Peabody Trust (202215646)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215646

Peabody Trust

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks damp and mould in his property.
2. This investigation also considered the landlords complaint handling.
3. This investigation also considered the landlords record keeping.

Background

The resident was initially a tenant of another landlord which became a subsidiary of the current landlord, following commencement of a merger in April 2022.
The resident is the sole tenant of a one bed 2-person ground floor flat. The tenancy was granted by the landlord for a term of 6 years, commencing 9 August 2019, and is a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy.
The landlord said it was not aware of any vulnerabilities reported by the resident. In his complaint letters to the landlord, the resident disclosed that he had mental health issues. His condition prevented him from working which meant he was on a low income. He received support from the community mental health services, and he advised the landlord that his living conditions were negatively effecting his mental health.
On 5 October 2020, the resident made his first report to the landlord of water penetration into his property when it rained; he suspected this was from the balcony above. A second report was made a month later. The repairs records show appointments were made each time a week later, but no outcome is recorded.

Summary of events

During 2021, approximately a year prior to the resident’s formal complaint (exact date unknown), the resident said he reported damp and mould appearing throughout his property, particularly around the windows. Following an inspection by the landlord, he said he was told that it was condensation and he needed to keep the windows open. The resident said he disagreed with this assessment, as he was already doing this, but he continued to keep his windows open, and it made no difference.
On 2 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again over his concerns about the damp and mould in his home.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended; the resident said it was the same one from the previous year. The surveyor said the cause of the damp and mould might be inefficient airducts. The landlord raised an order for the Nuiaire system to be checked and serviced. The resident said 3 weeks later that a contractor attended and said they did not think the problem was the airducts. They said they would order stronger airducts but as there was no mould in the bathroom (where there was no window), and the property above had the same problem, suggested it was a problem with the building. The resident said the contractor made a note that the resident’s wardrobe, carpet, curtains, and nets were damaged by mould.
The landlord said the resident chased it in February 2022 (exact date unclear) as the walls were getting wetter, and he asked for a surveyor to visit.
On 10 February 2022, the resident made a formal complaint through the landlord’s complaints portal. In it, he said that he had mould around every window in his flat, which he had raised a year ago. He detailed what had happened since, with the advice on self-ventilating, the surveyor’s visit, and the opinion of the ventilation contractor. He complained that he kept phoning the landlord and receiving no response. He said he had to paint his wardrobes, and replace curtains and nets twice, costing hundreds of pounds that he could not afford as he was unable to work due to mental health issues. The carpet he bought when he moved in smelt of damp, and he could not wash it out plus he was also experiencing itchy and sore eyes.
The complaint was acknowledged on 18 February 2022, with an apology for the delay in responding and details of who it had been allocated to.
The resident received no contact from the complaints officer despite writing in three times to chase a response (8, 14 and 21 March 2022).
In April 2022 (the exact date is unknown), the original contractor who built the whole scheme, and who the landlord said were engaged in rectifying defects and latent defects throughout the development, was asked to visit and assess the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. The resident said they informed him that there was a problem with the window ledge bricks, and the bricks used for the groundwork, and these were causing water ingress. No report from the contractor has been provided.
The resident made a further formal complaint via the landlord’s complaint portal on 9 April 2022. In summary, he said:
1. He had been complaining about damp and mould in his flat for 2 years. First, he was told it was because he did not keep his windows open, but opening them made no difference.
2. Another operative attended to look at the air ducts, did not think that was the problem as they were strong enough, but said he would order stronger ones anyway, but they never materialised.
3. The landlord asked roofing contractors that were attending to repair the roof to check out the mould issue. They found a problem with the window ledge bricks and showed him next-door as an example of how they should be fitted. He said they told him the wrong bricks had been used for groundwork for the back door and window.
4. He had received no response to his complaint made in February 2022, when he called the landlord about the issue, he was told to expect call backs within 3 days, but nobody called back.
5. It had been a month since the contractors explained about the brickwork, and nothing had progressed. The belongings he previously replaced because of mould damage now needed to be replaced once more as they were again covered in mould.
6. He said he had advised the landlord many times that he had mental health problems, and he felt his living conditions were making it worse; he was feeling the need to self-harm. He said his mental health team had advised him to keep all correspondence to the landlord, because if nothing was done, they would get involved and contact Environmental Health.
7. As a resolution, he wanted to be informed what the landlord intended to do about the damp and wanted all his damaged belongings replaced by the landlord.
The landlord provided its formal stage 1 response on 8 September 2022. In summary it said:
1. It acknowledged there had been several delays in getting back to the resident in regard to his complaint, and for this it apologised.
2. It defined the complaint to be about the delay in responding to queries about window replacement, damp and mould and the inconvenience of having to chase his complaint.
3. As the property was only built in 2012, it said it would not be looking to renew windows through the planned maintenance programme. Any concerns about windows need to be raised as a standard repair.
4. Further to this, “a damp and mould survey may be required to review level of water damage caused”. It apologised this had not been done sooner, and would be fed back to the appropriate team for future learning.
5. Part of this learning included training and a reminder of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records.
6. It offered £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its service failings and £50 for the delay in the response.
On 17 October 2022, the repairs records show that an order was raised to carry out a damp and mould survey throughout the flat and report back on remedial recommendations.
The resident was not happy with the outcome of his complaint as it addressed issues he had not raised and did not provide an adequate resolution to the problem. He requested his complaint be escalated. When within 3 weeks he had received no response from the landlord, he contacted this Service. On 18 October 2022, this Service requested that the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident no later than 15 November 2022.
