Platform Housing Group Limited (202124325)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124325

Platform Housing Group Limited

27 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to:
  1. Reports of a leak.
  2. Reports of an odour from the ensuite bathroom.
  3. Reports of blocked guttering.
2. The landlord’s handling of:
  1. Reports of damp and mould in the property and the communal area.
  2. Concerns raised by the resident about ventilation in the property.
3. How the landlord’s staff treated the resident and its handling of his complaint.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for damages.
This service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, within a block of flats, which was built in 2009. The property is let on an intermediate rent.
The resident signed an assured shorthold tenancy agreement on 9 July 2021. This was fixed for an initial period of 6 months, at the end of which it converted to a statutory periodic tenancy, as set out in clause 6 (ii) of the tenancy agreement.
The resident has informed this service that he has a diagnosis of Autism, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). He also suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
The landlord’s vulnerability records were updated through the complaint’s process to record that the resident is autistic. It has also made a record that visits to the property are to be by appointment only and to be carried out in pairs.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported two issues on the 6 August 2021. The following repair orders were raised:
1. Kitchens: Kitchen sink, fault with waste disposal not working. Sink was also leaking.
2. Water pipes and leaks: water leaks, overflow leaking. This record was updated with an additional note had been added that scaffolding was required. The original description was noted to be incorrect as the leak was from the guttering outside. No date was shown for these updates.
The landlord’s repair records do not show what action, if any, was taken by it after the jobs were raised.
On 15 September 2021 the resident reported that the toilet flush was not working, and he was unable to flush the toilet.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord raised a follow on repair for the guttering, recording that these were blocked. It recorded that this was a three storey block.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 November 2021. Within this he said:
1. That he had a leak in his kitchen which had caused damage to the back of the cupboard. He had initially thought this related to the waste disposal unit but had since found this to be on the sink pipework. There was a damp fungal smell in the cupboard, and this was affecting the kitchen and living area. A contractor had attended in late August but had not returned to follow up the repair.
2. He had reported a problem with the guttering to the block 6 weeks prior to raising the complaint. An appointment had been booked for the 9 November 2021, but scaffolding had not been arranged to provide access to the guttering.
3. During a period of heavy rain, the previous week, water had dripped down the boiler in the kitchen. As this was coming from above any pipework, he believed that this was coming from outside.
4. He had just moved from a property with rising damp which had affected his possessions. He believed that there was damp in this property. He said that there was a crack above the boiler and paper lifting a little in the bedroom. When it rained, he could hear water running down the walls.
5. There was a sewage smell coming from the ensuite bathroom.
6. He was very unhappy and felt that the property should not have been let in this condition. He was looking for the issues to be resolved immediately.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and advised that a full response would be provided by 24 November 2021.
The landlord’s repair records showed that a plumber attended on the 9 November 2021 to repair the toilet flush and the job was shown as completed on the same day. A follow on repair was raised on 16 November 2021 to “renew insinkerator”. The wider description said “… renew proprietary macerator system to the toilet suite.” These works were completed on 8 December 2021.
The landlord provided its formal response to the resident’s complaint on 1 December 2021. The response set out that it had spoken with the resident throughout its investigation and confirmed the scope of his complaint. It also confirmed that the resident had agreed to an extension of its response time. In its reply it:
1. Acknowledged that the complaint was about an outstanding gutter repair and suspected damp within the property.
2. Noted that the resident was asking for the repairs to be completed and to be compensated for the purchase and running costs of a dehumidifier.
3. Upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in dealing with the leak from the guttering. It said that this had been caused by an error when the repair was logged on its systems, as it had not been recorded as an outside repair. It noted that this had initially been reported on 6 August 2021.
4. Explained that another job had been raised for works to the guttering and an appointment was now scheduled for 20 December 2021.
5. Said that the resident’s concerns about damp and mould had not previously been brought to its attention. This had now been passed to a repairs inspector and an appointment was booked for 10 December 2021.
6. Offered the resident £150 in line with its compensation policy for the delay in the guttering repair and the failure of a staff member to raise the correct repair when first reported.
The inspection of the property was carried out on 10 December 2021. A repair order was raised following this to replace the back panel and bottom shelf of the sink unit. It noted that the resident was concerned about mould and condensation. It was noted against the repair order that it had carried out the following:
1. replaced a leaking “fill loop”, washing machine valve and hose.
2. removed the plinth to the kitchen unit and treated it with mould killer as a precaution.
On 22 December 2021 the resident reported that the extractor in the bathroom was not working. On 23 December 2021 the resident again raised concern around damp and mould within the property.
