait until repair works had been carried out. The resident told the landlord that she had reported an issue with mice and flies. This shows the landlord did not have a full understanding or clear records of the issues being reported. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that if a resident reports a problem of common pests it was important to establish whether it was a recurring problem by looking through the repairs history and determine the potential cause. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord investigated the cause of the pests and communicated this to the resident.
The landlord recognised that it had failed to seal under the kitchen sink in its final stage 2 complaint response on 31 January 2023. It stated it had raised a new work order and offered the resident £50 compensation. However, the landlord failed to recognise the impact the delays and its poor communication had on the resident. It has not shown that it has learnt from the complaint or taken steps to put things right as at the date of this investigation the works to seal under the kitchen sink were still outstanding.
Taking all factors into consideration, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its estate management

Tree in the car park

It was unclear from the evidence provided to this Service when the resident first reported that the tree in the car park needed cutting back. In her complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2022 the resident raised that she had reported the issue and the landlord had not completed the works. This investigation will look at the landlord’s handling of the matter from February 2022.
The landlord requested a quote from its contractor to cut back the tree on 10 August 2022, this was 119 working days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report within a reasonable time.
Whilst there were delays in the contractor carrying out the works, the delays were outside the landlord’s control as it had to wait for a quote and for the local authority to give permission for the works due to the tree being in a conservation area. The landlord acted appropriately by recording the work as urgent and the evidence showed the landlord was in regular contact with the contractor and repeatedly chased for updates. This showed the landlord was taking steps to try to try to put things right.
No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord contacted the resident about this issue until its final stage 2 complaint response on 31 January 2023, this was 11 months after her initial complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately by not keeping the resident up to date with its actions. Its poor communication left the resident in a position where she did not know when the issue would be resolved, which led her to reporting the issue several times and chasing updates.
After the landlord’s internal complaints procedure was finalised, the contractor arranged to prune the tree on 27 February 2023 and 13 March 2023, the landlord served notice of the works on all tenants and said cars cannot be parked in the car park whilst the work was being carried out. On both dates the contractor reported they could not carry out the works due to cars being parked in the car park.

Communal lighting outside the property

It is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service when the resident first reported that the communal lighting was not working. The landlord’s records show on 8 April 2022 the resident reported that the communal lighting was not working again after an attempt had been made to fix it. This investigation will look at the landlord’s handling of this issue from April 2022.
The resident chased an update on this issue several times in August 2022 and contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2022 to state that there had been no lighting in the communal areas for 6 weeks. The landlord contacted its contractor to look at the electrics in the common areas on 8 September 2022. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service that the contractor visited the building. The delay and lack of communication from the landlord led to the resident contacting the EHT in October 2022 to resolve the matter. A contractor visited the building on 31 October 2022, this was 140 working days after the resident reported the issue. This was an unreasonable delay.
The EHT told the landlord the resident was finding it difficult with her disability to walk around the property due to the lack of lighting. There was no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment at this time or considered if there were any reasonable adjustments needed or temporary measures they could put in place whilst the issue was being resolved. The evidence shows that the contractor made the landlord aware that they were finding it difficult to diagnose the issue and that this was causing delays. The landlord was on notice of the resident’s disability so it should have had due regard for any adjustments required in line with the Equalities Act 2010. Failing to have regard to its obligations and carry out an assessment of risk was a failure which caused significant detriment to the resident.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for the delay and the impact the lack of electricity in the communal areas was having on the resident and offered her £250 compensation. However, the landlord acted inappropriately by not providing details on the action it was taking to resolve the communal lighting, when it would be resolved by or that it had considered if any temporary measures could be put in place.
In summary there was significant delays in the landlord responding to the residents reports of the issues with the tree and communal lighting. Although the landlord communicated well with its contractors it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and did not keep her updated. It also failed to consider the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities and did not provide appropriate support. Although the landlord offered £250 compensation for the lack of communal lighting, this Services feels the compensation offered did not go far enough to reflect the impact on the resident. And no redress was offered for the time and trouble caused to the resident with her reports that the tree needed pruning.
Taking all factors into consideration the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its estate management.