On 1 November 2022, a condensation and mould specialist attended to complete a condensation survey, which identified condensation and mould in the bedroom and hallway. This was attributed to poor performing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, alongside restricted air transfer between rooms, as all the internal doors (5) did not have a 10mm gap at the bottom. It also identified some penetrating damp above the back patio door, which was not related to the condensation issues, and needed further investigation by someone else.
On 3 November 2022, the resident contacted the council’s environmental health team to complain about the leak and damp in his property. A council Environmental Health Officer (EHO), requested that the landlord take action to resolve the leak. The landlord said it would provide an update on progress by the end of the week.
On 7 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that it had rained all weekend and water leaked into the flat and the flooring, and now the outside light was not working. The resident was very concerned water was now in the electrical wiring in the property. The landlord responded, advising a contractor would be attending the next day to assess and trace the leak and advise the landlord on remedial action. An electrician had also been ordered to attend that day to inspect the electrics.
The same day, repairs records show orders raised to address water penetrating into a sensor light preventing it from working, and to assess a leak penetrating into the flat and report back on remedial works required.
On 8 November 2022, the resident reported the external light had been repaired. He advised initial feedback from the leak investigating contractor was that it was potentially coming from the balcony above.
On 16 November 2022, the EHO contacted the landlord advising that the resident’s damp and mould was getting worse and 1 week on, there had been no update.
24 November 2022, following a visit from the landlord’s contractors, the resident emailed the landlord’s repairs manager, advising he had been told that the leak was coming from the top flat. The balcony had rotted, and water was travelling behind the bricks all the way to the resident’s property. The resident advised he was told a similar thing by a surveyor that attended a year ago. At the time, the surveyor also told him the wrong bricks had been used (as these ones hold water), causing damp exactly where he was experiencing mould internally. In addition, the window ledges and seals externally were breaking away and causing cold air to penetrate and a drain was blocked and needed clearing. The resident advised his mental health was being impacted by the worry as the damp contractor had not considered anything the surveyor, and now the roofing contractor, had mentioned so the root cause was not being addressed.
The landlord responded the same day, assuring the resident that the contractor’s report and remedial actions recommended would be treated as a priority. It requested the resident allow the damp specialist to continue with the mould wash remedial works ordered.
On 2 December 2022, the condensation specialist returned to complete their work. The resident reported to the landlord that the damp specialist would only be cleaning the mould in the property, and not painting it, because, as per the report they had with them, there was rising damp from the brickwork outside.
The landlord asked the resident to let the condensation specialist complete the work, and it would follow up with the leak and look into the resident’s concerns as a matter of priority.
The resident was not happy that he had not been formally told about this, and that he had had no further contact regarding the leak. In a later email, the resident expressed concern his issue was “being pushed under the carpet” when it was clear what the problem was. The bricks externally were wet and green, the air vents externally were green, and mould internally aligned with where these bricks were. He said painting over it would not resolve the issue.
This was followed up the same day by the EHO, requesting a plan of action from the landlord prior to them considering formal action against it.
On 5 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to provide an update following the work the damp specialists completed. He said it had made no difference to the amount of condensation and he felt it was actually worse. The amount of cold air coming in, due to a lack of insulation around the air vent, above the bedroom ceiling was also worse and any heat was just escaping.
On 7 December 2022, the resident chased the landlord again for any update on the work to resolve the leak as he could not understand why things were taking so long.
The following day, the landlord said it was arranging for the head of responsive repairs to attend that day.
After the visit, the resident reported back to the officer dealing with his case that the manager had attended, and had agreed to call the condensation specialists back to do a full assessment. He said the head of responsive repairs had said the bricks of concern were not defective, and the resident should not listen to the surveyor. The resident seemed concerned at this, as he said the surveyor had said it on more than one occasion and this manager had been present on one of those occasions.
The landlord completed its stage 2 investigation and provided the resident with a response on 12 December 2022. In summary, it said:
1. It had failed the resident on a number of levels and on a number of occasions. There had been several visits with different conclusions and suggestions about what action was needed to address the damp and mould, and then no actions were taken forward.
2. There was a lack of understanding of the resident’s mental health and the impact the problem was having on him. It had identified a lack of communication, urgency and poor complaint handling throughout.
3. It believed the recent merger would generally improve this type of service failing in the future with progress already underway for additional training and resources.
4. A damp specialist had visited on 1 November 2002 and identified that the following works should be undertaken:
  1. Replace both extractor fans with continuously running fans.
  2. Change the isolator switches for fused spurs to prevent disconnection.
  3. Cut the doors.
  4. Treat and paint the mould in the bedroom.
  5. Mould wash treatment only for both hallway storage cupboards.
  6. They also noted some penetrating damp above the back patio door which was not related to the work they were doing and was being treated separately.
5. The condensation works had been completed on 2 December 2022, and the contractor had discussed with the resident the need to heat the property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on the cost of heating; it referred the resident to information on its website for tips on heating and agreed a neighbourhood officer would also be in contact for advice on this issue.
6. The head of responsive repairs attended the property on 8 December 2022, and agreed to a joint visit with him and the condensation specialists to look at the function of the new fans and to see whether there was anything else that could alleviate the condensation. He had chased the balcony/roof repairs. There was a slight ingress above the balcony door he wanted to get sealed off.
7. On inspection of the damp proof course, a build-up of soil was noted that needed to be removed to allow a clear area between the garden and the building. All of these measures it was believed would alleviate the condensation and damp in the property.
8. It did not feel the previous offer of compensation was sufficient to address the service failures experienced. It offered £600 for the resident’s time and trouble, £250 for the ineffective handling of the complaint and a discretionary payment offer of £200, making a total offer of £1,050.

