Nottingham City Council (202312316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312316

Nottingham City Homes Limited

25 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs;
2. reports of damp and mould;
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy that began in December 2022. The property is a detached 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident has several physical and mental health conditions. This includes mobility and respiratory issues, of which the landlord was aware.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to issue complaint responses within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it will consider discretionary compensation where it failed to meet its own service targets (e.g. failed to attend an appointment, carry out a service within the agreed timescale, or keep the customer informed throughout a process).

Repairs and maintenance service standards

The landlord’s service standard stated that it would inspect reports of damp and mould within 4 weeks. It explained the causes of condensation, and its commitment to provide actionable advice where it was identified. It said that any remedial works would be carried out within 3 months of the resident’s report. It is noted that the document was issued in 2018, and the landlord has since updated its approach in line with the paragraph below.

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould

We published our Spotlight Report in October 2021, and our further follow up report in February 2023. The landlord provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations of the Spotlight Report, which it completed in June 2023. The assessment detailed the landlord’s updated approach including its implementation of a specific team to manage reports of damp and mould. It stated that the team reported into a newly formed cross departmental ‘damp and mould action group’. The assessment further detailed its drafting of a specific damp and mould policy, which was implemented on 14 May 2024.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.”
The resident has had several complaints determined by the Ombudsman, in some cases jointly with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The resident’s 3 most recent cases concerned matters that overlapped with, or linked with the issues relevant to this investigation.
The resident’s case 202228281 was determined by the Ombudsman on 15 April 2024. The resident’s complaint concerned works in her previous property with the landlord. The works were undertaken in the 2 month period prior to her current tenancy beginning in December 2022. The complaint was at stage 2 of the landlord’s process when the resident’s current tenancy began. The Ombudsman made 2 findings of service failure, and 2 of maladministration.
The resident’s case 202334617 was determined by the Ombudsman on 27 September 2024. The resident’s associated complaint was made to the landlord in November 2023. It concerned the landlord’s handling of her reports of issues with her external doors installed in July 2023, and her concerns regarding radon. The Ombudsman made findings of service failure, and no maladministration respectively.
The resident’s case 202318636 was determined by the Ombudsman on 8 December 2023. The resident’s complaint partly concerned the condition of her current property at the start of her tenancy in December 2022. This included damp, mould, and other repairs. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued to the resident on 16 March 2023. The landlord’s key points and outcomes that are relevant to this investigation were as follows:
1. The resident’s property had a high level of thermal efficiency that increased the need for adequate heating and ventilation. It was installed with solar panels, and a passive ventilation (PV) system.
2. Its inspections had not identified evidence of penetrative or rising damp, nor black spot mould. It had provided the resident with support regarding ventilation, and offered further relevant guidance.
3. It was awaiting the full response from the specialist moisture company that had inspected the resident’s property in response to her concerns, but had received initial feedback. It had noted that an airbrick had been blocked up, and the PV system and other extractors were isolated at the switches.
4. The landlord advised or committed to the following:
  1. Undertaking a further damp and mould survey once the resident had had a chance to implement the advice it had provided.
  2. Drilling holes into the blocked airbrick, and relaying the loft insulation around the hatch.
  3. Considering a change to the PV system and extractor switches. Exploring the use of a remote humidity and moisture monitoring device.
  4. Replacing the slabs at the side of the property with a stone path. Clearing the gutters and other repairs.
The Ombudsman found “no maladministration by the landlord in respect of reported repairs and the condition of the property at the time it was let to the resident”. A finding of reasonable redress was made regarding the landlord’s associated complaint handling. Our investigation report further clarified that “the landlord’s handling of reported repairs after March 2023 will be investigated separately”.
As such, and in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, this investigation is focused on matters relevant to the resident’s current property from March 2023, excluding those issues raised in the resident’s November 2023 complaint to the landlord. Any references in this report to matters that have already been determined by the Ombudsman are for the purpose of context only.

