Places for People Group Limited (202228914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228914

Places for People Group Limited

28 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 about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
2. Repairs reported by the resident after mutual exchange and associated delays.
3. Water ingress and damp and mould.
4. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced by mutual exchange on 10 October 2022.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states:
1. The incoming resident accepts the property in the condition they find it.
2. The landlord will not undertake internal redecoration, cleaning or carry out rechargeable or other repairs that are the former resident’s responsibility.
3. The landlord would carry out normal repair duties and ensure the property meets its void standard before agreeing to the exchange.
The landlord’s mutual exchange inspection statement, signed by the resident and outgoing resident states:
1. The landlord would only guarantee the electrical safety and not the functionality of any non-standard items such as electric showers and non-standard lights at the time the incoming resident signed the document.
2. Any jobs not completed by the outgoing resident and reported to the landlord within 48 hours of tenancy start date will be re-charged to the outgoing resident.
3. Should the landlord be required to carry out works after the outgoing resident’s move, a re-charge will be added to the outgoing resident’s rent account or if they will no longer be a landlord tenant, the re-charge would be forwarded on to their new address.
The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in ‘good repair’ the structure and exterior of the property. This largely mirrored its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause the occupant(s) harm and include issues with damp, drainage, and hygiene risks.
The landlord operates a repairs policy which categorises repairs as emergency, appointable and planned repairs:
1. Emergency repairs would be made safe within 24 hours. It categorises an emergency repair where it immediately puts a resident’s health and safety at risk.
2. Appointable repairs would be completed within 28 days however, its current timescale was 60 days. It would complete planned repairs within 90 days.
3. It states the landlord is responsible for repairs to garden flagging when it is the main entrance to the property or a shared communal space. The resident is responsible for repairs to their private back garden where there is no shared access.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 26 August 2022, following mutual exchange inspection by the landlord on 24 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the outgoing resident with its mutual exchange inspection statement to sign. This document confirmed there was outstanding repairs identified which the landlord was responsible for:

i. Kitchen cupboards and drawer fronts were loose.

ii. Tiles coming away underneath the windowsill.

iii. Worktop surface above fridge had dropped.

iv. The landlord would only guarantee the electrical safety and not the functionality of any non-standard items such as electric showers and non-standard lights at the time of the incoming resident signing responsibility.