Post Complaint Events

On 13 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the condensation specialists had rang to tell him they would not attend because “the issue was bigger than the extractor fans which falls to the landlord”. The same day, the landlord responded. It said it would seek to confirm this information as a priority. In the meantime, the works had been approved from the other contractor who would be arranging the work as a priority.
An appointment was arranged between 2-5pm on 19 January 2023. The resident was required to provide access. The resident emailed the landlord at 5.30pm on 19 January 2022 to advise he had left his mum at the hospital to undergo cancer treatment on her own, whilst he returned at 2pm to provide access for the contractors. He waited until 5.15pm, at which point he had to leave to collect his mum from the hospital and up until this point, the contractor had not turned up. The resident was clearly stressed and frustrated at the ongoing failure to address the damp and mould in his property.
On 13 February 2023, repairs records identified the landlord had ordered a mould wash and stain block to be completed around the windows and on the ceilings in the kitchen, bedroom, and front room. This was an interim measure whilst waiting for works to be completed.
On 22 February 2023, repairs records identified an order was raised to assess an area of the front garden where earth needed to be moved away from the window and the drain/gulley cleared with assessments of the brickwork under the bedroom window (for water saturation) and the repointing of brickwork at the rear (due to cracking and water penetrating).
On 23 March 2023, the resident emailed and complained about the continued ongoing delays and said he did not need a mould wash as the substantive work should be completed. At this point, the works to resolve the leak had still not commenced; scaffolding from the previous year’s roofing works had not been removed, and repair work to the external balconies would not commence until it had done so.
The last correspondence provided from the landlord to the resident was 28 March 2023, assuring him that it would follow up his issues as a priority.
On 6 December 2023, a works order was raised for a joint inspection between the day-to-day contractor and the original contractor who built the scheme and who were engaged in rectifying defects throughout the development.
Correspondence from the resident to this Service dated 12 January 2024 said that whilst the landlord had done work “bit by bit” over the 3 years, he still had problems, including the leak in his living room when it rained.
On 24 January 2024, a report was provided to the landlord on the works required to remedy the leaks into the resident’s flat, following an inspection of the balconies above.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s Legal and Policy Context

