Plexus UK (First Project) Limited (202011550)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011550

Plexus UK (First Project) Limited

24 March 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including to the shower and garden.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its communication with the resident.
4. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account and its decision to increase her rent.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(e), 39(g) and 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account and its decision to increase her rent.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’.
In her complaint, the resident raised concerns over how the landlord administered her rent account, particularly regarding Possession Orders it had served. However, it is noted that the incidents referred to were from 2017 and 2018. This will therefore not form part of this Service’s investigation as it is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because there is no evidence the resident raised these matters as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, with this complaint not being submitted to the landlord until late 2020.
The resident’s complaint also referred to her dissatisfaction at the landlord deciding to raise her rent during the first coronavirus lockdown and that this had put her into financial difficulty. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase’. For this reason, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not form part of this Service’s investigation as it falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph (m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident outlined she was also complaining about the landlord’s response to her concerns about moving to another home, as she had been advised by the landlord that it was handing the property back to the owner, who in turn had advised he would sell. However, the landlord does not have its own stock of accommodation and, in her complaint to the landlord, the resident noted that she had approached her Local Authority for assistance with rehousing. Therefore, if the resident has any concerns regarding how this application has been progressed or handled, this would usually be for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as this is the organisation that considers complaints about how a local authority manages its allocations and lettings functions. Therefore, this will not be considered during this investigation. The LGSCO can be contacted via www.lgo.org.uk if the resident wishes it to consider this aspect of her complaint

Scope of Investigation

It is noted that, within her complaint, the resident also raised concerns regarding the conduct and behaviour of the property owner. However, this Service will not be able to consider this aspect of her complaint as the owner is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and these aspects of the complaint will fall outside of the scope of this investigation. What the Ombudsman can consider, particularly regarding the owner’s response to repair issues, is how the landlord, which retained overall responsibility for carrying out repairs, managed the issues raised, which may include aspects of the owner’s response to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy at the property, a four-bedroom house, which began in May 2016.
For clarity, the resident’s property is managed by a managing agent on behalf of private owners. While the private owners (who will be referred to in this report as ‘the owner’) carry out some of the repair work themselves, the resident’s tenancy is with the managing agent (who will be referred to as ‘the landlord’) and they maintain overall responsibility for repairs being completed in a timely fashion, in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s published repair procedures.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It advises that it aims to provide a response and settle on a mutually agreed outcome within 10 working days at both Stage One and Stage Two of the process.