Summary of events

On 16 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint referred to above, which was previously investigated by the Ombudsman (the following day the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response to her separate complaint that was also considered in the Ombudsman’s previous investigation).
Over the following days the resident raised numerous issues concerning the condition of her property with the landlord’s director who had responded at stage 2 of her previous complaint. The issues included damp and wetness inside her property. On 21 March 2023 the director reiterated to the resident the findings and works associated with her previous complaint. The director asked the resident to clarify if she had further issues that could be investigated as a new complaint, and provided contact details for this Service if not. The resident made a further complaint via a webform on the landlord’s website the same day. She listed 47 areas of dissatisfaction with her property or the landlord’s services.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord’s director referred to the attendance of 2 building and structural surveyors at the resident’s property the previous day regarding a separate external matter. She told the resident that, in light of her continued concerns, she had also asked the surveyors to assess whether anything had changed since its previous damp inspections. The director expressed her regret that the resident had refused the surveyors access. She said that she would arrange a further separate visit by the landlord’s damp and mould team, but could not yet advise a date.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord’s director sent the resident a summary of the works that had been completed to her property following her previous complaint, and those that were outstanding. The director committed again to carrying out a further damp and mould inspection.
Over the following days the resident raised a range of issues regarding the landlord’s recent repair attendances and associated matters with the landlord’s director. She asked that the director stop writing to her, and highlighted the stress that the matters were causing her. The director explained to the resident why it was not possible to reply individually to the resident’s multiple emails, but apologised for some of the attendance issues that she had raised. The director agreed to the resident’s request to cease communication, but said that she would write again once the works agreed at stage 2 of the resident’s previous complaint were complete.
On 3 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had not heard anything further to her complaint made on 21 March 2023. The following day the landlord told the resident that it had been unable to find a record of her complaint. It asked that the resident resend it, which she did. Over the next week the landlord’s internal emails discussed how to handle the resident’s complaint given that many of the matters had been responded to in her previous complaints.
On 11 April 2023 the director said that the landlord should identify any issues that it had not already responded to, and then handle a new complaint in line with its policy. The director replied to the resident’s further emails with reference to recently completed works, and those to follow. She advised the resident that she had asked the landlord’s tenancy support team to try and assist with matters the resident had raised about her mental wellbeing.
The resident and director continued to correspond over the remainder of April and early May 2023. The resident’s reports included issues regarding damp and its impact on her health. On 24 April 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. The resultant report recorded air and surface temperatures, humidity, and other related readings from throughout the property. It noted that there were no signs of mould, all walls and skirtings gave dry readings, but that there was evidence of condensation.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord completed its complaint proforma based on its call with the resident to discuss her concerns. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement the same day. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She described her dissatisfaction with works completed in her loft on 24 April 2023. She said that a surveyor had completed a damp and mould inspection the same day without an appointment.
2. She stated that operatives had attended for a fencing job on 3 May 2023, when the appointment had not been until the following day. She said that they were then unable to complete the works, and only took photographs.
3. She said that the landlord had attended as agreed on 4 May 2023 for a soffits and fascia job, but that the operatives arrived believing that they were there for her guttering. She described the subsequent confusion, distress, and lack of call backs from the landlord.
4. She expressed her annoyance that operatives had accessed her garden the previous week to assess the soffits and fascia when she had not been at home.
5. She said that she had waited at home all day on 4 May 2023 for a repair appointment for her grate, but that nobody had attended or contacted her.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It referred to its repair manager’s visit to the resident on 16 May 2023 to discuss and inspect her outstanding property issues. The landlord apologised for its repairs appointment failures. It accepted that it had failed to meet its repairs service standards, and apologised for its communication failings. It explained the project that was in progress to upgrade its systems. It described the specific impact that this had had on the resident’s repairs’ experiences, and the related service improvements the project would achieve. The landlord’s further key points were as follows:
1. It explained that residents were not required to be at home when it undertook external works, but apologised that its communications about this had not been clearer.
2. It apologised that its surveyor had not called ahead of their damp and mould inspection on 24 April 2023. It said that the surveyor had had unexpected spare capacity that day, and so had attended in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns.
3. It said that the damp and mould inspection had confirmed the findings of the resident’s previous complaint. It reiterated its previous guidance regarding use of her ventilation systems.
4. It provided a point by point summary of its findings of each of the property issues discussed at its visit on 16 May 2023, and explained why no works were required to the following:
  1. roof covering and structure;
  2. soffits, fascia and gutters;
  3. bathroom floor;
  4. matt well.
5. It stated that the resident’s loft appeared to be well insulated but that it would complete a more thorough inspection when it attended for further works. It agreed to replace cracked tiles in the shower area. It summarised its findings and intentions for the resident’s garden, and an area of ground that required retaining works.
6. It referred to additional repairs that the resident had highlighted at the visit, which it said it was collating. It said that it was aiming to batch the resultant works to prevent a repeat of previous service failings.
7. It committed to its repairs manager being the resident’s key contact point until works were completed, and to provide an update by 2 June 2023. It advised how the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