In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its approach to carrying out responsive repairs within resident’s homes. The policy acknowledges its general responsibility to keep tenants’ homes in good repair. It advises that the tenancy agreement sets out landlord and tenant repairs and maintenance responsibilities.
Its repairs service works within the following priorities and timescales for all responsive repairs:
1. Emergency repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people – to attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs are all repairs that are not an emergency or out of hours repair. Residents should be offered the next available appointment. It aims to complete routine repairs within 10 working days. Some repairs may take longer to resolve due to their complexity or specialist nature. Where this is the case, it will inform customers of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process.
3. The landlord may identify additional repairs or associated works whilst on site. If the works cannot be done at the time, an additional follow-on repair will be required. The attending operative will explain to the customer why this is needed and report the repair to be re-booked. It commits to contact the customer within three working days to book the follow-on visit.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its employees or those acting on our behalf.
The complaints policy does not consider the following to be a complaint:
1. A service request, such as a first request for a repair.
2. Insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal belongings and property.
3. Personal injury claims such as the claim that the landlord has caused a negative effect to someone’s health.
Its complaints process has two stages; new complaints are logged within 5 working days as a stage 1 complaint and a response will be provided within 10 working days. Stage two of the process is an independent review of the complaint, to be carried out by the Customer Experience Team. Stage two escalation requests must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response. The stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of the request being received. Time limits will only be extended if needed and will be communicated to, and agreed with, the complainant.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy expects residents to have contents insurance in place for their furniture, decorations, or any other personal possessions. It states that a contents insurance policy may cover accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, or burglary, amongst other things.
Where it is alleged that the landlord is at fault for any damage to furniture, decoration, or personal belongings, the compensation and remedies policy commits to take appropriate steps to investigate and establish whether it has caused or exacerbated any damage through its actions or inaction before referring the issue to insurers.
Where it is proven that damage has been caused directly through the landlord or its contractors’ actions, it will provide appropriate redress and take the necessary steps to put this right.
In accordance with its compensation and remedies policy, the landlord may also consider compensation for lack of overall enjoyment of the home and garden.

