Peabody Trust (202223934)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223934

Peabody Trust

14 March 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s decant into temporary accommodation.
2. outstanding repairs including leaks, damp, and mould.
3. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy started in February 2020. The weekly rent at the time was £185.89. The resident’s mother moved in to live with her and her dog in around May 2022 and the resident had a baby in September 2022. The landlord’s records state that the resident was a care leaver, had mental health concerns and was allergic to mould. The resident moved out of the property in February 2023 via a management transfer which was not related to this complaint.
On 17 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord according to its repair schedule and reported that water was going into the bathroom flooring with water dripping from the toilet pipe. No information was provided with regards to the remedy.
The landlord’s repairs schedule states that on 30 March 2021, the resident reported broken and damaged bathroom flooring. The floorboards under the ‘lino’ had perished leaving a hole in the floor. It would appear from the landlord’s records that this was attended to on 5 May 2021 and the contractor supplied a “VO order” that needed approval. It was written that if the resident took a wrong step she would go through the floorboards and that the toilet was unstable. According to the notes, the contractor was to arrange an urgent survey in case the resident needed to be decanted, and that this decision laid with the surveyor.
Further notes from the same date state that the resident had called the landlord back as the contractor had attended but was unable to assist as the toilet needed to be removed. No further information was provided as to an agreed resolution.
Despite this Service asking the landlord for additional information to confirm when and why the resident was moved into temporary accommodation in August/September 2022, along with a copy of the maintenance repair records and communication records for the period of December 2021 to January 2023, the full information was not received. The evidence provided by the landlord about this complaint focused from 7 September 2022. It also provided information regarding different complaints from the resident at around the same time as this complaint and information regarding a leak into the property in December 2021.

Policies and procedures

Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021, which recommended that landlords strengthen their approach to tackling damp and mould issues and improve communication with residents. It is available on our website.
The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy has an aftercare section which states that it will monitor all of the work it carries out to tackle the mould and damp issues for a year thereafter. This allows it to make sure that any work it has completed and advice given has been effective and resolved the issue.
Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, says that landlords must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint, within a reasonable timescale in an accessible format.
The landlord’s alternative temporary accommodation (decants) procedure says that it:
1. will listen to its residents and other customers and try to anticipate needs rather than react to situations
2. allows for a daily subsistence allowance of £5 for lunch and £10 for dinner per adult if the emergency accommodation provided has no access to kitchen facilities
The landlord’s repair policy provides the following timeline for repairs:
1. non urgent repairs – 28 calendar days (average target of 10 working days)
2. programmed repairs – 60 calendar days (average target of 33 days)
3. emergency repairs (in hours) – 4 hours
4. emergency repairs (out of hours) – between 4 and 24 hours
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. Compensation will be considered where residents have experienced a delay because of a failure in the agreed standards of service, or where the landlord had not managed the complaint properly
2. repair related compensation of up to 50% of the weekly rent can be considered where there is full loss of enjoyment of their home
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC). It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. It can extend if more time is needed and will be communicated to and agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

According to the landlord’s records, following a leak into the property on 24 December 2021, the surveying team who reviewed the scope of works to the property did not deem a decant necessary.
On 19 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord with regards to damp and mould at her property, following the leak. The resident advised that she had moved out of the property on 24 December 2024 and could not return to the property until the repairs had been completed. This was due to an allergic reaction to mould, that she could not breathe and it was affecting her health. The walls were wet and had fur growing on them. Following medical information received (allergy to mould) a discretionary decant was agreed by the landlord from 31 January 2022 until 7 February 2022 upon completion of repair works.
The landlord received 2 quotes for repairing the damage to the property. It is mentioned in the landlord’s records on 25 January 2022, that the property was “quite vulnerable due to the advanced humidity” and that the origin of the damp started in the storage room with a pipe that had been left unrepaired for a long time and was connected to the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom.