Summary of Events

On 27 October 2020, the resident reported that her shower was ‘dribbling’. She reported the matter to the owner. She has advised that the owner has since deleted their WhatsApp text correspondence regarding the matter. However, the owner attended to complete a repair, but this did not solve the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 November 2020 regarding her faulty shower, noting she had called on 17 November 2020 and it had sent an electrician the following day. She reported that the electrician was unable to complete the repair but advised he would order a new shower, which a plumber would then need to install. She stated she was yet to hear anything more from the landlord but, when chasing in a phone call made the previous day, had been advised it could take 20 days to resolve the issue. She advised she was now already without a working shower for a fourth day. The resident also raised concerns over the fact that she had ‘had a rent increase 2 times within the last 2 years’ which she felt was ‘not legal’ and was unfair as there had been no improvements done to the property.
On 25 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding ‘neglect’ by the landlord and the owner, stating that she had raised concerns over her shower and her garden ‘over the years’ but that they had not been resolved. She advised that being without washing facilities was affecting her mental health and that the landlord had not been communicating with her effectively. She stated the situation was affecting her human rights and also expressed concern over the fact that her rent had been increased during the first coronavirus lockdown, noting that, while she had asked to challenge the rise, the landlord’s lack of communication meant that she was eventually out of time to appeal.
Three days later, the resident and the owner corresponded via WhatsApp and the resident advised that an electrician had again attended the previous day and advised that she needed a new shower. She requested that the owner contact the landlord and ‘arrange when this will be done’ as she had now gone 12 days without having washing facilities. The owner advised that he had asked the landlord to do so ‘ages ago’ and had emailed them again that day.
On 7 December 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She sent six separate emails, each outlining a different area of concern. While some concerns raised fall outside the scope of this investigation, other issues included:
1. A shower repair – the resident outlined that she had reported the shower being weak ‘a number of times over the years’ but it had now broken down entirely and three weeks ago it ‘began tripping my electricity…and would not turn on at all’. Since then, the resident advised three operatives had attended but none had resolved the issue, including one who attended at midnight only to trip the electrics in the property again. All the operatives had advised that she needed a new shower and a new one was subsequently installed on 6 December 2020 although the resident advised it was still not functioning properly and her family remained without washing facilities.
2. Repairs required in her garden – the resident stated that her garden had ‘been a problem for many years’ and that she had made reports to both the landlord and owner previously, regarding cracked concrete causing a trip hazard which stopped her children playing outside. She advised the owner had attended ‘recently to fill it (the cracks) in’ but had done ‘the wrong area’ and then told her that he would ‘be back in the Spring’, to which she agreed.
3. Issues with mould – the resident advised that the property had been affected by mould previously, and she had had possessions ‘destroyed’ but she had recently noted black mould along ‘the whole of my bedroom wall and…in my children’s room’, which she stated was the ‘worst it has ever been’. She advised that, having reported the issue to both the landlord and owner, nothing was being progressed and the matter was affecting her family’s health. She requested a visit from ‘house standards’.
4. The owner’s conduct – the resident raised concerns regarding the conduct and behaviour of the property owner which, as outlined in the Scope of Investigation paragraph, is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
5. Past issues with rent account and rent increase in 2020.
6. The impact on her health – the resident stated that the repair matters and issues with her rent, which had led the landlord to begin tenancy action, were affecting her mental health, causing her stress and she had ‘had enough’. She outlined that her children were now temporarily living with their father over concerns for their health and she was seeking rehousing from the Local Authority. She requested that the landlord reduce the level of rent for the past month to reflect the time she had been without washing facilities.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 January 2021 to request assistance as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord the same day and again on 22 January 2021 as it was still yet to respond. Following this, the landlord contacted the resident the same day to acknowledge her complaint and advise that it would escalate her complaint straight to Stage Two of its complaints procedure.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord issued a Stage Two complaint response, advising it was responding following a complaint received via this Service on 8 January 2021. It advised it would address the concerns the resident had raised regarding her shower repair, mould in her property and the condition of her garden. Regarding the shower repair, it noted the following:
1. The resident reported that her shower had broken on 17 November 2020, and it had ultimately been replaced on 7 December 2020. However, the landlord acknowledged that the new shower was found to be faulty, and this was not resolved until 20 December 2020.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had submitted a formal complaint regarding the shower on 25 November 2020, but it had not provided a response.
3. It noted that the shower repair had taken ‘almost 6 weeks…and during this time you had no bathing facilities for yourself or your children’.