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

This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate to residents about actions to be taken or not.
The resident said he reported damp and mould in his flat, to the landlord, a year prior to making his complaint which would be early 2021. Whilst the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s recollection of events, this has not been evidenced as the repairs records provided to this Service have no entries for 2021. The Ombudsman notes however that the landlord has referenced events that are also not recorded for 2021, so these records could not be fully relied on. Nevertheless, the resident said a surveyor attended and determined that the problem was caused by a lack of ventilation in the flat and advised him it would be resolved by him opening his windows. Whilst the resident disputed the landlord’s initial diagnosis of the problem, as he had already been doing this, he continued to keep his windows open,
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s initial inspection would pre-date the Ombudsman spotlight report on damp and mould which consolidates relevant insight and good practice. Evidence received for the report, from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, stated that the most common mistake was assuming that condensation can be resolved by adjusting heating, ventilation, or atmospheric moisture input. Assessments of this nature focus attention on the tenant or their lifestyle, which is something the outcome of the report is keen for landlords to avoid in the future.
The damp and mould did not subside, with the resident continuing to open his windows, and clean away the mould, so when the resident raised the problem again in December 2021, the issue was recurrent damp and mould. This was accompanied by a recorded history of water penetration from the balcony above, with no evidence that it had ever been addressed. It would have been reasonable to expect, as it was recurrent, that this would be treated with some level of urgency. The spotlight report, which had been published by this date, recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord, however, did not attend for a further 8 weeks (26 January 2022), and only for inspection. This was not reasonable and exceeded its responsive repairs policy timescale for completion of routine repairs which was 10 working days.
At the inspection, the landlord determined that the existing extractor fans might be the problem. In order to address and mitigate against the issues identified, the landlord sent a specialist extractor fan contractor to give their opinion and recommendations. This was positive and reasonable given this allowed the opportunity to assess the extent and cause of the issues currently being experienced, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff.
The resident said that the specialist contractor did not agree this was the cause of the problem. This was because damp was not in areas that would be expected, such as the bathroom, and the property upstairs had the same problem, suggesting the fault was within the building; they agreed however for the order of new extractor fans anyway. This was not appropriate – if the specialist contractor’s view was that the extractors were not the problem, it should have reported this back to the landlord rather than ordering more powerful ones. Doing this, supported that the landlord’s original diagnosis was correct, when in actual fact further investigation into the root cause was required.
In cases of leaks, damp and mould, the spotlight report highlights the importance of the landlord clearly communicating its diagnosis with the resident, sharing any relevant information to ensure the resident has confidence in it, and understands the next steps. The result of the landlord’s inspections was to leave the resident with confusing and conflicting information that did not instil any confidence that the damp problem was being treated seriously or would be resolved. In addition to this, despite the landlord believing the extractor fans to be the resolution, the new fans were not ordered and fitted which was a further service failing.
Evidence identified that this was a re-occurring pattern from the landlord. It called upon a variety of contractors and staff to inspect and determine the cause, which resulted in a collection of differing opinions and resolutions being put forward, but none followed through, which was not acceptable.
The resident should not have had to involve the council’s Environmental Health Team in order to get his voice heard, and any meaningful action taken, to properly identify the cause and resolution of damp in his property.
Whilst the landlord advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, it was evident that he had made the landlord aware on several occasions that he had mental health problems. His mental health issues were significant enough to affect his ability to work and receive support from the mental health team. People with vulnerabilities such as this can experience less resilience, and the impact of any failings in service provision can have a higher impact on them than a resident who does not have vulnerabilities. It is important for landlords to be able to recognise this and have processes in place that show due consideration has been given, and where necessary accommodate those vulnerabilities. This should include ensuring there is a record that a resident is vulnerable, making any reasonable adjustments required, giving a higher priority for services where relevant with a particular need for clear and regular communication and even checks on their wellbeing or safeguarding referrals if required.
As the problem continued, the resident informed the landlord that the impact of living with the leaks, damp and mould and the lack of action by the landlord in dealing with it, was negatively impacting his mental health. This included having feelings of a need to self-harm. There was no evidence that the landlord gave any regard to this, in its handling of the resident’s issues with the property. There was no sense of urgency in tackling the problem and no record of visits or contact from the landlord to check on his wellbeing. Contact was constantly instigated by the resident throughout, regularly reporting deterioration and chasing the landlord for updates or action. This was likely to have significantly added to his stress and anxiety, which was not acceptable.
The landlord acknowledged as part of its stage two review that there was a lack of understanding of the resident’s mental health and how it was being affected by the ongoing issue for which it apologised. To recognise this failing and apologise was commendable and reasonable, but it did not demonstrate to this Service that it had taken sufficient learning from its findings. Its commitment to improve was based solely on its faith of its recent merger. It had not updated its records on vulnerability, it did not set out how it should have addressed the issue or advised how this would be prevented from happening again in the future.
There were assurances from the landlord, in its stage 2 response that all the works identified, would alleviate the problems in the residents flat and were a priority. Despite this a number of works, including the works required to the balconies above, his back door and window, were not progressed.