According to the landlord at the end of the decant period the resident did not return to the property as she was unhappy with the standard of the decoration. A post inspection of the works was undertaken which highlighted that follow on repairs were required and raised. The resident returned to the property on 7 March 2022. It was noted by the landlord that the resident reported that the mould and damp had reappeared. Contractors were asked to investigate however, in a letter from the landlord to the resident dated 15 July 2022, it stated that it could find no evidence that the contractors had addressed the repairs on its repairs schedule.
On 1 May 2022, the resident reported a crack in the bedroom ceiling following a leak from the flat above. No information has been provided to clarify what works were carried out by the landlord.
On 27 May 2022, the resident wrote to the local member of parliament (MP), and the landlord’s chief executive regarding her property. She told them that she was 6 months pregnant, and a care leaver. She explained about the leak in December 2021, and advised that the mould had returned to the property to which she was allergic. She stated that the landlord was not getting back to her and asked for assistance.
On 14 June 2002, the landlord received a quote for mould repairs in the bathroom of the property.
The MP wrote to the landlord on 27 June 2022, regarding the level of mould that the resident was reporting and asked them to inspect the property as it was affecting her physical and mental health.
The resident reported a broken window latch on 17 August, 19 August, and 23 August 2022, which she was concerned about as she was on the ground floor and had previously been subjected to domestic abuse.
On 22 August 2022, the resident reported a leak from toilet pipes leaving a wet ceiling in the kitchen and bathroom and believed it was coming in from the flat above. The repairs schedule states that the repair was transferred to the flat where the leak was coming from, with the repair issued raised on the residents flat cancelled. The same leak was reported again on 31 August 2022 by the resident stating wastewater was leaking into the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. No resolution notes were available on the repair schedule.
The resident advised this service that on 28 August 2022, she was decanted from the property so that contractors could retile the bathroom, resolve the damp, and mould issues in her property. The landlord and the resident confirmed that there was also raw sewage water leaking into her property from the flat above.
The resident was decanted into temporary hotel accommodation. She confirmed via email that she was placed in:
1. hotel 1 from 28 August until 6 September 2022,
2. hotel 2 from 6 September to 13 September 2022
3. hotel 3 from 13 September to 26 September 2022
4. a self contained, serviced apartment from 26 September 2022 to 24 October 2022 when she returned home
Internal emails from the landlord dated 1 September 2022, confirm that the landlord sent an electrician to the property due to the leak. He inspected the electrics and contacted the landlord stating that the leak still needed to be fixed as wastewater was coming through the walls, and maggots were growing out of the plasterboard boxing. The internal emails confirmed the resident’s pregnancy, that she was expected to have a caesarean and could not go back to the property due to issues of wastewater and maggots.
On 7 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord via a third party professional, as water was still flooding into her property (it had failed to stop the leak) and with concerns raised regarding the landlord’s decanting of the property. This was re-iterated again on 9 September and 13 September 2022 by 2 professionals. They stated that it was not acceptable that the resident:
1. was in tears as there was no lead time on the repairs being completed, but needed timescales to enable a referral for a temporary decant
2. had been moved to an alternative hotel when she was heavily pregnant and due to have a caesarean
3. was likely to have birth complications, which had not been factored into the urgency
4. be discharged from hospital after a caesarean and be placed in temporary hotel accommodation
5. had to eat takeaway food as there was no kitchen facilities in the temporary hotel accommodation.
On 8 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord very distressed. She had met contractors at the property at 7am to gain access to the property to fix the broken window latch. Upon arrival she was advised that it was to be locked to make safe and would take 2 weeks to get the parts to repair it properly.
The landlord’s records show that on 8 September 2022, repairs to the windows were chased, and contractors attended the flat above the resident’s to stop the leak. It was confirmed in internal emails the next day that the leak had been resolved, and that the repair works to the resident’s property had been raised.