The inspection statement also noted the resident was responsible for the general decorative condition of all rooms in the property. Specifically, it noted issues which were the resident’s responsibility on moving in to be:
1. Living room:
  1. non-standard flooring, wood laminate – (some areas of flooring and skirting board were missing due to a historic flood).
2. Kitchen:
  1. non-standard flooring (tiles).
3. Garden:
  1. raised patio
  2. shed (apart from the structure).
Between 30 August 2022 and 22 September 2022, the landlord completed electricity and gas safety tests at the property. The gas supply was temporarily capped. It was noted the previous tenant was living in the property whilst tests took place. On 10 October 2022 the landlord reinstated the gas supply ahead of the resident moving into the property.
On 26 September 2022 the landlord raised repair works for the repairs identified in its mutual exchange inspection.
On 10 October 2022, the resident moved into the property.
On 12 October 2022, the resident reported the following repairs:
1. Plug behind washing machine did not work.
2. Bedroom light socket was hard to use and made a buzzing sound.
3. The kitchen sink drained slowly, and the tap was loose. Leaks also occurred under the sink. This had caused the under-sink shelf to smell and be in disrepair.
4. The kitchen worktop had broken away in the corner and hung down without support.
5. The back door lock was loose.
6. The shower indicator light was faulty.
7. The window in the outhouse was broken and would not shut.
8. Extractor vents had been painted over and did not open or close.
9. The patio was broken in places and uneven.
10. There was black mould behind the upstairs toilet. She suffered from pneumonia and the mould put her at risk.
11. The pipework in the bathroom had paper stuffed into it and was painted over.
12. There were large holes in some of the walls.
13. The dining room floor was “wonky”.
14. Rubbish was left in the garden and the bins were full.
On the same date, an email sent internally by the landlord queried whether a survey was necessary. On 13 October 2022, its survey team confirmed repairs identified following mutual exchange that were wear and tear by the previous tenant, would not be repaired by the landlord. It however asked its customer service team to contact the resident and discuss the reported repairs and arrange some repairs.
On 17 October 2022, internal correspondence at the landlord confirmed repairs were booked with the resident.
On 21 October 2022, the resident reported:
1. The front door lock was jammed.
2. The sink in the bathroom was loose.
3. The kitchen sink had no seal around the edges on the worktop which she believed caused the leak to the cupboard underneath.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord logged the resident’s report of water penetration and mould growth behind the toilet upstairs. An inspection appointment was arranged for 20 December 2022 however, this was cancelled and rescheduled for 25 January 2023.
Between 27 October 2022 and 3 November 2022, the landlord’s repairs log noted it completed the following repairs:
1. Replaced cylinder in boiler and renewed system controls to allow heating and hot water to work interchangeably.
2. Inspection of garden paving slabs but passed to another member of the repairs team.
3. Repaired fault to boiler.
Between 3 November 2022 and 21 November 2022, the resident reported:
1. The living room radiator did not work.
2. She could only have the heating or hot water on at once. They would not work at the same time.
3. There was a damp patch on the bedroom ceiling where the roof dropped off.
4. The guttering at the property was blocked and needed to be cleared.
On 12 December 2022, the resident complained to her local MP. She explained the property suffered from damp and mould with water running down the walls and windows. Some repairs were raised by the landlord however, the appointments were not attended to.
On 14 December 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to refer the complaint.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord’s repairs log noted the resident had sealed around the kitchen sink unit and therefore marked the repairs request as complete.
On 15 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It acknowledged several repairs were not completed by the previous tenant and the resident encountered issues when reporting these repairs.
2. It acknowledged many repairs were booked over separate dates. It resolved this by booking in single appointments for trade specific works. It explained electrical works would take place on 15 and 16 January 2023, and joinery works on 25 January 2023.
3. It noted the resident’s reports of damp and mould, roofing, and drainage concerns at the property. It instructed ventilation, roofing, and drainage contractors to survey the property.
4. It raised works for a doors and windows contractor to attend, inspect and complete works to replace all blown double glazed units.
5. Its gas team would attend and inspect all radiators to ensure functionality.
6. It would enquire with its planned delivery team about replacement dates for the kitchen. It would only be able to make repairs if the kitchen was not due for replacement.
7. It would lag the pipes in the downstairs toilet and cover a hole in a plug socket in the hallway.
8. It would raise works for insulated boards to be fitted in 2 bedrooms where the resident’s children sleep.
9. It would not carry out works to the rear patio area as this was the resident’s responsibility to repair.
10. It would arrange for the resident’s dehumidifier to be returned and it would hire a dehumidifier for the resident to use until the damp was resolved.
11. It offered a total of £1395.60 compensation made up of:

i. £100 poor communication

ii. £150 missed timescales

iii. £480 reimbursement for gutter works

iv. £200 lack of enjoyment of the property (goodwill)

v. £165.60 reimbursement of dehumidifier cost (upon receiving receipt)

vi. £100 costs incurred to redecorate

vii. £200 stress and worry from issues.