4. It found that the service it provided ‘between 17 November and the date of your first formal complaint (was) inadequate and unacceptable’, that the resident had not been provided with ‘clear information on timescales or process for completion’ and that it had not returned calls she had made.
5. It also noted that while several operatives had attended the repair, ‘none of (them) were able to fix the shower’ and, once it had been established that the new appliance was faulty, the resident had incorrectly been advised to contact the manufacturer. The landlord acknowledged that this should have been its responsibility.
6. The resident had been without adequate bathing facilities until 20 December 2020, and she had not been offered ‘alternative accommodation’ until 7 December 2020.
Regarding the reported mould in the property, the landlord noted:
1. The resident had reported she had been advised by the property owner the mould was caused by ‘poor ventilation and heating’, that she needed to ‘wash it off and move furniture’ but that she doubted this conclusion as her carpets were wet and she cold ‘ see water dripping from the ceiling’.
2. It advised that it had arranged for an inspection to take place on 15 February 2021, and if any works were identified, it would instruct the owner to ‘take the correct remedial action’. The landlord also noted that the resident had contacted it ‘several times’ and been advised that it would speak to the owner, ‘but there has been no further progress’.
Regarding the condition of the resident’s garden, the landlord noted that:
1. ‘The concrete is cracked and turning to rubble’ and that the resident believed this was caused by tree roots.
2. A contractor had attended but ‘applied cement to the wrong area’ so the problem was still unresolved, and the resident remained concerned that the garden area posed potential hazards for her children.
3. It confirmed that it would also inspect the garden when it attended on 15 February 2021 and would make ‘further recommendations’ as necessary.
In conclusion, the landlord made the following findings:
1. There had been ‘significant failures’ in its customer service and the service the resident had received was ‘extremely poor’, as she had to ‘phone and email staff repeatedly in order to get any…responses, and…the information received has been unhelpful and inaccurate’.
2. The resident had been without suitable bathing facilities for an ‘unreasonable period’ and, while she had been offered hotel accommodation on 7 December 2020, this had not been ‘feasible’ as she had at that time contracted Covid-19.
3. It offered compensation for the ‘poor customer service and distress’ caused, made up of a 50% rebate for December 2020’s rent due to the lack of bathing facilities, and £200 ‘goodwill payment by way of apology’ for poor service.
4. It noted the resident’s enquiry about her rent arrears and advised that the compensation would ‘offset a significant amount of your current rent arrears’.
5. It advised it would receive an update following the inspection on 15 February 2021 and would advise the resident of any findings and next steps.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2021 to advise that she remained unhappy with its response. Information provided by the landlord shows that, on 26 February 2021, it proposed a further mediation appointment with the resident, to which she agreed. This meeting took place on 11 March 2021 and, following this, the landlord provided a further written response to summarise the meeting and revised its offer of compensation. The landlord noted that:
1. It had asked its Area Manager to act as a single point of contact to ‘ensure that all outstanding issues are resolved’.
2. The shower was now fixed, and the owner would be addressing the outstanding issues with the garden and mould in the property, although the landlord would ‘monitor this situation to post inspect the work once complete’.
3. It would contact the Local Authority to advise that the resident had requested a transfer and would not be interested in remaining in the property if the owner took over managing the property themself. It also noted that any rehousing options would be down to the Local Authority and their waiting list criteria.
4. It also advised the resident to contact the Local Authority to ensure that she was receiving the correct amount of Local Housing Allowance.
5. It again acknowledged that it was offering compensation ‘for the poor service we have provided, particularly in relation to our slow response to getting your shower fixed, and the impact this had on you and your family’. It advised that it was increasing its offer to £1000, consisting of £763.75 (65% of the resident’s rent for December 2020) and a ‘goodwill payment’ of £236.25.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord advised that the resident initially accepted its offer, before contacting it again on 8 April 2021 to say she had reconsidered. On 29 April 2021, the resident then contacted this Service to advise she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wished to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation.
The resident further corresponded with this Service on 1 June 2021 and clarified she did not consider the complaint to be resolved and that she felt several issues remained outstanding. She also advised that she believed the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient and she considered an offer of £4750 would be more suitable redress. This consisted of: £750 for delayed repairs in her garden; £500 regarding the damp issues (which she stated were ongoing); £500 for issues regarding her rent, including that she had been held liable for arrears at least partly incurred by her ex-partner; £500 for the anxiety caused by the landlord advising it was handing the property back and the owner advising he would sell the property; £500 for the delayed repair to her shower; £1000 for ‘neglect’ by the landlord; and £1000 regarding the behaviour of the property owner and his use of operatives who the resident did not believe were qualified.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including to the shower and garden