On 9 September 2022, an internal email from the landlord stated that works would commence and that “having looked at the pictures if was felt that a lot of the work to the property could take place the same day”. An internal response was sent questioning how the works could be completed there and then, as the walls would need to be dried out. It would then need replastering which would also require drying out, and then repainted. The email advised that the resident would not be in a position to go up and down the stairs to the property and would need to remain decanted until all the works at the property were completed. An estimated time plan was requested so that temporary accommodation could be planned.
Various emails were sent internally by the landlord on the same day, as the resident had been trying to make contact but was unsuccessful. She was becoming anxious as she was due to give birth, but the hotel placement was only booked until 13 September 2022. The landlord extended the booking until 20 September 2022, the day the resident was due to have her caesarean.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord chased the details of the required works for the resident’s property, as it had been informed internally that access had been gained to the resident’s property and photographs and a video had been taken of all the damage, but that it had not been passed to the contractors.
The 2 invoices for the hotel stay between 13 September 2022 and 26 September 2022, confirm that the landlord had paid for breakfast and dinner for the resident and her mum throughout their stay. However, the resident advised this service in January 2024, that she was not told about nor offered dinner at the hotel. She only had breakfast as understood it to be ‘bed and breakfast’ accommodation. She had paid for her own dinner in the hotel on 2 occasions during her stay but did not receive any subsistence allowance for lunch or dinner throughout her stay in the hotels as detailed in the landlord’s temporary decant policy.
On 14 September 2022, an internal email from the landlord confirmed that the resident was now in hospital due to stress and high blood pressure and was ordered bed rest. She was therefore unable to provide access to the property until after the baby was born. The resident agreed to have the locks changed at the property to give contractors access, as water continued to come through the ceiling, instead the contractors were met on site and given a key. It was confirmed in the email that the decant would need to be for approximately 4 weeks to allow the resident to recover, and repairs to be completed.
On 14 September 2022, a request was made to the specialist team to find longer term temporary accommodation as it would be difficult for the resident to stay in a hotel with a baby with no kitchen or fridge in the room. Once the specialist team had all the information it immediately raised concerns for the welfare of the resident and the difficulties it was aware of, in trying to source a self contained, ‘pet friendly’ property, on the ground floor or with a lift.
An internal email was sent by the landlord on 20 September 2022 following an inspection: The works required to the resident’s property, and the flat above included:
1. remove and replace sink base unit and check all surrounding pipework
2. cut and inspect hole in service duct to see if there is any water and if so to resolve
3. remove bath panel and tiles to boxing and check all services
4. reinstate boxing, tiling, grout, and mastic
5. wait 1 week to dry out and put in place 2 dehumidifiers
6. remove service duct/boxing in the kitchen area
7. cut out all defective plasterboard and replace
8. repair bedroom ceiling
9. inspect bedroom ceiling for infestation and determine treatment
10. remove toilet, bath panel, and reinstate
11. decorate areas of repair
12. check, clean, and reconnect balcony waste pipe
On 21 September 2022, an internal email was sent by the landlord explaining that it was going to be some weeks before the works could start at the resident’s property. The repairs had to be completed to the flat above first. It would then take a week for the resident’s property to dry out before it could finalise the works. It stated that it could not commit to a completion date as there was an issue regarding the extent of the repairs. The resident wanted all the walls replastered which would need further confirmation on the extent of the repair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 September 2022 to advise that she had had her baby by caesarean. She said that she had caught covid due to the constant moves into temporary hotel accommodation and was “tired of putting her health at risk due to the landlord pushing everything at the last minute.” She advised that she:
1. would not return to a hotel for 15 days as initially suggested
2. did not think that a hotel was an appropriate place for someone following surgery and a new baby
3. needed a place where she could cook proper meals to help in her recovery, a place to store the baby’s milk and to wash up
4. she did not want to share with people that she did not know
5. did not think it was for the hospital to keep her in, just because the landlord had not made proper arrangements
6. advised them about her situation in plenty of time to make appropriate arrangements for more suitable accommodation
7. had received no empathy or support from the landlord
The landlord sent an internal email on 21 September 2022, to establish if there was any internal stock available for either a temporary or permanent move for the resident, as it was finding it difficult to source accommodation that was pet friendly as the resident had a dog. The landlord evidenced that it kept in regular contact with the ‘letting agency,’ and the resident passing through any properties that might be suitable.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord sent an email stating that the works were due to start on Monday 25 September 2022. The contractors were to remove units from the kitchen and cut out sections of walls which had been affected by the water ingress and remove the ‘boxing’ in both kitchen and bathroom This would identify the extent of the damage and help speed up the drying time to allow the rectifying works to go ahead. A pest control works order was due to be signed off for the bugs in the bedroom/ceiling area around the mould/damp. It advised that it would have a better idea of the timescale for the repairs once the works started.