On 2 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had not received its stage 1 response, and so the landlord resent it. The same day the landlord’s repairs manager called the resident to discuss the works to her property.
On 5 June 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She asked for confirmation that her front and back doors were being replaced. She highlighted multiple property issues including her matt well, bathroom and kitchen floors, soffits, fascia, loft insulation, roof, and solar panels. She described her wet bedroom floors and damp issues.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord’s repairs manager wrote to the resident to confirm the “conversation that we had today” (the landlord’s letter was dated 2 June, but it subsequently confirmed that it was not sent until 5 June 2023). The letter listed 8 property and 5 garden jobs that it was arranging. It said that it had provisionally booked the work for the week commencing 10 July 2023 so that it could be completed in such a way as to minimise disruption to the resident. The jobs included the renewal of the resident’s front and back doors, and various works or checks of her loft insulation, air bricks, extractors and PV units.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response, which included a copy of its letter from 5 June 2023. It stated that the works listed in its previous letter were in resolution of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s additional points included the following:
1. It advised that the resident’s solar panels would be cleaned and netted as part of that year’s maintenance programme. It explained that the soffits and fascia would be a renewed on a future maintenance programme. It said that it was satisfied that the repairs that it had completed had left both fit for purpose until that time.
2. It said that there was nothing to suggest that there were issues with the resident’s roof covering, but that it would check it again during the works scheduled from 10 July 2023.
3. It stated that it was waiting for the resident to confirm a convenient date for it to reinspect her bathroom floor. It said that it would advise if any works were required following this inspection.
4. It said that its previous inspections had found no evidence of damp in the resident’s bedroom floors. It reiterated its offer to install damp monitoring equipment, which it said that the resident had previously declined.
5. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 11 July 2023 the landlord completed an external survey of the resident’s property ahead of its planned maintenance programme. The following day the landlord began the works advised in its complaint response, including the renewal of her front and back doors on 13 July 2023. On 14 July 2023 the resident declined further works as she was unwell. The works were rescheduled and completed on various dates from 20 July 2023.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord’s letter to the resident explained its intended external maintenance programme. The landlord’s works orders from 11 July to 31 October 2023 detailed a range of works completed at the resident’s property that included, but were not restricted to the following:
1. Borescope survey of kitchen and bathroom pipework (no water ingress or follow on works identified).
2. Cleaning and netting of the solar panels.
3. External brickwork renewals.
4. Concreting of the matt well (recorded as a goodwill gesture).
5. Renewal of plinth, skirting board, and some kitchen floor tiles.
6. Painting, plumbing, and drainage clearances.
7. Various garden and external works.
8. Installation of additional loft insulation.
9. Window repairs.
In providing its information to us, the landlord further explained that the inspection of the resident’s bathroom floor that was advised in its stage 2 response only identified aesthetic issues. It said that the contractor that had installed the floor subsequently agreed to renew it, as it was only 2 years old. It said that it could not evidence this with a works order, as the contractor had not charged for the work. It is unclear when this work was completed.
The landlord also advised that there were further issues with the resident’s kitchen floor tiles that it had renewed as part of its complaint resolution works. It stated that it had subsequently completed a full floor renewal.
On 9 November 2023 the resident made her further complaint to the landlord about her new external doors and other matters, which was the subject of a previous determination by the Ombudsman. On 17 November 2023 the landlord completed a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. Its resultant report noted the various works that had been completed, and that there was no evidence of damp or mould.
Over the course of November 2023 the landlord’s director corresponded with the resident regarding the issues raised in her new complaint. As part of these discussions the resident reported that she continued to experience issues with damp and mould.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord’s director responded at length to the resident. The director summarised the landlord’s efforts over the previous year to address the resident’s concerns, and adapt its communications and approach to meet her needs. She provided an itemised summary for each of 9 property elements concerning which the resident had raised concerns, and how the landlord had concluded that no further works were required. This included a detailed explanation of its position regarding “warmth, humidity and damp”. The director highlighted that there was still no evidence of damp or mould, and again encouraged the resident to allow for data sensors to be installed.
Over the remainder of 2023, and early 2024, the resident continued to report multiple concerns to the landlord, including damp and mould. On 21 February 2024 the landlord’s ‘real time data’ contractor sent the landlord an explanation of the first set of results from the humidity and temperature sensors installed in the resident’s property on 29 January 2024. It summarised that the resident’s property was consistently heated, but that effective ventilation was often not evident after normal bathroom and kitchen usage.
On 14 March 2024 the landlord completed a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. The key findings and outcomes were as follows:
1. The bathroom and kitchen extractors were of adequate size and correctly functioning, but isolated in the off position. The PV unit was covered up and not in use. It raised jobs for the units to be tested and overhauled if necessary.
2. There was a “very small amount” of mould in various rooms “due to condensation”. It raised mould treatment works for any affected areas.
3. There were “slight wet readings” to the edges of the external walls and some flooring areas. It raised jobs for the guttering and gully to be checked for defects.
4. It raised jobs for various repointing, pipe lagging, mastic renewal, and similar works that were identified as preventative measures.
The resident subsequently made a housing disrepair claim. An independent inspection of her property was completed on 22 August 2024, and a ‘housing conditions expert witness report’ produced. The report identified some minor repairs. It identified “minor and isolated” mould in some areas that it attributed to condensation. It noted that there “were no signs of any penetrating damp into the loft area or any of the ceilings”, and that “all electronic moisture readings were dry”. It further noted that “the mechanical extraction fan was switched off at the isolator, when tested the mechanical extraction fan was found to be in a good working condition”.