Information available to this Service shows that the resident had reported issues with the power of the shower to the owner back in 2019 and, at the time that the shower stopped working in November 2020, she indicated that this issue had not been resolved. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence that the matter was reported to the landlord, and the issue appears to have been dealt with by the property owner. While the landlord retained overall responsibility for repairs, there is no evidence that it was aware of the issue so it cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in not resolving the issue sooner.
However, once the shower stopped working on or around 17 November 2020, email correspondence shows that the resident contacted it regarding the matter. While there are no entries regarding its initial response the shower repair within the repair records seen by this Service, the landlord’s records do note the resident chased the repair on 23 November 2020. The landlord noted that the ‘initial job was raised and then a plumber was needed so they raised a new (repair order) last week’. The landlord’s records note that the resident advised that a plumber had then attended at midnight and proceeded to ‘trip the electrics’ before saying it ‘wasn’t his job’ and that the resident needed a new shower. The landlord’s entry refers to entries made on a different records system, which this Service has not been provided with details of, which noted that a contractor had attended but ‘the job was raised as repairs to a copper pipe’ in error. The landlord’s records noted that ‘the shower need urgently to be checked to see if it is a hazard, it also needs to (be) repaired or replaced’ and noted that the resident had four children with her in the property.
Following this, landlord records show that the resident contacted it again on 27 November 2020 to advise that no one had attended, and the day after the property owner also got in touch with the landlord to chase the repair, advising that the resident had contacted him to enquire when the repair would be completed.
From the information available, and there are concerns over the level of details contained within its repair records, there is evidence that the landlord’s initial response to the repair report was confused, seemingly sending the wrong trade to attend the issue on more than one occasion. This was not appropriate and contributed to an avoidable delay in resolving the issue. This meant the resident and her family were without washing facilities for a longer period of time, caused her distress and time and trouble in chasing up the repair. However, within its complaint responses, the landlord has not disputed this and has acknowledged that ‘several’ operatives attended the repair without being able to resolve the matter, before it finally contacted the owner on 2 December 2020 to provide a quote for installing a new shower, which was then completed on 7 December 2020. However, after the new shower was installed, an electrical fault meant that it was still unusable, meaning the resident remained without washing facilities for a further two weeks until the matter was resolved on 20 December 2020.
In its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failings in dealing with the shower repair, noting that the service the resident had received after reporting the shower fault was ‘inadequate and unacceptable’. It also acknowledged that the resident had not been ‘provided with clear information on timescales…for completion’ and noted that she had contacted its Customer Service Centre, but her calls had not been returned. It further acknowledged that the resident had not been offered temporary accommodation when she should have been and that she was incorrectly advised to contact the manufacturer when the newly installed shower developed a fault.
This was a reasonable response from the landlord and showed that, in carrying out its complaint investigation, it appropriately identified shortcomings with its response to the repair, that it had not acted in accordance with its Repairs Policy, and it had not treated the resident fairly by leaving her without washing facilities for what it described as ‘an unreasonable’ period of time. Having identified these failings, it was appropriate that the landlord decided it would offer compensation to the resident for its ‘poor customer service and distress caused’ and this showed that the landlord was attempting to ‘put things right’ in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However, while it was positive that the landlord acknowledged failures with how it responded to the repair, such as wrong trades attending on ‘several’ occasions, its response should have provided more detail regarding how these failures had occurred.
Regarding the landlord’s offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its initial offer of a £200 goodwill gesture and a 50% rebate of one month’s rent (December 2020) did not constitute reasonable redress and its offer should have been higher so as to properly acknowledge the inconvenience and distress the resident had been caused. It was positive therefore that, after the resident refused its offer, the landlord offered further mediation to the resident to try and reach a resolution to her complaint and, following this, it increased its offer of compensation to a total of £1000 (a 65% rent rebate plus £236.25 goodwill gesture’). In the landlord’s complaint response, while it also addresses reported repair issues with the resident’s garden, and reports of damp and mould, the compensation offered appears to relate solely to how it handled the shower repair and how this affected the resident. Assuming this is the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the revised offer of compensation offered by the landlord was more appropriate and constituted reasonable redress for the identified failings and inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
Considering the concerns raised by the resident over broken concrete in her garden and potential trip hazards, the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response acknowledged that ‘a contractor did attend but applied cement to the wrong area’, so the issue was not resolved. However, the landlord does not make clear whether it sent the operative, or if they were sent by the owner, to whom the resident had originally reported the issue. This again indicates that the landlord’s repair records should contain greater detail and provide more information about orders raised and when they were actioned, especially given that the facts of this case appear to highlight there was sometimes confusion regarding whether it, or the owner of the property, would carry out repairs reported by the resident.
Landlord repair records show that it emailed the owner on 27 October 2020, advising that it had received a report from the resident regarding ‘large gaps in the concrete of the back garden pathway’. It noted that the repair had been ‘estimated’ to have a value of below £250 and would therefore be carried out by the landlord and charged back to the owner. However, the repair records note that the owner replied two days later and advised that ‘the path has been cemented in the gaps as requested’ on 28 October 2020. A further entry refers to another email from the owner sent on 7 November 2020 which advised that they had contacted the resident regarding ‘rubble’ in the garden and agreed with her that they would reattend in the Spring (of 2021).
However, in her complaint, the resident outlined that, while the owner had attended to fill in gaps in the concrete, they had filled in the wrong area and so the issue remained unresolved, and the garden remained unsafe for her children. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up this report after the resident brough the issue to its attention in December 2020, or that it considered carrying out a post-inspection of the repairs carried out by the owner to ensure whether they were satisfactory. This was not appropriate and meant that the landlord, who retained overall responsibility for repairs under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, did not act in accordance with its repair responsibilities.
After the resident confirmed that, while works had been done, but carried out incorrectly, there was then an unreasonable delay by the landlord of over two months before it carried out a further inspection (on 15 February 2021, proposed within its Stage Two complaint response). This meant that, although the landlord appeared initially to respond appropriately by contacting the owner and raising a repair order for the damaged concrete, it ultimately did not act reasonably by not responding to the further concerns raised by the resident and not considering carrying out a post-inspection of the work completed by the owner. The information available for exactly what work was carried out is also vague, highlighting again the need for more detailed repair records so the landlord can better evidence what actions were, or were not, carried out.
In further correspondence with the resident, after its mediation session in March 2021, the landlord advised that the outstanding garden repairs ‘are now being addressed by (the owner). We will monitor this situation and arrange for our repairs supervisor to post inspect the work once complete’. In June 2021 when bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident had advised that no-one had yet attended from the landlord to inspect the work carried out by the owner and that the repair issues have still yet to be resolved.
There are no further entries in the landlord’s repair records after the email from the owner advising they would ‘return in the Spring’, although there is a record of an email from the owner sent on 9 March 2021 advising that they were ‘in the middle of back garden cement work’, and reliant on good weather to complete the job, although there were no further details. This is not appropriate and means that the landlord is not able to evidence whether it did carry out a post-inspection, as it advised the resident it would do, or that it has carried out any further investigation as to whether the repair had been appropriately completed by the owner, or whether further work may be required, particularly as the resident has advised that, as she sees it, the garden remains unsafe. This is not appropriate and indicates that the landlord has not acted reasonably by not complying with its repair responsibilities, while it also unfairly raised the resident’s expectations that it would carry out a further inspection, which it does not appear to have done.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles highlight the importance of not only identifying required actions as part of a complaint response, but of fulfilling them in a timely fashion and the landlord does not appear to have done so here. An Order has therefore been made regarding this at the end of the report and the Ombudsman additionally considers that an award of compensation would be appropriate redress for an apparently avoidable delay in progressing this issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