The landlord also sent an email that day to the professional supporting the resident, advising that she had turned down a self contained property as it was too far for her, despite the landlord offering to pay for a taxi to get her to medical appointments etc.
The resident was advised by the landlord on 23 September 2022, that if the hospital were to discharge her as planned, it would need to make a homeless persons unit referral as it had no suitable accommodation available. The hospital agreed to keep the resident until she moved on 26 September 2022 into a self contained serviced apartment.
An email chasing a completion date for the repairs was sent internally by the landlord on 12 October 2022.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 17 October 2022, confirming receipt of an internal email stating that she had been kept informed regarding the repairs progress and that she had been to the property, was happy with the works, and the mould and damp smell had gone. It confirmed an appointment for the window repair on 21 October 2022.
The resident returned to live in the property on 24 October 2022. She advised this service that it started to smell damp and that the mould had returned, which she had reported to the landlord. When the property was inspected, the flooring of the bathroom was ‘lifted’ (layers of lino), where it was established that the bathroom floor was completely rotten. According to the resident, water penetration had caused mould in the walls in the bathroom and the bedroom, and the plaster was wet. The contractors were then in the property for approximately 2 weeks whilst it replaced the bathroom flooring and wooden joists.
According to the resident, the contractors had advised that she should have been decanted again due to health and safety reasons. She advised the Ombudsman that the landlord had ignored this suggestion, and so she remained in the property. When the floor was removed, the contractors put a ‘plank of wood’ down across the joists for the resident and her mother to walk across, which was not secured. For 3 days they were not able to use the toilet/bathroom at all.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2022 asking what works had been completed in the 2 months that she had been out of the property. She said that she had been “moved around like an absolute idiot, whilst pregnant, after a newborn baby and nothing was done.” She advised that having contractors in the property everyday was having an impact on her life and was now suffering from postpartum depression and had to attend therapy.
On 14 November 2022, the resident’s social worker chased the landlord for an update on the repairs as the resident was left without toilet and washing facilities for many hours a day and would not have facilities for the whole weekend. The disruption with different workers coming in and out of the property was “unsettling for the 6 week old baby and emotionally distressing for the resident”.
On the 15 November 2022, the landlord sent an email internally, confirming that the repairs to the bathroom were completed on 12 November 2022.
On 22 November 2022, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint, due to the handling of her decant and because the repairs were still ongoing (despite being decanted for 2 months), that the window was still broken, and that the property had been broken into twice already. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on the same day and advised that due to a high number of escalation requests the response date was extended to 16 December 2022.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 December 2022, to clarify why the stage 1 complaint was cancelled. It was explained that this was because it was being dealt with by another team.
A stage 2 response was issued on 21 December 2022. It stated that:
1. the complaint was raised on 7 September 2022, however this was not processed and was subsequently closed
2. the moves between hotels were due to the fact that they did not have any vacancies to extend the stay
3. the team was not always aware of the time schedules for the repairs
4. the hospital stay was longer as the resident did not want to return to another hotel
5. the repairs were now complete (including the toilet floor)
6. the only outstanding issue was the broken window latch. The part was ordered on 7 November 2022, an appointment was made for 8 December 2022, but access to the property was not gained and so a further appointment had been arranged for 21 December 2022.