Between 11 January 2023 and 25 January 2023, the landlord’s repair log recorded it completed the following repairs:
1. Refixed worktop, light fitting in upstairs bathroom and filled holes around pipework in downstairs toilet. Plaster repaired to corner of dining room.
2. It bled the radiator in the living room.
3. Inspected loft for leaks to pipework or cold-water storage (CWS) tank but no leaks found. It also cleared a blockage in the kitchen sink to improve drainage and raised works for a new sink mixer, stopper, and white shelf for under the kitchen sink.
4. Renewed shower pull switch. Applied bonding agent to wall in patches where a fan had previously been removed. Replaced bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
5. Repaired wardrobe and stairs banister.
6. Overhauled back door and frame to repair loose lock. Refixed worktop above fridge where it had dropped. Sealed wall with waterproof sealant.
On 22 January 2023, the resident requested her complaint be escalated. She explained:
1. She did not understand how the property passed safety checks with the number of safety issues she reported when she moved into the property.
2. She reported the plumber inspecting the sink, left the sink leaking as he had to order materials.
3. The damp and mould report recommended a ventilation unit within the property however, this would incur additional running costs she would be required to pay for. She believed the pipework should be replaced, not painted over.
4. She wanted a timescale for the landlord’s planned roof and drainage inspections, fitting of new windows, doors, insulating boards to her children’s bedrooms, provision of dehumidifier, cyclical kitchen replacement, and associated repairs.
5. The gas team attended but did not inspect the functionality of all radiators in the property, a cap was fitted to one radiator. The radiator in the dining room was now leaking.
6. Whilst the mutual exchange meant she was responsible for the rear patio area; she did not see how damaged it was on inspection due to it being covered up. She believed the landlord should make safe the patio area following injuries to her children.
7. She reported water pressure issues and safety of an overhanging tree in her garden, which had not been addressed by the landlord.
8. The compensation offered was insufficient for the impact caused to her and her family.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as the necessary actions to remedy the outstanding issues were in progress. It also confirmed its compensation offer was fair.
Between 7 and 8 March 2023:
1. The landlord’s repairs log stated it completed the following repairs:

i. replaced the kitchen worktop and replace and secure the wall unit shelf

ii. refixed loose bathroom sink. Renewed loose kitchen mixer taps. Installed new kitchen sink stopper and waste fitting overflow plug and chain. Reconnected trap adjustment to pipework.

The resident raised concerns with the landlord’s stage 2 response as it failed to address the full extent of issues she complained about. She also wanted to complain about the behaviour of a staff member.
The landlord acknowledged the resident raised issues which were not reflected in its stage 2 response letter. It would arrange a discussion with the resident and look to issue a new stage 2 response.