In the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response, it notes that the resident advised in her complaint that her ‘home is affected by mould every winter’ but the owner of the property had inspected and advised that it was due to ‘poor ventilation and heating and (they) advise you to wash it off and move furniture’. It noted that the resident did not agree with this diagnosis and advised that it would therefore carry out an inspection of the property on 15 February 2021. However, while there is no evidence available that indicates the landlord was made aware of this issue prior to the resident submitting her complaint (and it is noted that her complaint refers to her corresponding with the owner over the issue and him carrying out an inspection), once she brought the matter to the landlord’s attention, it is not clear why it did not respond sooner and carry out an inspection. While it was positive that the landlord advised the resident in its complaint response the action that it would take, and when, by offering a prompt inspection appointment, its overall response prior to this was not appropriate and there was an avoidable delay in responding to the resident’s report of damp in her property, for which it has not provided an adequate explanation.
However, although there do not appear to be any formal reports regarding the findings made by the landlord during its inspection, its repair records do indicate that it subsequently raised work orders. Entries on its repair records note it emailed the owner on 23 February 2021 to instruct them to carry out a ‘mould wash’ as it identified ‘mould growth in the front bedroom – under the window and in both corners of the room’ and it chased the owner regarding this on 3 March 2021. The owner responded to advise they had made an appointment for 9 March 2021 and later updated the landlord to advise that work to remove pointing mortar ‘that was bridging damp course’ had been completed. They provided a photo of the work, which this Service has not seen. The owner also relayed that they had ‘advised (the resident) to open windows and allow air to flow’.
However, as with the repairs to the garden path, the landlord advised the resident in its final complaint response March 2021 that it would post-inspect the work carried out by the owner and there is no evidence that it did so. For the reasons outlined above, this was not appropriate and meant that the landlord is not able to evidence whether it completed actions it had promised the resident it would do.
While there are no records indicating that the landlord had been made aware of issues with mould prior to the resident submitting her complaint, it is noted that its Stage Two response acknowledged that she had ‘tried to discuss (the mould) with (us) several times’ and it had advised that it would ‘speak to (the owner), but there has been no further progress. However, the landlord did not provide any further explanation for why the matter had not been progressed and did not provide any further details regarding when the resident had contacted it to discuss the issue. This lack of evidence means it is not possible to determine whether there was fault or avoidable delay by the landlord in responding to reports made by the resident and again raises concerns over the quality of the landlord’s record keeping, which has undermined its ability to evidence what action it has, or has not, taken.
It is noted that the relationship between the resident, landlord and property owner may have complicated the response to some of the reported repair issues, with evidence showing the resident reported some repairs direct to the owner rather than the landlord, some repairs being completed by the owner and others being carried out by the landlord and charged back to the owner. This Service has not seen any evidence of a contract or Service Level Agreement between the landlord and owner, but it is positive that the landlord’s complaint responses, and its correspondence with this Service, have shown that it accepts ultimate responsibility for repairs being carried out at the property, as per the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
That being the case, it is of concern that the landlord’s repair records note that, having carried out some remedial repairs in March 2021, the owner advised the resident to ‘open windows’ when she made further reports of condensation affecting the property. It is also noted that, following its inspection in February 2021, landlord records suggest it provided the resident with an information leaflet regarding ‘condensation control’.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould ‘It’s Not Lifestyle’ (October 2021) recommends that landlord should adopt a ‘zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould’ and that they should also ‘avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident’, while also ‘(evaluating) what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps’. While it is acknowledged that the landlord carried out an inspection in February 2021 and raised works following this, the resident has advised this Service that her issues with condensation in the property are ongoing and, while there are actions that residents can take with regards ventilating their property, it is of concern that the advice given to her by the owner and the landlord seems to centre around her making lifestyle adjustments to prevent any further issues. This is not appropriate, and this Service has therefore made an Order and Recommendation regarding this at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its communication with the resident