The landlord appointed a specialist contractor, who carried out an inspection of the property on 21 January 2022. Its report, provided to the landlord on 17 March 2022, recorded the relative humidity and temperature in each room of the property. While it noted that there was no visible sign of mould within the property, it recorded that there was a “musty smell” in both bathrooms and the kitchen. It noted that the resident was running dehumidifiers within the flat and had reported damp behind the kitchen cupboards. It recorded that there was evidence that the resident was drying clothes indoors and that it had advised that this “should be kept to a minimum or eliminated altogether.” It recorded that the existing extractor fans were not suitable for social housing and that the extractor in the kitchen was not ducted to the atmosphere. It recommended the installation of a specific model of fan that had integrated humidity tracking which would “remove moisture laden air at source and reduce the risk of moisture migration to nearby rooms.”
The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 15 February 2022. In this he said that he was unclear as to the stage of his complaint. He had accepted the compensation offered at stage 1 and in doing so had signed an acceptance form. This contained the statement “I accept … as resolution of my complaint against [the landlord]” and he did not know if the landlord considered his complaint closed. He stated that he was unhappy. He enclosed a list of personal items damaged and thrown out and details of the costs he had incurred cleaning to remove mould. He explained that:
1. There was a serious damp and mould problem within the flat which had impacted his health and cost him time and money as he sought to get it resolved.
2. While the landlord was dealing with the problem, he felt the 7 month delay was unreasonable. He did not know when the ventilation would be fitted, and the appointment scheduled for his kitchen to be removed was not until 12 April 2022. He had not been given a date for when the cisterns would be removed in the bathrooms and did not know “if mould was growing in the walls, under the baths or showers.”
3. He felt that the landlord was underestimating the seriousness of the problem and was not taking him seriously.
4. He had incurred significant expense in dealing with the mould, including the purchase of dehumidifiers and air purifiers. He had also had to dispose of personal items that had been damaged and faced increased energy costs by running the dehumidifiers and having to regularly wash clothes and bedding.
5. He had been unable to use much of the flat due to the issues experienced and that the previous offer of compensation was not enough.
In requesting that his complaint be escalated the resident copied in his local MP. He also informed the MP and his landlord of his health conditions.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 18 February 2022. It confirmed that the complaint would be investigated by a senior manager, and the resident would receive a full response within 20 working days.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord recorded its contact with the resident to discuss his complaint. The resident had explained that:
1. He was waiting for the removal of kitchen cabinets to investigate damp and mould behind them following the leak.
2. He was waiting for the installation of a ventilation and heat recovery system following the visit of a specialist contractor.
3. He was seeking compensation as he felt that the mould in his property was causing physical health issues.
4. He was using the central heating but had been advised by a damp specialist “not to open windows in winter as the cold air will make condensation worse…” In reply on this point the landlord recorded that “this was not strictly true” and that it had provided advice around closing doors and opening windows.
On 21 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord requesting an update on his complaint as the deadline for a response had passed. In reply the landlord advised that there had been a delay in its review and that more time was required. It said that this would now be completed by 20 April 2022.
On 28 March the resident’s doctor provided a letter which advised that the damp in the property and the associated stress was impacting on his mental health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 April 2022. In this it:
1. Apologised for the length of time taken to reply.
2. Identified that the initial cause of the complaint was a leak on a fitting within the sink base unit which had caused damp behind the units.
3. Said that a repair to the damaged unit had been carried out and that the team had been instructed to carry out mould treatment. As the resident felt that there was still mould present it would arrange for the kitchen to be opened up, inspected and for further treatment to be carried out. An appointment was to be arranged.
4. Confirmed that it would proceed with the recommendation of its specialist contractor to install new mechanical extractor fans within the flat. This work was planned for 25 April 2022.
5. Said that the report confirmed that all rooms were clear of damp and mould and that the trickle vents were open. It had noted that clothes were drying internally. It confirmed that through its previous conversations with the resident it had “discussed the need for windows to be opened periodically, and particularly while bathing, cooking and using a condensing dryer.”
6. Noted that while there was little or no evidence of mould in the property, the resident had reported mould smells in both the property and the communal areas. It said that it had not received any other complaints and no previous problems had been recorded.
7. Noted the resident’s reports of faecal smells from the ensuite and mould smells in the other bathroom. It agreed to remove the cisterns to inspect behind and carry out mould treatments as required. It advised that condensation on a toilet cistern was a regular occurrence but should not result in the level of issues recorded by the resident.
8. Said that the specialist contractor and its own surveyor had not experienced any mould smells while inspecting the property.
9. Partially upheld his complaint due to the delay in the gutter repair addressed at stage 1.
10. Acknowledge his compensation claim of around £4000 for the loss of personal items, for a loss of earnings and for the cost of running dehumidifiers and air purifiers, which he had “chosen to use”. In reviewing the complaint, the landlord said that it had found no grounds to “justify such a compensation payment.”