On 3 April 2023, the landlord conducted a survey of the property to identify repairs. It ordered repairs to:
1. Kitchen cupboards, drawers, and hinges.
2. Windows including reinstating double glazing.
3. Replacement of electrical wiring to lighting fixtures and the cooker control socket and switch.
4. Install a space heater to the downstairs WC.
5. Rear and front garden paving slabs and level out.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord confirmed it had instructed a contractor to manage the works to cause less disruption. It explained it would arrange for an asbestos surveyor to attend before the works could be completed and the resident would be contacted to arrange a date for inspection. It confirmed it would not replace the kitchen which was 15 years old. It planned to replace kitchens when over 20 years old. It confirmed the major works to the property were to take place beginning 5 June 2023 relating to:
1. Property to receive new roof.
2. Investigate via thermal imagery the top corner elevation of the property and resolve issues in children’s bedrooms.
3. Wash down and stain block all affected internal walls where required.
4. Investigate damp to kitchen corner cupboard.
5. Repairs to kitchen cupboard/drawer and all hinges to existing kitchen.
6. New extractor fans to both kitchen and bathroom.
7. New UPVC double glazed windows.
8. New front and rear external door.
9. Full heating upgrade to include replacement boiler and radiator upgrades.
10. Replace any loose light fittings as required.
11. Refix cooker socket.
12. Lift and re-bed the worst affected paving areas to rear garden.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord issued its amended stage 2 response. It stated:
1. It apologised for the time taken to investigate the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its response was outside of its expected timescales.
2. It confirmed it upheld the complaint as it identified service failure and apologised for its failings.
3. It sought to address the initial issues raised in the resident’s original complaint and respond to the new issues raised in her stage 2 complaint escalation. The outstanding planned repairing actions and points raised by the resident were summarised as:
  1. roof repairs
  2. windows and external door repairs
  3. damp and mould
  4. insulation to the wall in the children’s bedrooms
  5. outstanding work to radiators
  6. the repairs to the kitchen sink and tap replacement
  7. the replacement of the shelf under kitchen sink
  8. investigate and resolve cause of damp in kitchen cupboard
  9. insulate pipe in downstairs WC
  10. radiator to downstairs WC
  11. repairs to patio
  12. financial impact of ventilation unit in loft
  13. damage to personal belongings in loft space
  14. timescale for works
  15. hire costs and financial impact of using de-humidifiers
  16. conflicting timescales for kitchen upgrade.
4. It acknowledged the timescales to provide its repairs service were delayed and poor communication impacted the delivery of its service.
5. It refunded the resident’s cost of hiring the dehumidifiers on 23 March 2023.
6. It asked for evidence of the damaged caused to the loft space when the ventilation unit was installed.
7. It confirmed the same list of scheduled works communicated on 10 May 2023.
8. It confirmed it would not install a radiator in the downstairs toilet due to lack of space following inspection, and this would increase the risk of burning.
9. It would not upgrade the kitchen as it was not due for an upgrade.
10. It apologised the resident was not provided with contact details for the property manager and provided details to her.
11. Gas and electricity safety checks were undertaken at the end of the previous tenancy. A visual non-technical inspection also took place by the property manager however, that would not identify complex repairs. Repairs reported would be completed following the resident moving into the property.
12. It offered revised compensation of £1905 compensation made up of:
  1. £250 poor communication
  2. £100 complaint handling delay
  3. £200 missed timescales
  4. £1000 distress and inconvenience
  5. £100 costs incurred to redecorate
  6. £200 stress and worry from issues
  7. £255 reimbursement for gutter repairs, dehumidifier hire and repairs to shower and heating.
On 23 May 2023:
1. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response. She explained the compensation offer was not sufficient as she incurred financial losses from damaged personal items, damaged furnishings and installing damp traps which were not refunded. She wanted the property to be redecorated professionally and cleaned once the repair works were completed. She also asked the landlord to log a new complaint about the landlord’s staff members behaviour which it had not responded to.
2. The landlord explained it identified a service failure and apologised. It had put in place a plan to not only address the repairs raised, but to also renew and upgrade certain elements, including the addition of a new boiler and heating system. It confirmed it would not cover costs for redecoration and it had made a goodwill offer of £100 to assist with any decoration outside of the planned works. It explained it was expected there would be some disruptions caused by major works such as new kitchens and a new roof. It would not replace the kitchen and would only complete the repairs required to make it functional.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

The property condition at the point of mutual exchange

It is clear from the resident’s account together with the landlord’s own records that the condition of the property at point of tenancy exchange was not of the standard the resident expected.
Mutual exchange inspections are different to a landlord’s void inspection standard. A landlord is limited to inspecting the property whilst the previous resident was living in the property and their personal possessions remained in place. This therefore narrows its inspection to gas and electrical safety checks, in addition to identifying defects which can be seen from a visual inspection. It is to be anticipated that the landlord is not always able to identify the full extent of defects in a mutual exchange inspection compared to a standard void inspection. The landlord showed good practice to explain this to the resident within its stage 2 complaint response.
This Service recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by moving into a property where she identified several repairs were required. However, the landlord showed it took steps to inspect the property ahead of mutual exchange. It identified some repairs it could see from a visual inspection and completed gas and electrical safety checks using specialist contractors, receiving certification. This Service recognises the resident reported issues with the functionality of some radiators and electrical issues such as a plug socket which did not work and had holes in it. However, the landlord obtained certificates and satisfied its responsibilities under the mutual exchange policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.