Assessment and findings

The resident described the impact of her reported property issues on her respiratory and other health conditions throughout the course of her complaints made to the landlord, and brought to the Service. The resident has been previously advised that the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.
We further advised that such matters would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements, which the Ombudsman cannot. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

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

The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s prior complaint on 16 March 2023, which was previously determined by the Ombudsman (202318636). The response committed to carrying out various repairs to the resident’s property. The resident described the time, trouble, and distress caused to her by the landlord’s handling of those and subsequent repairs, in her call to discuss her further complaint on 9 May 2023.
The resident highlighted various instances of the landlord either failing to attend agreed appointments, or turning up without prior arrangement. She further explained instances of tradesmen arriving who were either unsure of the works that they were there to complete, or not equipped to undertake them. She described her chasing of the landlord for updates and information, and the confusion and lack of call backs that she had experienced.
The landlord’s repairs manager visited the resident on 16 May 2023 to discuss these issues, and inspect her property. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response the following week. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the repairs handling failures described by the resident, which were not disputed. From that point onwards the landlord kept in place dedicated contact points for the resident (its repairs manager and director), and did in the main demonstrate a customer and resolution focused approach to her repairs.
The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately considered below. However, having accepted its service and communication failings, and their impact on the resident up to that point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer her redress. The landlord’s failure to do so was unreasonable, and a finding of service failure has therefore been made regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property.
The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s property on 16 May 2023 included an assessment of multiple issues previously reported by the resident, and the identification of new ones. The landlord’s complaint response the following week provided a point by point breakdown of each issue raised by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the qualified view of its repairs manager. The resident subsequently disputed elements of the inspection findings. Nonetheless, it was further reasonable for the landlord to provide an individual explanation of each element. This included explanations for those issues where it considered no further works to be necessary, and would have ensured that its position was clear to the resident.
The landlord committed to collating the resident’s new repair issues, structuring the resultant work in such a way as to prevent a recurrence of its previous service failings, and for its repairs manager to remain as her point of contact. This demonstrated the landlord’s learning from the resident’s complaint, and a customer focused approach.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord’s repairs manager called the resident to discuss the proposed works, which was in line with the commitment of its complaint response. The landlord’s letter sent to the resident 3 days later confirmed what they had discussed, and listed those works. This would have ensured that the resident understood the landlord’s intended repairs, and represented a reasonable effort to manage her expectations. The landlord’s letter explained to the resident how the works and trades had been grouped together from 10 July 2023 to reduce any disruption to her. This again demonstrated an appropriately customer focused approach.
The resident’s complaint escalation request referred to many of the issues that the landlord had previously responded to, as well as new ones, which included her solar panels and the renewal of her doors. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response the week before her works were due to begin. It reiterated the findings from its stage 1, and 5 June 2023 letters, and provided appropriately clear responses to the resident’s newer issues. The following week the landlord began the repairs, and completed a survey of her property ahead of its external maintenance programme.
The renewal of the doors at the property went ahead as scheduled on 13 July 2023. The following day the works were put on hold due to the resident being unwell. The landlord’s works orders evidenced works recommencing 1 week later, and then being completed in line with the resident’s availability. The landlord completed some works, including the resident’s matt well, bathroom floor, and boundary fence, which it had assessed as either nonessential or not its responsibility. This further demonstrated the landlord’s resolution focused approach following the resident’s complaint.
As above, it would have been further reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident redress for the distress caused to her by its accepted repairs and communication failings from March to May 2023. The Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure regarding the landlord’s repairs handling.