Records show the resident emailed concerns to the landlord on 25 November 2021, outlining that she considered she was neglected by the landlord regarding the as yet unresolved shower repair. Despite stating this was a complaint, and landlord repair records relating to the shower noting that a complaint had been made, the landlord did not provide a response. There is also no evidence that the complaint was formally acknowledged. There was also no formal response to the further complaint emails sent by the resident on 7 December 2021, which raised additional concerns regarding her garden repairs and rent account issues. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly by properly acknowledging her complaint and progressing it through its complaint procedures. This ultimately caused the resident time and trouble as she had to contact this Service due to not having received a response from the landlord.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord did engage its complaint procedures and provided a response at Stage Two, although it then did so five days outside of its stated 10 working day response target. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord should have acknowledged this and provided the resident with an apology, or an update to advise its response would be delayed, this was not a significant delay and is unlikely to have caused the resident significant detriment.
The landlord did acknowledge that the resident’s complaint had not been ‘satisfactorily resolved’ at Stage One and also that its communication with the resident had not been an example of good practice. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord acknowledged it had not sent a Stage One response but in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident should also have addressed this and provided an explanation and/or an apology to her for not having initially replied to the concerns she raised.
In its Stage Two response, the landlord initially offered a £200 goodwill gesture for ‘poor service’ but it was not clear precisely what this was related to. When it revised the offer upwards in its further correspondence after a mediation meeting with the resident, it still did not provide further information regarding this. It would have been more helpful if the landlord had been clear about which areas of service failure it was seeking to address with its goodwill gesture, both to provide greater transparency and clarity to the resident, but also to help this Service determine whether it had made a reasonable level of redress.
However, following its Stage Two response, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reply advising that she remained unhappy with its offer and that she did not consider her complaint had been addressed correctly by offering her a mediation session to further discuss the complaint. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take and showed that, after issuing its final response, it made an effort to continue communication with the resident, sought to further understand her issues and was willing to trying to find a resolution to the complaint, which led to it increasing its offer of redress to a level that the Ombudsman considers to be more appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including to the resident’s shower and garden.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint and its communication with the resident.