Repairs reported by the resident after mutual exchange and associated delays

The resident reported several repairs to the landlord following the start of her tenancy and during the months which followed. The terms of the mutual exchange meant the resident agreed to accept responsibility for certain obligations of the outgoing tenant, including for remedying damage of which they were aware and taking the property ‘as seen’. However, the landlord’s approach was to attend and complete repairs in response to the resident’s concerns, managing the reported repairs under its repairs policy. This was good practice by the landlord and showed it wanted to resolve the issues the resident discovered after moving into the property. The landlord did however, refuse to complete repairs to the uneven garden paving slabs and replacement of the kitchen.
This Service recognises the resident reported several issues with the disrepair of the kitchen. She states she was informed by a staff member and the previous resident, that the kitchen was due for replacement in October 2022. However, the landlord confirmed the kitchen was not due for replacement until 2026 within its correspondence to the resident.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine at what point cyclical works should be carried out. The nature of the issues means they do not fall under the landlord’s day-to-day repairs policy, where there may be more concrete completion timeframes against which this Service could assess whether there was a service failing. The issues instead come under the landlord’s planned works policy, where completion timeframes can be lengthy and depend on multiple factors. These factors may include the landlord’s views on the property condition, the urgency the works are given, the status of any current and future works programmes in progress and how the landlord is generally prioritising major works to its housing stock.
Whilst the resident was unhappy with the appearance, the landlord explained its position clearly within its complaint responses, that the kitchen would be replaced in line with the landlord’s annual planned programme. The landlord took steps to assess the condition. It then advised that it believed the kitchen was in good order and only required repairs not a full replacement. It would therefore be replaced in line with its programmed works.
This method of upgrading kitchen is the most cost-effective approach for the landlord to take. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident did not agree with the landlord’s position, the landlord’s response was appropriate and fair in the circumstances.
In respect of the uneven garden paving slabs, the resident reported she and her children had tripped over them in the garden. The concern raised by the resident was of a health and safety nature. While the landlord’s policy stated the resident was responsible for garden paving slabs as the garden was private, this Service would expect to see the landlord considered the risk reported and took steps to mitigate the risk. This is important where a young family were living in the property and the resident reported the paving had injured them. There is no evidence the landlord completed such assessment.
Whilst this Service would not expect the landlord to maintain the paving slabs as this was the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement, it should have assessed the risk. If it identified a risk to the resident and her children, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered removal of the paving slabs to ensure the garden was safe for the resident and her children. This Service notes the landlord did complete works to level out the ground under the slabs however the date it completed these works was unclear. The evidence does confirm the landlord surveyed the paving slabs on 3 April 2023 and ordered repairs after this date, despite the resident reporting her concerns from 27 October 2022. This was a delay of over 5 months. This delay was unreasonable and did not suggest the landlord seriously acknowledged the risk to the resident and her family. This was evidence of a service failing.
This Service has reviewed the landlord’s repair logs which detailed the works it completed in response to the resident’s reported repairs. The landlord instructed its repairs team to inspect and resolve some repairs however, its system of recording the repairs was disorganised. The repair logs listed several repair jobs for the same or similar repairs, which varied in completion time. It was also difficult to interpret and understand which repairs were completed and which were outstanding, in addition to how long it took to complete the repairs.