The landlords handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident submitted a complaint on 18 February 2022, the landlord provided it’s stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2022. This was 84 working days later, which was outside the landlord’s target response time of 15 working days. This was an inappropriate delay.
The landlord failed to action the resident’s complaint, which led her to contact this Service. This Service contacted the landlord on 2 occasions asking it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. We would have expected the landlord to write to the resident and give an explanation for the delay and when she should expect a response. The landlord acted inappropriately by not updating the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to arrange a visit to discuss the complaint issues, 2 appointments were arranged but both were cancelled by the landlord. No evidence was provided to this Service that the appointment was rearranged. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a meeting with the resident to try to resolve the complaint, it failed to engage with the resident which led to further delays. The resident was left not knowing when she would receive a resolution to her complaint which resulted in her repeatedly chasing an update.
The stage 1 complaint response did not address all of the resident’s complaint issues. This was contrary to p.3.14 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). With the issues it did address it failed to detail what steps it had taken, what steps it was going to take to resolve the outstanding works and how it was going to keep the resident updated. It offered £150 compensation for the delays and inconvenience and stated it would update her on 29 June 2022 once it had spoken to its contractor about compensation for missed appointments. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord contacted the resident about the missed appointments. The landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint, it did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised, it failed to fully consider the impact on the resident and failed to follow through with agreed commitments.
The resident told this Service she asked the landlord to review her complaint on 23 June 2022. Although the landlord has not provided this Service with records of what the resident stated in her contact to the landlord during this time, there was evidence she contacted the landlord several times in July 2022 and asked to discuss her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2022. This was 85 working days later, which was outside its 20 working day target response time. This was an inappropriate delay.
The landlord failed to action the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. This led to the resident contacting the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 occasions asking it to issue its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord responded to this Service stating it would escalate the complaint but failed to update the resident. The lack of communication from the landlord caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she continued to chase the landlord for a response.
The landlord did contact the resident on 27 July 2022 and apologised it had not responded to her calls. It stated this was due to its staff taking annual leave. It stated it had responded to her complaint on 10 June 2022 and “what [was] it [she] would like to ask [it] about this response?” The relationship had clearly broken down between the landlord and the resident at this point and no evidence was provided to this Service to show the landlord attempted to rectify the situation. The language and tone used in its communication with the resident was often unreasonable and unsupportive. This left the resident feeling frustrated and that the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously.
The landlord arranged a home visit on 19 September 2022 and an appointment in the office on 22 September 2022 to look at resolving the complaint issues. The landlord cancelled the home visit and the resident did not attend the second appointment as she thought it was a home visit. No evidence was provided that the landlord attempted to rearrange these appointments or took any further steps to resolve the complaint. Although the landlord acted appropriately and in line with the Code by arranging meetings to understand and resolve the resident’s complaint, it acted unreasonably by repeatedly failing to adhere to commitments it had promised the resident.
In the landlord first stage 2 response it failed to address all the points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions as per p.3.14 of the Code. By not investigating the resident’s concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix wider problems with how it handled the complaint. On 24 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to state it had not addressed all the issues in her complaint, however, no evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord responded. This led the resident to contact the Ombudsman. In November 2022 this Service asked the landlord to consider reissuing its stage 2 complaint or accept a new complaint to ensure it considered and responded to all the complaint issues raised by the resident.
The landlord issued a revised stage 2 complaint response on 31 January 2023, 49 working days later. This was outside the landlord’s target response timescale and the timescale given by the Ombudsman. The landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered the resident £250 compensation. It stated in response to the complaint its staff had undergone refresher training on how to investigate and respond to complaints. This was to ensure it fully understands the impact service failures have on residents and how to prevent this and to ensure it responds fully to all issues raised.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to accept the complaint or provide its complaint responses without intervention from the Ombudsman. There was poor communication and poor record keeping throughout the complaint. The landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint, it did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised and failed to fully consider the impact on the resident. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its poor complaints handling and offered in total £450 compensation, this Service feels the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. It did not go far enough to demonstrate that it understood the detriment caused to the resident.
Taking all factors into consideration the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was serve maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about an increase in her service charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its estate management.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was serve maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord obtaining a survey on the cause of the damp and mould, there was poor record keeping and poor communication with both the resident and its contractors. The landlord failed to carry out risk assessments, it did not effectively consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, consider any interim measures, or offer her appropriate support. Although the landlord is taking steps to put things right at the date of this investigation report there are outstanding works.
There was evidence of poor communication and delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s reports of pests. The landlord failed to show it understood the issue being reported. It recognised the works had not been completed in its final complaint response, however, it failed to recognise the impact the delays and its poor communication had on the resident. It has not shown that it has learnt from the complaint or taken steps to put things right as at the date of this investigation some pest proofing works were still outstanding.
There were significant delays in the landlord taking action to resolve the issues within its estate management. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and did not keep her updated. The landlord recognised some of its failings in its final complaint response, however, the redress offered did not reflect the time and trouble caused by the resident.
The landlord failed to accept the resident’s complaint and provide its complaint responses without intervention from the Ombudsman. It failed to adhere to its policy and the Code, there were significant delays, poor communication and poor record keeping throughout the complaint. It did not meaningfully engage with the resident and it failed to fully consider the impact of the outstanding issues on the resident or acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident. Although the landlord recognised some of its failings in its complaint responses, it did not offer suitable redress and has not shown it has learnt from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident. A member of the senior leadership team must provide the apology to the resident.
2. In addition to the compensation awarded in the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord must pay the resident a further £1800 compensation. This is broken down as:
  1. £800 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the reports of damp and mould and associated repairs
  2. £250 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the reports of pests in the property
  3. £250 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the reports of issues with its estate management.
  4. £500 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
3. Consider as to whether, on the basis of the findings of this report, further compensation is due for further delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble from January 2023 to the date of this report. The landlord’s decision is to be signed off by the senior member of staff carrying out the above ordered review. The landlord is to then to write to the resident and this Service to confirm its position with an explanation.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures. The landlord must provide a copy of the case review to this Service.
2. Obtain an independent survey of the ventilation in the property. The survey must address the issues raised in the EHT report from its inspection on 7 December 2022, including the bathroom fan. The surveyor must report its findings and identify any works required. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service, and if any necessary works are needed the dates on when these will take place.
3. Write to this Service setting out the issues with the communal lighting and tree pruning. The landlord should either confirm that it has affected a lasting resolution to these issues, specifying what that resolution was and when it was affected, or set out how and when it will diagnose the issues and affect a solution.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures
2. are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible in the event of staff changes, sickness or annual leave
3. respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord should consider reviewing its record-keeping practices. If it has not done so already, it should consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.