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

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp at the start of her tenancy, and early 2023, were considered by the Ombudsman in her previous case (202318636). This included the landlord’s initial inspection of her property in response to her reports, the inspection of its specialist moisture company, and the advice and associated findings in its stage 2 response issued on 16 March 2023. The Ombudsman’s previous investigation found no maladministration with this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In the days following the landlord’s previous stage 2 response, the resident continued to report multiple property issues including damp. On 2 occasions over the following month the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had sufficiently considered the resident’s vulnerabilities by attending damp inspections that it had not prearranged with her. However, the landlord did demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in most other regards, and appropriately adapted its approach in response to her needs.
The landlord’s further inspections of the resident’s property found no evidence of damp and mould, but did note excess condensation. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord’s subsequent works and guidance to focus on insulation and ventilation matters, and offering the resident appropriate support. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord had arranged for 2 surveyors to attend the resident’s property on 21 March 2023 regarding an external matter. Following the resident’s continued reports of damp, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the surveyors to also carry out an internal survey to establish if anything had changed since its earlier damp and mould inspections. This demonstrated the landlord’s timely response to the resident’s ongoing concerns, and a resolution focused approach.
However, it was a shortcoming that the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord forewarned the resident of its intention to carry out the internal survey. The surveyors completed their external assessment but the resident declined internal access, as she felt that she had already had enough people in her property. The landlord was aware of the resident’s distress and vulnerabilities, including various mental health conditions. As such, it would have been appropriate to let her know in advance that it would also use its surveyors’ attendance to further inspect the damp issues that she had raised. This may have allowed the resident to prepare herself for having further people in her home, increased the surveyors’ chance of gaining access, and demonstrated its consideration of her vulnerabilities.
The landlord did demonstrate its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities by keeping the director, who had responded at stage 2 of her previous complaint, as her main point of contact. The director maintained regular contact with the resident through the remainder of March and April 2023. She provided the resident with works updates, and appropriately made a mental wellbeing referral to the landlord’s tenancy support team.
The resident made various references to damp and mould in her property through this period. The director highlighted that no evidence of mould had been seen during the landlord’s previous inspections or more recent attendances, nor in the photographs the resident had provided. It was reasonable for the director to commit to a further damp inspection being completed, but to explain the landlord’s need to prioritise the high demand for inspections based on the available evidence and need.
The landlord completed its damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property on 24 April 2023. It was a further shortcoming that the landlord again failed to give the resident advance notice of the inspection. It was appropriate for the landlord to subsequently apologise to the resident and explain the reason for this in its complaint response. The landlord’s inspection report recorded the temperature and humidity readings from throughout the resident’s property, but found no evidence of damp or mould.
The landlord acknowledged and discussed the resident’s complaint with her on 9 May 2023, and its repairs manager completed a further inspection the following week. The landlord’s subsequent letter and complaint responses explained the works that it was arranging to the resident’s property, but again highlighted that it had been unable to find evidence of damp or mould. The landlord had noted excess condensation at the resident’s property, and had provided extensive guidance regarding its management (considered by the Ombudsman in case 202318636).
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord’s advice and associated works to address insulation and ventilation matters that would support the resident with reducing condensation. While the resident declined the landlord’s offer, it was also reasonable for the landlord to propose installing damp monitoring equipment in her property. This would have given the landlord a further means to understand the cause of any excess condensation, and offer the resident appropriate support.
Following the conclusion of the resident’s complaint and associated work, she continued to report multiple property issues to the landlord, including damp and mould. The landlord’s director remained as the resident’s point of contact. The landlord’s November 2023 damp and mould inspection of her property made the same findings as the previous ones. The director continued to provide advice to the resident regarding humidity management. She encouraged the resident to allow the landlord to install data sensors that could allow it to identify “any other reasonable solutions we can apply to your home in addition to what is already in place”.