When the landlord attended but was not able to complete the repair job, it logged the repair as complete and ordered a new repair job. This resulted in the resident receiving an uncoordinated repairs service and is evidence the landlord’s repairs procedure and record keeping was not sufficient to provide a good quality repairs service. Whilst the landlord kept records for repairs and it can be seen some repairs were marked as completed, the quality of record keeping and the insufficient level of detail recorded suggests the landlord could improve its record keeping and provide training to its staff and contractors to ensure more detailed records are kept, enabling it to provide a good repairs management service for residents.
This Service recognises the landlord’s complaint response found service failure in its handling of the repairs and acknowledged many repairs were booked over separate dates. It was good practice for the landlord to acknowledge its failings. The evidence also shows the landlord sought to learn from its mistakes by instructing a contractor to manage the repairs and reduce the number of attendances of its repair team and contractors. This was evidence the landlord was solution focussed and was good practice from the landlord.
However, whilst the landlord sought to provide a solution to its service failure towards the resident, the landlord did not consider how it could learn from the failings to consider how its repairs management and record keeping could be more coordinated and ensure it was effective for all its residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy timescales suggested it was experiencing difficulties to comply with its repairing responsibilities. Specifically, it explained its repairing timescale for appointable repairs would be completed within 28 days however, its current timescale was 60 days. This Service recognises the landlord was encountering difficulties with its repairing responsibilities however, the timeframes provided within the repairs policy were unreasonable and not customer focussed, failing to meet resident expectations. This is evidence of a service failure within its repairing responsibilities.
The quality of repair record keeping has prevented this Service from being able to individually investigate the landlord’s handling of each repair reported, as it was unclear how long the repairs took to be completed, due to overlapping and poorly described records. The information contained within the repair logs has however, evidenced the landlord’s handling of the repairs was significantly delayed with repairs taking several weeks for an inspection, in addition to delays of between 2 to 7 months to complete repairs. It is also noted there were several repairs outstanding when the landlord provided its stage 2 response. Overall, these timescales were unreasonable and failed to meet both the landlord’s repairing policy timescales and the resident’s expectations. The delays impacted the resident and caused undue stress and time and trouble, chasing for completion of the repairs, and making herself available for all the repair attendances. This was evidence of a service failure.
This Service also recognises the landlord provided the resident with a list of repairs which would be completed within its complaint responses. However, there was no evidence the landlord sought to provide the resident with an action plan, detailing the dates it expected to complete the repairs. It only explained works would commence from 5 June 2023 within its stage 2 response. The resident chased the landlord to provide details of its timescales to understand how long the repairs were going to take. An action plan is an important tool for both the landlord and resident when providing a coordinated repairs service. It helps to provide timescales for the landlord to manage the repairs and manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by setting out the dates in a clear format There is no evidence the landlord sought to provide the resident with timescales by way of an action plan. This was evidence of a service failing.
Overall, the landlord’s management of the repairs reported by the resident was unreasonable and significantly delayed. It failed to consider the risk where health and safety concerns were raised about the patio paving slabs. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide reasonable timescales for repairs to be completed and failed to manage the resident’s expectations relating to the repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the repairs reported by the resident following mutual exchange and associated delays was maladministration.
Whilst the landlord showed good practice by acknowledging its handling of the repairs was poor within its complaint responses, the compensation it offered did not go far enough to address the length of delay that occurred. This Service has therefore, made an order for further compensation to be paid to the resident.