7. £150 compensation was offered for complaint handling. This was £50 due to the lack of resolution based principles at stage 1, and £100 for closing the complaint without investigation.
8. £450 compensation was offered for the time trouble and lack of communication, (£50), delays in repairs process (£100) and impact and inconvenience of having to move multiple times prior to having the baby (£300)
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2023, to advise that she was not satisfied with the level of compensation offered at stage 2.
On 9 January 2023,the resident contacted the Ombudsman and reiterated this. She advised that she had been moved to 4 different hotels in over a 4 week period, whilst 36 weeks pregnant. She was forced to stay in the hospital for 5 days due to the lack of suitable accommodation available. When she returned to her property the repair works had not been completed.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident in response to her dissatisfaction of the stage 2 decision and the level of compensation offered. It reviewed the amount and increased the level:
1. £150 Complaint Handling – the lack of resolution-based principles when investigating at stage 1 (£50) and closing a complaint without investigation (£100).
2. £625 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, including the lack of communication and delayed response (£75); Delays in the repair process (£100) and the impact and inconvenience of having to move to 3 different hotels whilst in the late stages of pregnancy (£450).
The resident confirmed to this service that she had moved out of the property in February 2023, due to a management transfer. This was not in connection to this complaint.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress where she has reported damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on the health of her and her baby. Unlike a court the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant into temporary accommodation

In May 2022, the landlord was made aware that the resident was 6 months pregnant, a care leaver, with records confirming knowledge of mental health concerns and an allergy to mould. The resident also advised that the landlord was aware that she had a dog, as this was confirmed prior to completing a mutual exchange into the property.
The resident was decanted from the property to a hotel as temporary accommodation on 28 August 2022 due to recurring damp and mould and a raw sewage leak from the upstairs property. Decanting the resident and her mother was appropriate action by the landlord, due to the nature of the leak and damp and mould being a health and safety concern in accordance with the landlord’s responsibilities under the HHSRS.
The resident advised this service, that the initial hotel booking was from 28 August 2022 to 6 September 2022 for 9 nights. This was reasonable action in the first instance. The 9 nights should have provided sufficient time for the landlord to inspect the 2 properties (neighbour’s and resident’s), establish the cause of the leak, damp, and mould, assess what work was required, and provide an appropriate timeline for completion of the works. It is recognised that landlords have to be mindful of the costs of temporary accommodation and the financial implication should the accommodation not be required for the length of time of the booking.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord queried the expectation of the contractor that the works could be done ‘there and then’. It was pointed out that the property would need to be ‘dried out’ from the leak, then replastered, which would need to dry out, and then redecorated. The landlord also highlighted that the resident was in the late stages of her pregnancy, and needed to remain decanted until all the works were completed. From 7 September 2022, the landlord was advised on a number of occasions by professionals that the resident could not return to a hotel after having her baby by caesarean.
On the same day, the resident raised concerns with the landlord that her booking at the hotel was due finish in 4 days’ time (13 September 2022). The landlord extended the hotel booking until the 20 September 2022, the day of the planned caesarean. The resident was worried about where her mother would stay, and where she would be residing upon discharge from hospital. This short extension until the planned birth date was not appropriate. The landlord had already raised the fact that that it would take weeks for the property to be ready, and it had been confirmed that the resident could not return to a hotel after the baby was born.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have started to look for more suitable, self contained accommodation from 9 September 2022 and utilised the 4 days left with the current booking to find somewhere more appropriate. This could have prevented a third move into a hotel, and a fourth move into the self contained accommodation. Had the landlord followed its temporary decant policy by listening to the resident and tried to anticipate her needs rather than react, the numerous moves could have been avoided. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she had to keep transporting her belongings to different hotels whilst in the late stages of pregnancy.
On 14 September 2022, the resident was admitted to hospital due to high blood pressure and ordered immediate bed rest. She thought that this was due to the stress of the housing situation. It resulted in her having to remain in the hospital for longer than necessary, as she was considered ‘homeless’ as the landlord could not find appropriate accommodation for her. This was not appropriate. It caused the resident evident frustration and distress, and she said that it marred her enjoyment of the first few days with her baby.