The resident agreed to the sensors being installed in early 2024. The landlord began receiving the associated data in February 2024. It completed a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property the following month, and raised works in line with its findings.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s inspections, repairs, and maintenance work prior to, and in resolution of, the resident’s complaint would have caused her disruption and inconvenience. Nonetheless, the landlord has in the main demonstrated that it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely and responsive manner. It has evidenced the findings of its inspections, the guidance and support that it provided, and the appropriate tailoring of its approach to the resident’s needs. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint responses were helpfully set out, responded point by point to the issues raised by the resident, clearly explained its position, and took a largely customer and resolution focused approach. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or explain the delay at stage 1 of its process, which would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It did not appear to be disputed that the resident had made her complaint to the landlord via its webform on 21 March 2023. It was unclear why the landlord had no record of the resident’s complaint. It would have been frustrating for the resident to be told this by the landlord when she chased it 2 weeks later, and to find it necessary to resend her complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident had other ongoing or recently concluded complaints with the landlord at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek to avoid duplication between the resident’s complaints, or reinvestigating matters to which it had already provided its final response.
Nevertheless, particularly given the delay that the resident had already experienced, it would be expected that the landlord would handle this in a timely manner. It would be further expected that the landlord’s staff would recognise the need to identify any issues that it had not already responded to, and handle them as a new complaint in line with its policy. It is therefore inappropriate that it took the landlord’s director to highlight this 1 week after the resident had resent her complaint, and 3 weeks after she had originally made it. The Ombudsman has made an order concerning this below.
It was further unreasonable that another month passed before the landlord acted on the complaint by completing its proforma with the resident, and formally acknowledging her complaint on 9 May 2023. It is acknowledged that the landlord had regular contact and repairs activities with the resident in the intervening period. However, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it provided any update to the resident specifically regarding her complaint. This would have left the resident unclear as to the status of her complaint or the landlord’s intentions, and added to her distress.
Having acknowledged the resident’s complaint, the landlord did handle most aspects of it reasonably. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair; put things right; and learn from the outcomes. The landlord’s repairs manager visited the resident 1 week later to discuss her complaint, and further inspect her property. This would have allowed the landlord to better understand the resident’s frustrations, and represented a reasonable effort to be fair.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response the following week. As above, it offered clear explanations of the issues raised by the resident, apologised for its service failings, and took a largely resolution focused approach to her repair issues. However, the landlord failed to explain, apologise, or consider compensation for the delay in its initial handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has made a compensation order concerning this.
The landlord did appropriately explain its system upgrade project, and how this had changed the way in which it raised and grouped works to prevent the failings that the resident had experienced. This further demonstrated the landlord’s learning from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint, and was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord followed up on its commitment at stage 1 by discussing its intended works with the resident, and confirming this in writing to her in early June 2023. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 5 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident 20 working days later, which was in line with both its policy and with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The response clearly explained the findings and intended works from stage 1, and appropriately responded to the resident’s additional points. However, it again failed to offer compensation for the initial delay in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

It was not disputed that the resident experienced time, trouble, and distress as a result of the landlord’s repairs and associated communication failings between March 2023 and the acknowledgement of her complaint in May 2023. This included the landlord’s failures to keep appointments, or attending without prior arrangement. The resident further described tradesmen arriving unprepared for their works, and subsequent confusion and communication failings. The landlord accepted and apologised to the resident for those failings, but failed to demonstrate that it had considered compensating her in line with its own policy. The landlord did in the main demonstrate a customer and resolution focused approach to the resident’s repairs following its acknowledgement of her complaint in May 2023.
The landlord twice attended damp and mould inspections of the resident’s property without prior arrangement, but did otherwise demonstrate that it had considered her vulnerabilities. It maintained consistent dedicated points of contact for the resident with senior members of its staff. Its inspections throughout 2023 did not identify evidence of damp or mould, and focused efforts on supporting the resident with ventilation and humidity management.
Much of the landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. Its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 was in line with the timeframes of its policy and the Code. However, it failed to explain or consider redress for the delays at stage 1.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Reminds its complaint handling staff of the response timescales set out in the Code.
3. Pays the resident £350 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s repairs;
  2. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
The compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.