Water ingress and damp and mould

On 25 October 2022, the resident reported water penetration and mould growth in the property. The landlord did not schedule an inspection until 20 December 2022, which was cancelled and rearranged for January 2023. This was a delay of 4 months. Furthermore, the concerns raised about damp and mould and the leaking roof were still outstanding at the time the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 May 2023. The landlord did not arrange for a damp and mould survey of the property until May 2023.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. There is no evidence the landlord took any initiative to inspect the reports of damp and mould or the roof leak. This suggests the landlord did not take the matter seriously to assess what interventions it could put in place to assist the resident with preventing damp and mould in the property. While it arranged for dehumidifiers to be provided to replace the resident’s rented dehumidifiers, and planned to raise repair works to install insulated boards to be fitted in the children’s bedrooms, this was not proposed until 15 January 2023 within its stage 1 response. This was 3 months after the resident put the landlord on notice of the issues. Further, it is unclear when the insulated boards were installed from the evidence provided.
Additionally, whilst a leaking roof was major work and can take an extended period to resolve, the landlord showed no initiative to inspect or take preliminary steps to remedy the leak or plan remedial action until after its stage 2 response, when it scheduled a survey.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The above identified delay is both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s legal obligations. Further, damp and mould are potential health hazards to be either avoided or minimised in line with the HHSRS. As a result, the landlord’s failure to engage with these issues was also inappropriate. The evidence suggests living with a leak, along with the resulting damp and mould, caused considerable anxiety for the resident. This was evidence of failure to uphold its legal responsibilities and a service failure.
There is also no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment following the reports of damp and mould. This Service recognises the resident informed the landlord she suffered from pneumonia. A risk assessment would have been a useful tool to identify whether the resident suffered from known medical conditions at the time, in addition to assessing and managing the risk. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence it considered use of its decant policy for the resident and her family whilst the repairs were outstanding. Whilst this Service cannot determine if a decant was necessary, the landlord has not evidenced it considered this policy and therefore acted unreasonably towards the resident considering the reported property conditions.
The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould was unreasonable. The evidence seen by this Service suggests the landlord did not inspect the reports until 4 months after the resident reported the leak and damp and mould at the property. It did not propose interventions to assist with the damp and mould promptly or carry out remedial works within a reasonable timeframe. It also failed to consider a risk assessment or decant. This caused the resident significant distress and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp and mould was maladministration.
As works to resolve water ingress and damp and mould were outstanding after the landlord’s stage 2 response, this Service is uncertain if the works undertaken by the landlord resolved the damp and mould. An order to review this position is outlined in the below orders.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord through her MP on 14 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 January 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires a landlord to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence it was in communication with the resident regarding delays to provide a stage 1 complaint response. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 January 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 March 2023 however, it did not address the resident’s complaint and reissued a stage 2 response on 19 May 2023. This was a delay of 4 months. There was no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to agree an extension to provide its response, failing to manage the resident’s expectations and leaving her in the complaints process. The landlord should provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days, and it did not. This was evidence of poor complaint handling, and the overall delay was inappropriate.
The resident also complained the landlord did not log a new complaint she wanted to make about a staff member’s behaviour between 7 March 2023 and 23 May 2023. This Service has not been provided with any evidence relating to this complaint issue and therefore cannot investigate this further. However, an order has been made for the landlord to record the resident’s complaint and follow its internal complaints process with the resident.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. In this case the Ombudsman recognises that in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failures with its handling of the complaint and the delays caused. It also apologised to the resident. It offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling delays. However, this award is not in line with the Ombudsman’s financial remedy scale and a further award of compensation has been ordered.
The landlord acted unreasonably by providing its stage 1 response 4 weeks after the resident made her complaint, and its stage 2 response 4 months after she escalated her complaint. The delays left the resident in the complaints process, without a clear resolution. Neither did the landlord provide the resident with an explanation for its stage 1 or 2 delays. It is the opinion of this Service the landlord’s complaint handling was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs reported by the resident after mutual exchange and associated delays.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of water ingress and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to inspect the property ahead of mutual exchange. It identified some repairs it could see from a visual inspection and completed gas and electrical safety checks using specialist contractors, receiving certification.
The landlord’s management of repairs was unreasonable and significantly delayed. It was not prompt to complete inspections, the timeframes to complete repairs took up to 7 months and other repairs were outstanding at the time of its stage 2 response. The landlord’s repair policy timescales were inappropriate to ensure a good repairs service was provided to residents. It failed to consider risk where health and safety concerns were raised and failed to manage the resident’s expectations with its overall repairs management.
The landlord did not inspect reports of water ingress and damp and mould promptly. It was also delayed in completing investigations and remedial works, some of which were outstanding when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It failed to provide the resident with an action plan or provide a coordinated repairs service. Neither did it risk assess or decant assess the resident and her family considering the reported concerns of water ingress and damp and mould.
The landlord failed to provide its stage 1 and 2 responses within its complaint policy timescales. Neither did it communicate with the resident to agree extensions to provide its delayed responses.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Provide a timeline for repairs still to be completed, and thereafter a monthly written update with action taken until all outstanding issues are resolved.
3. If the landlord has not already done so, pay the resident £1,905.00 which the landlord offered in its stage 2 response on 19 May 2023.
4. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £800 comprising of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the repairs
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of reports of water ingress and damp and mould
  3. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to self-assess against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023).
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last 6 months regarding leaks, damp and mould. Where findings of severe maladministration and maladministration have been made, the findings should be incorporated into the review, along with the relevant case reference number.
3. Review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:

i. respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progress works orders in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures

ii. are aware of the need to maintain oversight of repairs and communicate effectively with contractors to ensure works are completed

iii. respond to formal complaints appropriately and keep complaints about ongoing outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses must provide completion timescales. The landlord should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Assurance of its future compliance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on damp and mould and knowledge and information management.

Within 16 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues since August 2020.
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate with the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman at weeks 4, 12 and 16 to provide evidence it has complied with the above orders.