Evidence identified that the delay in progressing the works continued and despite all of the inspections carried out in 2022, in December 2023, a year on from the end of the complaints process, the landlord started the diagnosis process again. In December 2023 it requested inspections into the leaks, damp and mould and an assessment of the works needed, particularly from the balconies above. A further report has only just been produced during the week commencing 22 January 2024, setting out the work required to resolve the problem. This was entirely inappropriate, and demonstrated that even after acknowledging the significant failings the resident had experienced, the landlord had not learnt from it, and the service had not improved.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did also acknowledge the total previous compensation offer of £200 was inadequate, which was fair. It offered the maximum in its compensation guidance for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the resident had experienced, as a result of the service failures, which was £600. Whilst this offer was at the top end of the landlord’s range for compensation, this award was again considered to be at the low end of the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a serious long-term impact on a resident. The Code reminds landlords that awards should recognise that the emotional impact experienced by an individual is unique to them. Some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inaction than others. In this case, the aggravating factor of the resident’s mental health condition is relevant in respect of any remedy for the landlord’s failings in this case, and in the Ombudsman’s view, would be considered justification for a higher award.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Code requires that stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord may extend this timeframe provided that it offers an explanation to the resident and the extension does not exceed 10 working days without good reason.
The resident made his formal complaint on 10 February 2022, and despite chasing the landlord 3 times and making a second formal complaint on 9 April 2022, he did not receive a response from the landlord for 147 working days (8 September 2022). There was no evidence from the landlord that there had been exceptional circumstances, or that it had provided the resident with an explanation of a likely delay. The landlord’s response exceeded complaint response timescales by 137 working days – this was unreasonable and in contravention of the Ombudsman’s code and the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
An additional impact of the landlord taking an excessive amount of time to respond to the stage 1 complaint was that the conflicting advice around the extractor fan was not considered at the time as it should have been. This resulted in the landlord missing the opportunity to review its position on the cause of damp and mould in the property, initiate further investigation and get to the root of the problem in a timelier manner, causing unnecessary detriment to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged two stage 1 complaints, one dated 10 February 2022, the second on the 9 April 2022. The second complaint appears to have been sent to try and instigate a response, as the first complaint and the resident’s 3 chase up emails had failed to do this, which was unreasonable. Its content re-iterated the first complaint, but also alluded to the worsening situation with the condition of the property and the lack of response he had received.
It would have been reasonable in this situation for the landlord to have either closed one complaint down and combine the contents of both complaint emails into its stage 1 response, or provide a separate stage 1 response for each of the complaints. Instead, the landlord just acknowledged receipt of the complaint of 9 April 2022, and then completely ignored it. This was a significant service failure on the landlord’s part. Not only did it did not align with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Code, but the resident had also flagged his thoughts of self-harming, which was potentially a safeguarding issue and there was as a further missed opportunity to review the situation with the resident’s damp.
The Code requires that a landlord must clearly set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord’s stage 1 response did this as required but, in doing so, made it evident it had not understood the complaint. The complaint was about the confusing and conflicting information the landlord had given for the causes of the leak, damp and mould, the failures by the landlord to act appropriately and promptly on his reports, and the losses he had incurred for the repair and the replacement of his damaged belongings as a result. The main focus of the response concerned an explanation to the resident as to why there could not be a window replacement programme. This was not appropriate as this subject matter had not formed part of the resident’s complaint. This should also have been picked up as a service failure in the stage 2 review, but it went completely unnoticed by the landlord in its stage 2 response.
The Code also requires that where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint. In regard to the damp and mould, its response was that “a damp and mould survey may be required” with an apology that this had not already been completed. At this point, the problem had been ongoing for two years and the response provided no acknowledgement of this. It was not evident that any thorough investigation of the history had been undertaken; there was no timeline for resolution, and with the terminology “maybe required”, no certainty that this action would happen. This was not a reasonable complaint response for the resident and along with other things missed, did not demonstrate a thorough review of the stage 1 complaint process.
The Code also requires that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. With regard to the resident’s losses for his damaged belongings, in its stage 1 reply, the landlord did not respond to this aspect of the complaint at all.
The landlord’s insurance section of its compensation policy allows it to provide appropriate redress to put right any damage to a resident’s belongings if proven to be caused directly through the landlord’s (or its contractors’) action, or inaction. It was evident that the landlord’s, inaction, and extensive delay in responding to the conditions in the resident’s flat, likely enabled the spread of the damp and mould, which extended to the resident’s furniture and belongings, twice. In its stage two response, the landlord offered a £200 discretionary payment towards “refurbishing in his home”. However, in accordance with its compensation policy, the landlord should have referred the resident to its insurers to make a claim for his losses as part of its resolution to the complaint.
The landlord did acknowledge in its stage 1 response that there was a delay in the handling of the resident’s complaint; for this it apologised and offered £50 compensation. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to offer financial redress, the landlord determined the failure to be minor with a low level of impact. There was a 7-month delay which contributed to a number of missed opportunities to further investigate the substantive problem and provide an earlier resolution. This offer was not proportionate to the level of service failure in the complaints handling process or for the impact it had on the resident.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged the £50 offer for complaint handling failures was insufficient, which was fair, and it increased its offer to £250. Whilst it was reasonable of the landlord to review the offer, its failings in complaint handling were significant, and went far beyond just a delay in the stage 1 response. Failings included delays in responding at all stages, this Service having to instruct the landlord to respond, ignoring a complaint, misinterpreting the complaint, and not picking up all the failings. The resulting impact on the resident was high and the offer of £250 for the scale of the complaint failings was low and not a proportionate offer.
It was understandable, given the poor handling of the stage 1 complaint, that the resident immediately (9 September 2022) escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlords complaint procedure. He had sufficient grounds to escalate his complaint in accordance with the complaints policy, so it was not appropriate that the resident had to refer his complaint to this Service in order to obtain a response from the landlord.
The landlord also had the ability under its compensation and remedies policy to award reimbursement for a lack of overall enjoyment of a resident’s home. The resident’s dissatisfaction at living with leaks, damp, and mould for the extensive amount of time, should have qualified him for consideration of this strand of compensation available.

