Ocean Housing Limited (202440604)

Background

1.  At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a flat with her 4 young children, 3 of whom are neurodivergent and one of whom is severely asthmatic. She complained about damp and mould in the property, boiler faults and damage caused by a radiator leak. She said the landlord had not resolved these issues despite earlier reports. The resident has now moved out of the property and informed us she would like the landlord to offer her increased compensation as a resolution to her complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Reports of boiler faults.
   3. Reports of a radiator leak and damage to flooring.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler faults.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a radiator leak and damage to flooring.
   4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord did not complete inspections within policy timescales, lost records of the first survey, delayed the second survey, and did not complete recommended works before the resident left the property. It did not acknowledge these failings or offer compensation.

Reports of boiler faults

5. The landlord attended promptly but relied on short-term fixes, allowing the same fault to repeat several times before resolution. It did not take into account the overall effect of recurring faults or offer compensation for the inconvenience it caused.

Reports of radiator leak and damage to flooring

6. The landlord repaired the leak within policy timescales, investigated the flooring damage, and concluded the leak did not cause the flooring damage. Despite not accepting responsibility for the damaged carpet, it still offered a £100 goodwill gesture towards carpet cleaning.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord provided both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within its policy timescales and addressed all the issues raised. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that she has been reporting damp and mould issues since 2019. She raised a formal complaint in October 2024. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we have only considered the landlord’s actions in relation to the reports of damp and mould during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint, and from the date of the complaint onwards. References to earlier reports are just for background information.
9. The resident told us that the landlords handling of her reports of damp and mould had a detrimental impact on her and her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did consider

10. The landlord’s records show evidence that the resident reported damp and mould in March 2019. The landlord arranged a supervisor inspection, installed a bathroom extractor fan and checked the roof and loft insulation. In November 2019, it completed further works, including installing a kitchen extractor fan and sealing leadwork. It fitted a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit in August 2021. After this, it recorded no further reports until the formal complaint on 21 October 2024.
11. The landlord’s DMC Policy requires an inspection within 10 working days of a report, or within 5 days for vulnerable households. It also requires the landlord to complete works promptly in line with the repairs policy, which sets a 20-working-day target for routine repairs. The policy states that the landlord must consider vulnerabilities when prioritising actions.
12. In her complaint, the resident stated that damp and mould had persisted for years and disclosed vulnerabilities, including children with neurodivergence and asthma. This should have triggered the 5-day inspection time limit and prioritisation under the DMC policy.
13. In its stage 1 response on 8 November 2024, the landlord committed to arranging a survey and partially upheld the complaint. While this was reasonable, by that point it was already outside its inspection time limit. The first survey attempt on 15 November 2024 was unsuccessful due to an IT error, yet the landlord did not rebook this until 16 December 2024, 40 working days after the complaint. This delay was significant and shows a failure to mitigate the impact of the data loss or consider the household’s vulnerabilities. The survey recommended washdown, mould eradication treatment and loft insulation.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 December 2024 focused on historic works and did not acknowledge the delays or their impact. Its records show it did not complete the loft insulation until 10 January 2025, 56 working days after the complaint well beyond the 20-day target. The resident reported that other recommended works were still outstanding when she left the property later that month. The landlord did not meet its own timescales for inspection and remedial works, did not apply vulnerability provisions, and did not offer compensation for distress and inconvenience. Its approach was reactive rather than preventative.
15. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 in compensation. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which states that awards should consider any vulnerabilities, as well as the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures that have had a detrimental effect on the resident.