On 16 September 2022, the landlord was advised that a booking of temporary accommodation would need to be made for at least 4 weeks. Whilst the landlord did start the process of authorising a 4 week decant in line with its policy, suitable accommodation was not found until 26 September 2022. Once the referral was received, the specialist team looked at all options available, liaised with the resident and kept her up to date. This was appropriate and promoted good customer care.
The resident states that she was placed in temporary hotel accommodation by the landlord from 28 August 2022. However, no evidence has been provided of this. The landlord has provided invoices and a spreadsheet to indicate that the temporary hotel accommodation was booked from 1 September 2022. As this service’s investigations are evidence based, for the purpose of this complaint, the temporary hotel accommodation will be deemed as booked from 1 September 2022.
The landlord’s invoices and costing spreadsheet for the temporary hotel accommodation state that dinner for the resident and her mother was paid for by the landlord. However, the resident has said that she was not made aware of this and was not offered either lunch or dinner or the appropriate subsistence as identified in the temporary alternative accommodation (decant) policy. Indeed, the professional commented in her email of 7 December 2022 that the resident had to eat take-aways each night, which should have been questioned by the landlord. Failure to make the resident aware that it had included breakfast and dinner in the placement led the resident to hardship due to the cost of takeaway food. This was not appropriate.
Despite a request from this service, the landlord did not provide evidence that it had advised the resident of dinner being provided, nor offering £5 for lunch each day in line with its policy. The subsistence allowance of £5 for lunch and £10 for dinner for each adult whilst in the hotel will be awarded to the resident as additional compensation. This amounts to:
1. 1 September – 14 September 2022 = 13 nights @ £15 for lunch and dinner for 1 adult (resident until hospitalisation) = £195
2. 1 September – 26 September 2022 = 26 nights @ £15 for lunch and dinner for 1 adult (resident’s mother) = £390
3. Total to be paid = £585
Whilst it is recognised that the landlord offered compensation of £450 for the impact and inconvenience caused during the decant period, this service does not consider this to be reasonable redress bearing in mind the frustration, distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the landlord’s failings.
The landlord did not share the estimated repair timescales with the appropriate teams in order to ensure that the correct temporary accommodation was provided. It failed to book the temporary hotel accommodation in a timely manner and so could not reserve the rooms at the same hotel for the decant period. Nor did it follow its own policy in considering the resident’s needs at the earliest opportunity. The landlord did not consider the advice from professionals initially when they stated that the resident could not return to a hotel and it did not make the resident aware that it was providing dinner or offer the lunch subsistence allowance, whilst staying at the hotels. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant amounts to severe maladministration.

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

There was a leak at the property in December 2021. Whilst repairs were carried out in February 2022, the resident reported signs of damp and mould reoccurring in March, April and May 2022. The resident has stated that 1 of the reasons she was decanted in September 2022 was due to the mould and damp. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the remedial works in February 2022 or later were not effective in resolving the damp and mould issues. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will monitor any works carried out for the forthcoming year. There is no evidence provided to suggest this happened.
The resident was decanted on 1 September 2022 according to the evidence provided. The property was not inspected until 8 September 2022, which was 6 working days after the resident was placed in temporary hotel accommodation. The evidence provided states that the information was not passed onto the contractors and was chased on 13 September 2022 but not shared until 20 September 2022. This was 15 working days after the resident was decanted. This was not appropriate as it caused delays in the repair work commencing, whilst the resident was in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
The repair works did not start until Monday 25 September 2022, according to the landlord’s email. This was 23 working days after the resident was decanted. This was not appropriate. It is recognised that time would have been required for ‘drying out’ the property following the leak from the above flat, but no evidence has been provided to indicate that this was the reason for such a long delay. The resident and her mother were provided with temporary accommodation, to which the resident could not return to once her baby was born. She had to remain at the hospital as no suitable accommodation could be found. This caused the resident frustration, distress, and inconvenience, and she said it affected the enjoyment of being a new mum.