11. Acknowledged the resident’s statement about his medical concerns and expressed its sympathy. It said that it was unable to make further comment but noted that there was “no evidence from a medical professional to suggest that this was linked to” his claims of damp and mould in the property.
12. Offered £100 compensation in recognition of the time taken to complete the review.
An internal email was sent on 21 April 2022 to the relevant housing manager following completion of the complaints review. This raised a concern around the resident’s mental health and highlighted that he may require additional support. This was to be followed up by the housing team, who were aware that the resident was autistic, to investigate the support that it may offer or services to which he may be signposted.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 May 2022, setting out the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He said that:
1. The time taken to resolve problems was unreasonable.
  1. The leak under sink was first reported on 6 August 2021. This was finally fixed on 5 April 2022. In January 2022 he had removed the boarding at the back of the sink and found this to have clusters of mould on it.
  2. The blocked guttering reported on 6 August 2021 was eventually cleared 20 December 2021. A second section reported in January 2022 had still not been dealt with. He was told this would be done quickly but the landlord had not kept him informed.
  3. The strange faecal smell in the bathroom was first reported to the landlord in August 2021 but not recorded by the call agent. This continued to be a problem and had not been dealt with.
  4. The contractor attended on 25 April 2022 to fit the agreed extractors but was unable to fit the one in the kitchen and a further appointment was arranged for 26 May 2022. No additional ventilation was to be fitted by the landlord, despite what the resident believed had been recommended by the specialist contractor.
  5. He had wasted a lot of time waiting for and chasing appointments, treating the mould, and having to throw away damaged possessions. This had impacted on his sleep and health. As an autistic adult he found managing appointments and the disruption with the property very stressful.
2. The property lacked ventilation throughout and the second bedroom only had a set of double doors which could not be left open, unless he was in the room. He believed that the contractor who visited the property in January 2022 had recommended that a professional ventilation system be installed, not the extractor fans which the landlord was installing. He was unhappy with the delay in the provision of the final report and that it did not capture what he believed had been recommended.
3. There was still “obvious mould growth” in the kitchen, and he was still waiting for the works to be done. He had reported that the bathrooms smelt of mould and this was affecting his health. This affected the main bedroom as this had an ensuite bathroom.
4. He felt that the landlord had made judgements about his behaviours in the property. It had recorded that he was drying clothes indoors when he had explained that the clothes were dry, and he was using the airers as storage. He also said that by informing him, within its complaint response, that he should ensure that windows were opened when cooking or bathing, assumed that he was not doing this.
5. He was seeking damages in the form of a rent reduction as he felt that the property had not been fully habitable throughout his occupation. He said that he had written to the landlord on 2 March 2022 requesting a rent reduction and general damages. He had not received a response.
6. The offer of compensation was inadequate and insulting. He also said that he was expected to sign a waiver to receive the money which stated that his complaint was complete when there were actions still outstanding.
7. He had needed to run three dehumidifiers which had increased his electricity bills, he had thrown away several possessions and spent money on dealing with the mould. He had also lost earnings as he had been unable to focus on setting up his business or getting work.
8. The landlord did not treat its tenants with respect and did not deal with things in a timely manner. He did not “appreciate being treated like I am imaging a very real problem.”
9. He believed that there was a wider problem with the building as there was a smell of mould in the communal areas during the winter months and one of his neighbours had a hole in the ceiling which was letting in water.
10. He was looking for the landlord to effectively resolve all the issues that he had raised in a timely manner. He would like a holistic approach taken to address the mould issues and for the landlord to ensure that his kitchen was fully usable. He would like it to address the wider issues with the building he had highlighted and provide him with adequate financial compensation.
In bringing his case to this service the resident provided evidence of the issues he had raised with his landlord, including photographs. He had recorded the impact the situation had on his health and provided evidence of his diagnoses. He had also provided his energy bills for the period July 2021 to October 2022 to demonstrate the additional costs he had incurred.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord confirmed that the installation of an extractor fan to the kitchen was completed on 26 May 2022.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property in response to his continued reports of a bad smell from the ensuite bathroom. It noted that the smell was not one of sewage but was “mossy and damp.” A follow up inspection was arranged, together with a plumber, to undertake further investigations on 11 July 2022. A much stronger smell was noted on that occasion and follow on works were arranged.
A repair order was raised on 12 July and an appointment was scheduled for 21 July to:
1. remove the basin and pedestal and excavate concrete flooring.
2. renew 110 mm diameter internal PVC soil stack boss connector, backfill the void to stop rats getting in.
3. check the shower waste.
A further order for gutter clearance was raised on 12 July 2022 and passed to a specialist contractor who will use “fletcher access”, removing the requirement for a scaffold.

Landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Clause 7 and 8 of the tenancy agreement sets out the repairing obligations for the landlord and tenant.
Clause 7 (i) specifies that “the landlord will repair the structure and exterior of the building including (a) drains, gutters and external pipes …”
Clause 7 (ii) specifies that “the landlord will repair any installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation, … including (a) basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes …”
Clause 8 (i) says that “the tenant shall report to the landlord any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible in the structure or exterior of the property or in any installation therein or in the common parts.”
The repairs and maintenance policy establishes two levels of responsive repairs, defined as those typically reported by residents, as:
1. Emergency repairs which should be attended within 24 hours, and
2. Appointed repairs which are all non-urgent repairs that need to be carried out through a mutually agreed appointment, and with an aim to complete the repair within a single visit, where possible.
Appendix A of the landlord’s policy contains guidance around rechargeable repairs and an expanded list of landlord and tenant repair responsibilities. Under the section headed internal finishes there is a short section on condensation. This advises that:

“The tenant is responsible for managing condensation in their home…. Appropriate cleaning materials should be used on small areas of black mould…. A spread of black spot mould on walls and ceilings may require an inspection/treatment by the landlord and education on condensation management.”

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint’s procedure. For stage 1 complaints it has a 10 working day target, with an expectation that all complaint investigations at this stage will involve personal contact with the complainant either via phone, email or in person. Should extra time be required for the investigation there should be regular contact with the complainant to update them on the investigation.
At stage 2 of the procedure the investigation will be undertaken by a senior manager within a 20 working day target. The landlord’s policy states that it will not escalate a complaint automatically because a resident remains unhappy but will seek information as to what remains unresolved.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out how it “will deal with compensation claims made by customers.”
This policy establishes that any compensation “will be fair, appropriate and proportionate.”
At point 4.4 under the heading compensation for damage or loss it states that “where injury or damage to property results from an incident where compensation may be appropriate, the [landlord’s] insurance company will be instructed to investigate and deal with the matter on its behalf. Whether compensation will be paid and in what proportion will depend upon the particular incident and circumstances.”
The landlord has advised that on 28 April 2023 it provided additional guidance to staff on passing claims through to its insurers where there a resident makes a claim for damages. This was not in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reported repairs to address an internal leak, blocked guttering, and an odour in the ensuite bathroom