16. The resident first reported a loss of heating and hot water on 2 October 2024 stating that the boiler had lost pressure and shut down. The landlord attended the same day and repressurised the boiler, restoring service before leaving. The resident made further reports on 5 October, 20 October, and 21 October 2024, each time describing the same problem.
17. The landlord attended on the same day for each report, in line with its repairs policy, which classifies loss of heating or hot water as an emergency repair which it should attend within 24 hours. However, its contractors did not identify and resolve the root cause of the issue until the fourth visit on 21 October 2024, almost 3 weeks after the first report. This meant the resident experienced repeated boiler failures and had to make multiple reports before the landlord permanently fixed the issue.
18. At stage 1 (8 November 2024) and stage 2 (17 December 2024) of its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged its prompt attendance and confirmed that it eventually resolved the issue. It partially upheld the complaint for the inconvenience it caused by the delay in achieving a permanent repair. However, it did not offer any compensation for this inconvenience, despite its compensation policy allowing discretionary payments for distress and inconvenience. The £100 it offered was solely for carpet cleaning and unrelated to the boiler issue. This was not reasonable because the landlord failed to provide proportionate redress for the cumulative impact of repeated failures and multiple visits.
19. Although the landlord met its emergency response times, its approach was reactive and did not resolve the underlying problem promptly. The resident endured repeated boiler breakdowns over a three-week period, requiring multiple reports and visits. Both complaint responses failed to adequately address this impact or offer appropriate compensation. The landlord did not demonstrate learning or improvement.
20. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler faults. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the boiler issues and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy for moderate impact cases.

21. The resident first reported a radiator leak and wet carpet on 20 October 2024, stating that the boiler pressure had dropped and water from a leaking radiator valve had soaked the hallway carpet. The landlord raised an emergency repair order and attended the same day. The operative repaired the leaking radiator valve and noted that, while the carpet was wet, the pattern of the water damage did not appear consistent with the position of the leak. The operative documented this assessment in the job notes.
22. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it classifies leaks from heating systems as emergency repairs, requiring attendance within 24 hours to make the situation safe. The landlord met this requirement by attending on the same day and completing the repair. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 October 2024 to report further concerns about boiler pressure and continued wet carpet. The landlord attended the same day, confirmed that the radiator valve remained secure, and found no further leak. It again noted that the carpet was wet, but the pattern did not match the position of the repaired leak. 2 operatives, and the heating supervisor later confirmed this view in written statements. They also noted that the carpet was in poor condition.
23. In its stage 1 response on 8 November 2024, the landlord explained that it had repaired the radiator leak on 20 October 2024 and considered the pattern of carpet wetting inconsistent with the leak. It did not accept responsibility for the damage but acknowledged the resident’s distress and offered £100 as a goodwill gesture towards cleaning the carpet. In its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024, the landlord reviewed the evidence again, relying on staff testimonies and survey photographs, and maintained its position that the damage did not align with the leak. It also explained that it could not carry out further inspection because the resident had removed the carpet and installed laminate flooring. These actions show the landlord took additional steps to consider the resident’s concerns, which was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
24. Overall, the landlord responded to the reports within the required 24-hour emergency time limit, repaired the leak promptly, and revisited the issue during its complaints process. It investigated the cause of the carpet damage, relied on professional judgment, and offered a discretionary goodwill payment despite not finding evidence that the leak caused the flooring damage. These actions were reasonable and in line with its repairs and complaints responsibilities. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of radiator leak and flooring damage.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days, with an extension of up to a further 10 working days in complex cases. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days and may extend this by up to an additional 20 working days where further investigation is needed. These time limits are consistent with the Code, which allows similar extensions where necessary and communicated to the resident.
26. The resident made her formal complaint on 21 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 November 2024 which was within the 10-working-day time limit set out in its policy and the Code. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and requested an extension for its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024, explaining that it needed to consider the findings of the damp and mould survey scheduled for that day. It apologised for the delay and confirmed that it would issue its response by 18 December 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024, only 1 day after the original deadline and within the permitted extended time limit of 40 working days.
27. The landlord appropriately explained the reason for its extension request, provided updates, and apologised for the need to extend its response time. The extension was minimal and reasonable given the need to incorporate survey findings into the stage 2 response.
28. In summary, the landlord responded within the extended time limits set out in its policy, communicated its extension request clearly, and provided an explanation and apology. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

29. The landlord should review and improve its approach to damp and mould reports. Future processes should ensure that staff clearly flag vulnerability triggers and act on them within the accelerated timescales set out in policy.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord should strengthen its data management and record keeping. The loss of the first survey due to an IT error caused unnecessary delay and uncertainty. The landlord should review its systems for capturing and storing inspection data to prevent recurrence and ensure that survey outcomes are available for prompt decision-making.

Communication

31. Communication was reactive, lacked clarity on timescales, and did not demonstrate empathy or urgency despite vulnerabilities. It did not meet the standards set out in the landlord’s own complaints policy or the Code.