The landlord also failed to comply with the recommendations of the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It suggests that landlords recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents, so their expectations can be managed. In addition, landlords should ensure that any follow up appointments are booked for as soon as possible.
The resident returned home on 24 October 2022, to find mould and damp reoccurring in the property due to the flooring in the bathroom not being checked. The whole floor had to be lifted up and replaced. The resident, having just had major surgery, had to walk on a ‘plank’ balancing on the joists of the bathroom floor whilst it was being replaced. She also claims that she had no access to the toilet for 3 days and therefore had to go out to use the toilet and have a proper wash. This was not appropriate. It caused health and safety concerns, distress, and inconvenience to the resident and her newborn baby.
Perished floorboards in the bathroom were initially reported on 30 March 2021, with no evidence of repair works provided at that time. It was evidenced that rotten floorboards were replaced on 12 November 2022. It is therefore reasonable to assume that no works were completed to the bathroom flooring in the interim period. This was not appropriate. It meant that the repair remained incomplete for 592 calendar days, despite concerns regarding health and safety issues being raised in the initial report in March 2021.
Although the resident returned to her property 37 working days after being decanted, the overall mould and damp works were not completed until 12 November 2022, when the rotten bathroom floor was replaced. This was 72 calendar days after the leak was reported. This was not appropriate. The damp and mould under the bathroom floor should have been identified due to the reports in March 2021, or at the inspection on 8 September 2022 at the very latest. Given the known vulnerabilities and that the resident was returning with a newborn, it would have been reasonable to ensure the property was fully inspected and the repairs completed during her decant, prior to the resident returning to her flat. This left the resident unable to use the bathroom when necessary and created health and safety concerns as she had to ‘walk a plank of wood’ resting on the joists, when she could gain access.
The resident had vulnerabilities, she had medical conditions (allergy to mould, caesarean operation, high blood pressure), and postpartum depression. The resident said that being away from home and dealing with the repairs attributed to her high blood pressure, which led to an extended stay in hospital. The resident also advised that having a constant stream of contractors in her property for 2 to 3 weeks whilst it fixed the bathroom floor, the associated noise and dust having just given birth to a new baby, had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing to such an extent that she needed therapy. This was not appropriate as the issues caused a major detrimental effect to the resident’s well being at this time.
The landlord acted in line with its compensation policy in its stage 2 response by offering compensation for the lack of communication and the delayed response with regards to its handling of the repairs. However, the amount of £175 was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As such an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £2129.84. This has been calculated at:
1. 7 March 2022 – 31 August 2022 @ 25% of current rent from the date the resident returned to property where mould was still evident, to when she was decanted again due to the second leak:
  1. = 177 days x 6.63 (quarter of the daily rent charge = £1174.40
2. 1 September 2022 – 12 November 2022 @ 50% of current rent from the date of the decant to completion of works due to the delay in starting the works and bathroom floor replacement that should have been noted, and completed prior to the resident moving back into the property following the decant:
  1. =72 days x 13.27 (half of the daily rent charge) = £955.44
In addition, the window latch was reported on 17 August 2022, but not completely repaired until 21 December 2022. This was 89 working days after it was first reported. This was not appropriate. The resident was vulnerable, had a history of domestic abuse, the property was on the ground floor which made her feel unsafe. It was also not in compliance with its repairs policy.
Overall, the landlord provided no evidence to suggest that it was monitoring the damp and mould from the previous reports after the February 2022 repairs visit, despite the resident reporting mould again in March, April, and May of that year. No evidence was provided to suggest that the landlord responded to the numerous reports of damp and mould between March and May 2022, nor completed any repair works to resolve the issue. This was not in compliance with its damp, mould, and condensation policy or its repairs policy.