The resident initially contacted the landlord on 6 August 2021 to report a leak to his kitchen sink and an issue with blocked guttering. He said that he also raised his concerns about a bad smell from the ensuite bathroom at the same time, but that this was not recorded by the landlord.
An appropriate repair order was raised by the landlord to address the leak in the kitchen and a contractor initially attended in August 2021. The landlord’s records do not show what works, if any were carried out at that time. The resident reported that the repair was not completed, and this was highlighted within his complaint on 9 November 2021. Further works were recorded as having been carried out in December 2021, following an inspection of the property by the landlord. The landlord’s records show that the repair order to remedy the leak on the kitchen sink was closed on 3 March 2022, 7 months after it was first raised.
The repair records provided by the landlord are lacking in detail. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that it kept a record of the report it had received, when its contractor attended, what remedial works were carried out, whether any follow up action was required and why the order had been closed. Recording such information would ensure that the landlord had an accurate audit trail of the actions it had taken. That such records have not been maintained is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
A works order to address the blocked guttering was initially raised in August 2021 but had not been completed when the resident raised his complaint in November 2021. The landlord identified that the order had been raised incorrectly and scaffolding had not been appropriately arranged. This was addressed and works completed in December 2021, a delay of 4 months. Further works to clear a separate blockage to the guttering for the resident’s block was due to be completed in July 2022.
This service has been unable to confirm, based on the evidence presented, that the resident first reported an odour from his ensuite bathroom alongside the other repairs reported on 6 August 2021. It is noted that the specialist contractor who attended to inspect the resident’s property on 21 January 2022 recorded within its report that it had noted a musty smell from both bathrooms. This aspect of the contractor’s report does not appear to have been followed up.
The resident included a report of an odour from the ensuite bathroom in his escalated complaint. Following its response in April 2022, the landlord arranged for a further inspection of the property. The odour was identified and extensive works within the bathroom were undertaken in July 2022 to address what was identified as a damaged soil stack; 11 months after the resident first highlighted a concern and 5 months since raising the issue within his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s reported repairs in a timely manner. It raised initial repair orders following his reports, but did not ensure that the works were completed, leaving the resident to chase follow up works. Its failure to address the leak to the kitchen sink led to damage being caused to the kitchen unit and subsequent mould growth within the unit. A timelier repair could reasonably have avoided this damage and could have alleviated the resident’s future concerns about mould within the property.
There were significant delays in addressing the issue of blocked guttering, from the initial report being raised incorrectly to repeated failures to ensure that access scaffold was provided. The resident highlighted a concern that this led to water penetrating into his flat during a period of heavy rain. Within its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay in completing these repairs and for raising the wrong repair in the first place.
In considering the landlord’s handling of reported repairs to the resident’s property there was maladministration. While it is acknowledged that the landlord’s policy does not set timescales for the completion of non-emergency repairs, it is not clear why these were not arranged and completed sooner. In the absence of any evidence explaining why the repairs were not carried out sooner they do appear to have been unduly delayed. The landlord failed to undertake any effective follow up to the repair orders it had raised, leaving the resident to have to chase repairs to the property. This provided a significant source of concern and distress for the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident £150 for its failure to correctly record and manage repairs to the guttering on the building. It did not however, offer any additional compensation to the resident in recognition to the delays that occurred in dealing with the other repairs that he had reported.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies an order has been made for a more appropriate level of compensation to be paid by the landlord which recognises both the delays and its failure to complete the works required to the property in a timely manner.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, together with concerns around lack of ventilation

The resident’s concern about damp and mould and a lack of ventilation was raised in his initial complaint. The landlord responded that the issue had not been raised with it before. It arranged for a repairs inspector to visit the property and repairs to address the leak in the kitchen were completed. Through the resident’s persistence the landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to carry out an inspection in January 2022. There was a further delay in it providing a report of its findings to the landlord and for works to carry out its recommendations. These were completed in May 2022.
Through the complaints process the resident informed the landlord that he had previously lived in a property that had been affected by rising damp. His belief that there was damp in his new property was a cause of concern to him. Arrangements for a specialist contractor to inspect and provide advice on the extent of any damp at the property was an appropriate response by the landlord, but it was slow to arrange this. It is unclear from the evidence presented as to the extent of contact between the landlord and the resident, providing him with reassurance that it was continuing to follow through his reports and would be carrying out the recommendations of its contractor.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing 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 to residents so their expectations can be managed.” This was of particular importance here where the resident had highlighted his earlier experiences and his vulnerability. The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlord’s should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his concern that there was poor ventilation in the property, there was a lack of timeliness to its responses which amounts to a service failure.

How the landlord’s staff treated the resident and its handling of his complaint.

There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. At stage 1 it noted that the resident had agreed to an extension to its response time, in line with its own complaint’s procedure.
There does not appear to have been a similar agreement reached with the resident at stage 2. The resident chased a response to his complaint on 21 March 2022 and the final reply was provided on 21 April 2022, 47 working days after the resident first escalated his complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 in recognition of the delay in its response. Considering the delays in its responses to the resident, and the time and trouble caused to him in having to pursue his complaint, the offer was not proportionate within the circumstances of the case.
It is an obligation of the landlord’s membership of the Scheme that it must manage complaints from residents in accordance with its published procedure or, where this is not possible within a reasonable timescale. It is not appropriate that the resident should be left chasing the landlord for a response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) provides that the approach to complaints should be one that is clear, simple and accessible and ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly. It says that “landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide.”
In escalating his complaint, the resident highlighted his vulnerabilities to the landlord. The resident has told this service that he felt that the landlord had failed to treat him with respect and had dismissed his concerns.
There is a record that a concern for the resident was raised internally, with a referral to the housing team. It is not, however recorded what, if any, steps were taken to contact the resident, identify additional support or provide appropriate signposting to external support agencies. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity for the landlord to ensure that the resident was provided with adequate support.
Through its complaints responses the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerability and the impact that the continued delays and repairs were having on him, despite his highlighted concern.
In considering all aspects of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s response to it, the landlord failed to follow its own policies and procedures. There were delays in its complaint handling and a failure to ensure that the resident was kept fully informed. Because of this and in consideration of the detriment caused to the resident there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for damages.

The resident requested compensation from his landlord to cover the loss of personal items, the cost of running dehumidifiers within the property and a loss of earnings in having to deal with the issues in his property. He also raised concerns for the impact these issues had on his health. The landlord acknowledged his request for compensation but dismissed these as unjustified through its review of his complaint.
This service does not make binding decisions on matters such as, negligence or liability and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their additional costs, time off work or loss of wages whilst repairs are carried.
Given the content of the resident’s compensation claim, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered referral to its insurer. The landlord has advised that it recently updated and provided additional guidance to its staff on passing claims through to its insurers. This was not in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy did however cover this point and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered a referral to its insurers and to advise the resident accordingly. While the guidance to staff should avoid similar errors being made in the future, there was service failure by the landlord in not addressing and appropriately redirecting the resident’s claim.
Considering the circumstances of this case, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we have considered the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to a report of a leak, reports of an odour from the ensuite bathroom and reports of blocked guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property and concerns about ventilation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord’s staff treated the resident and its handing of his complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for damages.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to ensure that the repairs that were requested were followed up and completed by its contractors. An error in its description of a repair caused significant delays when scaffolding was not arranged to provide access to guttering.
The resident was left having to chase repairs. The landlord’s failure to address leaks both within and outside of the property caused further problems within the property and caused distress to the resident.
The landlord responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould when these were raised by the resident, initially carrying out a property inspection and ensuring that repairs to internal leaks were completed. However, there were delays in receiving and following up on the recommendations of its specialist contractor.
The landlord’s complaint handling failed to meet the timescales set out within its own policy and procedure. It further failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and the additional stress that its delays caused to him.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident’s claim for compensation to its insurer given the nature of the claim and the details provided to support it.
The landlord’s records do not provide detail around the repairs it carried out and what follow up actions it took. It also does not record the actions taken to contact and support these resident where concerns for his vulnerability were raised internally.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident a total of £850 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £300 in recognition of delays that occurred in completing repairs to the property.
  2. £150 for the delays in acting on the recommendations of its specialist contractor to provide improved ventilation to the property.
  3. £150 in recognition of the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue his complaint.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident through the delay in undertaking repairs and addressing the issue of damp and mould.
  5. The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation should be deducted from the above total, if already paid.
3. Contact the resident to arrange a detailed inspection of the property. The purpose of this is to ensure that all outstanding repairs have now been addressed. If outstanding or new repairs are identified timescales for remedying these must be agreed with the resident.
4. Contact the resident to discuss his claim for compensation and consider referral of this to its insurers.

Recommendations

Considering the failings highlighted within this report the landlord should undertake a review of its repairs process to ensure that it has a process in place to ensure that repairs are completed within a timely manner and that where required follow on orders are raised and actioned by the appropriate contractor.
The landlord should undertake a review of its approach to damp and mould, considering the learnings and recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.