Record Keeping

This investigation also considered the landlord’s record keeping – this was because there was an absence of information or records in relation to the repairs; the majority of evidence provided was in the form of emails following the resident’s complaints.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
Record keeping was a key recommendation in the spotlight report on damp and mould, urging landlords to consider their approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it was sufficiently accurate and robust with the ultimate aim to have record keeping systems and processes to support a risk-based approach to damp and mould in the future.
A full formal report was provided from the condensation specialist, providing evidence of moisture levels, outlining the cause, photographs from the inspection and recommended remedial works, which was appropriate and what you would expect to see from a damp and mould investigation. Despite the number of inspections that had taken place, this was the only report made available. Following this Service’s request for further inspection reports undertaken from contractors in 2022, the landlord sent an email from the contractor, outlining works required to the balconies above that had just been identified dated 24 January 2024. This served to confirm works were still not complete and that the records from the contractors from 2022 were not available, which was not reasonable.
The Ombudsman noted that the repair logs seen by this Service contained very little information. There were no entries for the resident’s property for 2021, and just four entries for 2022 that related to the leaks, damp, and mould, with no notes or outcomes recorded. This did not comprise an accurate record of the issues reported, options explored, or action taken, which was not acceptable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not adhere to its policies when dealing with the resident’s reports of leaks damp and mould in his property. There were extensive and unnecessary delays in identifying the causes, followed by a series of conflicting opinions and resolution, none of which were followed through until the involvement of this Service and the council’s environmental health team. The detrimental impact on the resident has been significant and despite an acknowledgement of its failings and an action plan to resolve the issues, the failure to repair and resolve the issue continues.
The landlord’s failures to adhere to its complaints handling policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code were extensive. This resulted in missed opportunities for failings to be identified, further investigations being initiated and even a potential safeguarding issue to be missed. All of this contributed to significant detriment to the resident as a result of the overall delays this caused in getting the leaks, damp and mould resolved. The landlord accepted that it failed this resident consistently in the provision of its services. Whilst it offered some financial redress, the Ombudsman does not consider that it was proportionate to the level of service failure and resulting impact the resident had experienced. There was more on offer that the landlord should have used within its policy framework to ensure the resident was adequately compensated and re-imbursed for his losses, which it failed to do.
The landlord’s records were inadequate, consisting mainly of email trails, initiated by the resident’s complaints at the lack of action and communication from the landlord. The evidence was deficient of file notes and records of conversations that had taken place between the landlord and resident. There was an absence of findings from technical inspections raised and outcomes to commissioned inspections from contractors. Repairs records were scarce and vague and could not be relied upon to ascertain an accurate record of events around repairs and inspections.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, an officer at a senior level in the organisation apologises to the resident.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord pays the resident (in addition to the compensation amounts previously offered at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process) the total sum of £2,600. This comprises of:
1. £1400 (in addition to the £600 already offered) for the failings previously identified in addressing the leaks, damp, and mould and for the continued repairs failings identified.
2. £600 (in addition to the £50 and £250 already offered) for the complaint handling failures identified.
3. £200 for the failings identified in handling the of the damages.
4. £400 for the failings identified in the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord provides the resident with an action plan for any outstanding works to address the leaks, damp and mould and an estimated completion date. A copy should also be provided to this Service.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks if it has not already done so, the landlord assists the resident to make an insurance claim for repair and replacement of his belongings and furniture damaged by the damp and mould.
The Ombudsman orders that within 6 weeks, if it has not already done so, the landlord assesses itself against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and provides a copy to this Service.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord carries out, or provides a copy of, its annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service within the timescales outlined above to evidence its compliance with these orders.