Reasons

There was an avoidable delay by the landlord when responding to the resident’s report of a broken shower and it has acknowledged that as a result, she was left without washing facilities for an extended period. There is evidence of confusion in the landlord’s response to the matter, with operatives from the wrong trade being sent on more than one occasion and its communication with the resident over the issue was not appropriate, which it has also acknowledged.
While the landlord has offered compensation to the resident amounting to 60% of the month’s rent for the period her family was affected by the broken shower (December 2020), its complaint response did not address failings with regards to its handling of repairs to her garden pathway. There was an avoidable delay from when the resident raised the matter within her complaint to it carrying out an inspection in February 2021, and there is no evidence that it carried out an inspection after work was carried out by the owner, which it had advised the resident it would do as part of its complaint response. This was despite her reporting that work had been carried out in the wrong area.
While there is no evidence that the landlord had been made aware of damp issues in the property prior to the resident lodging her complaint, there was an avoidable delay in carrying out an inspection after the resident brought the issue to its attention. While it raised works relatively promptly once it had carried out an inspection, as above, there is also no evidence that the landlord carried out a post-inspection of work carried out by the property owner as it had advised the resident it would do.
The landlord did not properly acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint until she had taken the time and trouble to contact this Service after not receiving a response. While it acknowledged to this Service the failings it identified regarding its complaint handling and general communication with the resident, its response did not provide the resident with the same detail and, while it was positive that it made offers of both compensation regarding the shower repair and a goodwill gesture regarding ‘poor service’, it should have been clearer regarding which failing(s) the goodwill gesture related to. It also should have considered an additional small offer of compensation regarding its response to the garden and mould issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Pay the resident the £1000 it originally offered (consisting of £763.75 rent rebate for December 2020 and £236.25 goodwill gesture for ‘poor service’).
2. Pay the resident an additional £450 compensation for its response to her concerns regarding the garden path repair and mould in her property (consisting of £300 for the mould and £150 for the garden).
3. Contact the resident to arrange a time to inspect the works carried out by the property owner relating to the garden pathway. It should also carry out a further inspection regarding the ongoing condensation that the resident has reported. After carrying out its inspection, the landlord should write to the resident with its findings and outline a timeframe for any actions identified. It should provide this Service with a copy of this letter.
Owing to the number of failings identified in this report, the landlord should complete a review of its overall management of this case and identify any lessons learned following the Ombudsman’s investigation. It should also complete an action plan regarding how it can improve its service to both its residents and the private owners of properties it manages.

Recommendations

The landlord should familiarise itself with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould and consider whether it needs to make any changes to how it deals with resident’s reports to ensure that it takes a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to such issues and that residents are not required to manage the issue through ‘lifestyle’ adjustments.
Although not forming part of this complaint, this investigation has noted that while the landlord (the managing agent) responded to issues raised by the resident and this Service and their service standards and complaints procedures are published and available for scrutiny, the managing agent’s name is not on the resident’s tenancy agreement. While enquiries carried out during this investigation have established that the managing agent and the company name on the tenancy agreement are part of the same wider organisation, the landlord should ensure it is clear to residents that this is the case. So as to ensure transparency regarding which organisation retains ultimate responsibility for the tenant/landlord relationship and where residents should take any concerns that they have, the landlord should review the information it provides to residents, particularly with regards to how they can report repairs, to ensure that this is clear.