The landlord also delayed in inspecting the property in September and commencing the work. It failed to detect the mould under the floor in the bathroom, during the 2 month decant period despite concerns being raised in March 2021 regarding perished floorboards. It did not comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the spotlight report on damp and mould, nor its own damp and mould, and repairs policy. The landlord’s response to the resident’s outstanding repairs amounts to severe maladministration.

The associated complaint

The resident sent her complaint to the landlord on 7 September 2022; however, she received no acknowledgement or stage one response. This was not appropriate. It did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s CHC or its own complaints policy and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident due to its lack of engagement, with the resident having to chase a decision.
An escalation request was submitted on 22 November 2022. The request was acknowledged the same day by the landlord, advising that it would respond by 16 December 2022. The response at stage 2 was issued on 21 December 2022, which was 21 working days after the escalation request. This complied with the landlord’s complaints policy taking into consideration the 10 day extension period it allows. However, it was the first response that the resident received from the landlord regarding her complaint and was issued 74 working days after the complaint was initially raised. This was not appropriate as it does not comply with the landlord’s policy nor the Ombudsman’s CHC, and left the resident waiting unnecessarily for a decision, causing greater distress, frustration, and inconvenience.
The landlord apologised and said part of its learning was that it would speak to the neighbourhood teams to review their processes with regards to temporary accommodation placements. It would also advise the repairs team that the delays to the repairs were unreasonable and raise the importance of internal communications within the business. Whilst this was appropriate and indicates that the landlord had recognised it needed to improve its services, it has been included in the orders detailed below to ensure that it happens.
The landlord offered compensation of £150 for its complaint handling, broken down as £50 for the lack of resolution based principles when investigating at stage 1, and £100 for closing a complaint without an investigation. However, this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not acknowledge, or investigate the stage 1 complaint, which it closed down without investigation. It did not comply with its own complaints policy nor the ombudsman’s CHC. It failed to provide copies of documents requested by this service. Although it recognised its failings, identified learning, and offered £150 compensation, this was not sufficient to put things right. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant into temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not book the temporary accommodation in a timely manner. It did not comply with its own decant policy by considering the resident’s needs at the earliest opportunity. It did not make the resident aware that it was providing dinner or offer the lunch subsistence allowance, whilst staying in the hotels.
The landlord failed to comply with its own damp, mould, and condensation policy, or the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. There was a delay in inspecting the property and commencing the schedule of work. It failed to detect the mould under the floor in the bathroom, following concerns raised the year before nor during the 2 month decant period. It failed to complete the repairs in a timely manner.
The landlord closed the stage 1 complaint without acknowledgement, or investigation. It did not comply with its own complaints policy nor the ombudsman’s CHC. Whilst it did apologise, recognise its failings, identified learning, and offered £150 compensation, this was not significant redress against the level of its failings.

Orders and recommendations

The appointed Chief Executive to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused to the resident during the decant period, the inappropriate delays, and investigations into the schedule of works to make the property habitable, along with its failure to comply with its own damp, mould and condensation policy and its complaints policy. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the letter.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £4964.84 in compensation within 4 weeks. This includes the £775 previously offered which can be deducted if already paid. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £585 to reflect the lack of subsistence funding offered for lunch and dinner whilst at the temporary hotel accommodation.
2. £2129.84 to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property due to the failures in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould reports and its management of the decant.
3. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the decant
4. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
5. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
The landlord is to consider the findings of this case against any previous self-assessments, to identity if there are any gaps or additional actions the landlord should take.
The landlord is to review its processes with regards to temporary accommodation placements (decants) to ensure that the relevant information on the resident is available to assess suitability of accommodation.
The landlord is to review its vulnerable persons policy and provide training to relevant staff to ensure awareness that amalgamated scenarios can create a ‘vulnerability’ outside of the usual categories, for example an ‘older’ previous care leaver, a person in debt, grief, pregnancy, person from abroad, first tenancy, etc.
The landlord is to provide refresher/training to staff on complaint handling, with reference to the Code and its recommended procedures and the timescales for responses.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks.