Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202328138)

Decision
Case ID	202328138
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident’s tenancy began on 27 October 2022. The landlord had vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems, due to a physical disability. The resident told the landlord he had vulnerabilities as he has cerebral palsy and mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s report about damage to his personal possessions.
We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about damage to his personal possessions.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs

There is no record that the landlord told the resident of the results of a damp survey at his property. There is no record it told him what damp repair work it would be doing or gave him a timescale for this. There is no record that it considered his vulnerabilities in its response.

Damage to personal possessions

The landlord accepted that its failure to correctly diagnose a leak to his sink did play some part in the damage to his belongings. Despite this it did not provide him with a suitable remedy for its failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord unreasonably delayed the resident’s complaint, and it did not apologise to him for this. The evidence indicates there was a lack of ownership of his complaint by the landlord. It failed to follow its complaints policy, as it did not inform him of stage 3 in its process, which was present at the time of his complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior manager provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. Confirm its position regarding the cavity wall inspection of the resident’s property. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £575.60 made up as follows: £50 for its failure in handling repairs to the resident’s property £100 for its failure in handling the resident’s reports about damage to his personal possessions. £250 for its complaint handling failure. £175.60 it offered the resident in its stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 December 2025
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident and provide him with its position on whether it will reconsider his insurance claim, based on the failures we have identified.	No later than 17 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord reinstates its offer of £125 decorating allowance to the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 November 2023	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said: It had not accepted responsibility for the damp he had reported to it and felt it was treating him unfairly. He had reported damp in his property to it in May 2023, but it did not visit him until July 2023, as it had said that was the earliest opportunity for it to do so. It had not correctly diagnosed the leak in his bathroom. There had been further damage to his bathroom because of this. Although it had completed all its damp work he was still waiting for it to fit a new wet room. He had spoken to his doctor about the impact his housing situation was having on his physical and mental health. He did not want to accept its offer of a decorating allowance, as it did not cover the cost in redecorating or replacing his damaged belongings.
27 November 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said: Its records showed he first reported damp in June 2023. At the repairs visit in July 2023 it told him it needed to arrange for an inspection of pipework in his bathroom which it believed was causing the leak. It visited his property on 4 August 2023 and noted the issue was not a pipe leak but rising damp. Its damp contractor inspected his bathroom on 17 August 2023. It found that the bathroom waste pipe was leaking and repaired this the same day. It visited his property on 21 August 2023 and agreed with him that it would start damp works on 5 September 2023. It completed its damp repair works on 26 September 2023 and offered him £125 decoration allowance. It found that it had acted accordingly to resolve the damp issues to his property. However, it partially upheld his complaint about unfair treatment due to its contractor misdiagnosis of the water leak. It had raised a repair to replace his bathroom flooring and boxing in on 19 September 2023. However, this was twice delayed due to sickness and redeployment of staff to help with local floods. It had told him of this and rebooked its repair for 14 and 15 November 2023.
13 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said: He wanted it to provide him with compensation for the damage caused to his belongings, along with the anxiety, stress and inconvenience caused to him. It had not discussed the decorating allowance with him, and he would not accept this until it offers him a more reasonable amount. It was responsible for rectifying the damage it had caused, and it did not complete proper checks of the property before it offered him it. Its damp report does not say his living habits caused condensation in his property, and he cannot be held responsible for its slow response or damage. It had not contacted him about the cavity wall insulation that its damp report mentioned.
04 January 2024	The landlord’s contractor sent the resident a further stage 1 response. It said: It had not fully followed the job description when it visited his property on 4 August 2023 to fix the leak. As there was no sign of a continuous leak it decided that rising damp was the issue. However, it never removed boxing in to check the pipes. Having reviewed its records it had concluded that most of the damage to the walls had occurred before its repair visit. It felt as it did not cause the damage, the best course of action was for him to contact his home insurance provider. Its contractor will contact him about the damp reports recommendation that it inspected his cavity wall.
16 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It had asked its contractor to send a further stage 1 letter due to new issues he raised with it following its stage 1 response. It again explained its misdiagnosis of the leak in his bathroom and that it had raised a job to inspect his cavity wall. It felt that it had considered his complaint and offered him a resolution in line with its complaint procedure. It would consider his request for additional compensation, and it would arrange a further inspection of his property so it could fully consider the correct outcome.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated his complaint to us on 9 February 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decoration allowance offer and wanted to be compensated for costs he had incurred along with the stress and anxiety he had experienced.
18 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 response. It said: It would offer him £125 decoration allowance and an additional £175.60 compensation, equivalent to 2 weeks rent for the distress and inconvenience to him.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Repairs
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will minimise the inconvenience to residents and carry out repairs efficiently and to a high standard. It will respond to emergency and urgent repairs immediately within 5 days or less and to non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it has zero tolerance to the issue and takes a pro-active approach. It recognises the impact that damp, mould, and condensation can have on its residents, including distress and concerns about health and wellbeing. It will take prompt action to remedy issues and support its residents by offering guidance, advice, and assistance throughout the process. It will visit residents’ properties within 10 working days to investigate the issue.

Damp and mould

The landlord raised a damp and mould repair job on 14 June 2023. Its records show that it inspected the resident’s property on 25 July 2023 and found there were high moisture readings in the property and internal walls were damp. However, its repair visit was 29 working days over its published timeframe. This was a failure by it to follow its damp and mould policy, which was not reasonable.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the resident’s property on 10 August 2023. It found that it needed to refer the issue to a specialist damp contractor. It is unclear why it did not decide this at its first inspection. However, this was in line with its damp and mould policy which states it will refer cases of severe mould to a specialist contractor which was reasonable.
There is no record that following the landlord’s 2 visits to the resident’s property that it explained to him what its next steps would be following its referral to the specialist contractor. This was a failure by it to follow its damp and mould policy, which was not reasonable.
The landlord’s damp contractor inspected the resident’s property on 17 August 2023. It recommended the landlord undertake repair works after it found:
1. High moisture and humidity readings within the property.
2. Salt contamination on the walls of the property from water ingress.
3. Damp was likely present behind units in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. A leak was noted to be occurring.
5. Black mould growth was visible in the property.
6. The kitchen extractor fan was inadequate.
7. A further inspection of the wet room floor, drainage and pipework may be needed.
The landlord’s records show it began repair works to the property on 5 September 2023, when the resident temporarily moved in with family and friends. Although he told us that he moved back into his property on 19 September 2023, there is no record that the landlord provided him with a timeline of its repair works. This was not reasonable.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident contacted it on 6 September 2023. He wanted to know if it would be installing new kitchen units, as they had been damaged by mould. However, there is no record that it confirmed its position on this with him. There is also no record in the landlord’s evidence that shows it told the resident of the issues that its contractor found or what repairs it would be doing. This was not reasonable and shows a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses say it completed its damp repairs on 26 September 2023. The resident also confirmed to us it completed its repair work when he moved back into the property. This was reasonable. However, its records show that the resident contacted it again on 3 November 2023, as the fitting of the wet room by its contractor had been delayed until 15 November 2023. The landlord’s evidence does not include an inspection of the wet room, as its damp contractor had recommended it did. There is also no record that it confirmed its position about fitting a new wet room to the resident. This was unreasonable and a record keeping failure.
When the resident raised his complaint, he told the landlord he felt it had treated him unfairly. This was due to time it had taken to first inspect the damp issue, after he had reported it. The landlord’s stage 1 response incorrectly told him that it had acted accordingly in its response to his reports of damp and mould. However, it did not recognise its failure to meet the timeframe of its damp and mould policy. This was unreasonable.
When the resident raised his complaint, he said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £125 decoration allowance – £25 per habitable room. Its complaint responses said that this was in line with its policy and that its technical officer had told him of this when it completed its damp repairs. The landlord’s evidence does not include the policy it referred to, so we have been unable to confirm this. However, there is no record that its technical officer told him of this. This was a record keeping failure.

Bathroom sink leak

The landlord’s records show that it did not diagnose a leak in his bathroom when it visited his property on 4 August 2023. It stage 1 response acknowledged this and apologised to the resident, which was reasonable. Its records indicate that its inspection of his property on 10 August 2023 also found there was no leak present. However, is complaint responses were silent on this matter. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s records show that it completed its repair to the leak on 17 August 2023, when it fitted a new waste pipe. However, this was 46 working days after it had raised a repair to investigate the leak on 14 June 2023. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord to follow the published timeframe of its repairs policy to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 working days.
When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that the landlord should have completed proper checks to his property before he moved in. However, the leaking pipe was located behind boxing in, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified it when the property was empty. Landlords have limited resources that they must use for the benefit of all its residents.

Summary

The resident has told us that the landlord refused to provide him with a copy of its contractor’s damp survey. While there is no evidence it refused his request, there is also no record that it told him of the results of the survey. This was despite its contractor telling him on 14 August 2023 that the landlord would be in touch to inform him of the results. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure by it.
While the landlord completed damp repairs within a reasonable timeframe, its communication with the resident was poor. There is no record that it told him what damp repairs it intended to complete or provide him with a clear timeframe for this. This was not reasonable.
The resident has said the landlord offered to move him to temporary accommodation while it completed its damp repair work. This was reasonable. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it discussed this with him or considered his vulnerabilities in its response. This was a record keeping failure, which is a concern given the seriousness of the issue.
The resident has said that the landlord completed all its repair works in November 2023 and there had been no further issue since. This was positive and indicates the repairs it completed provided him with a lasting result. Its complaint response offered him £175.60 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. While this went some way to acknowledge the impact on him, we do not consider it was sufficient given the further failures this investigation has found.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a further £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge.

Complaint	Damage to the resident’s belongings
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s evidence shows the resident submitted a claim to its insurance department on 30 September 2023. When he raised his complaint, he told the landlord that the leak from the pipe had caused damage to his belongings and its delay in repairing the leak had caused further damage to his bathroom as a result. At this point there is no evidence that the landlord had responded to the claim he had submitted to its insurance department. Its complaint responses show it accepted that it had initially not diagnosed the leak and accepted that the waste pipe had come apart, which had caused the leak. The landlord’s further stage 1 response told him to claim for damages through his home insurance provider, as most of the damage to his belongings was before it identified the leak on 4 August 2023. However, it did not tell him of the progress or outcome of the claim he had submitted to its insurance department. This was not reasonable and caused the resident confusion.
It is reasonable to conclude from the landlord’s further stage 1 response, that the leak did cause further damage to the resident’s belongings after it did not diagnose this at its first visit. That it took no responsibility for any part to the damage to his belongings was unreasonable. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 it was responsible for keeping his property in repair. It accepted that it had not done this at its first repair visit. It would have been reasonable for its complaint responses to have considered this along with the overall delay in repairing the issue in the remedy it offered. Its failure to do this caused the resident inconvenience as he had to spend further time and effort pursuing the landlord’s insurance department for compensation.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a further £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge.
We have also order that the landlord review its decision not to offer the resident compensation for the damage to his belongings, taking into consideration the failures we have identified.

Complaint	Complaint a Handling
Finding	Maladministration

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord used a 3-stage complaint process. Its complaints procedure – within its repairs policy – says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days at stage 1. It will provide a response within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Stage 3 reviews will take place within 5 working days of a resident requesting this, with a further option to refer a resident’s complaint to a stage 3 appeals panel for decision within 20 working days of a resident’s request.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 acknowledgement on 17 November 2023. This was 10 working days after he had raised his complaint and was 8 working days over its published timeframe. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its complaints procedure.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 16 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This was reasonable and within the published timeframe of its complaint procedure. However, its response did not consider the cavity wall issue that the resident had raised with it. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord did not send him a stage 2 response. Instead, it sent him a further stage 1 response. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow its complaint procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The further stage 1 response was sent by the landlord’s contractor, rather than the landlord itself. It did not tell the resident the reason it did this, which is likely to have caused him confusion. The Code introduced in 2024 allows landlord’s contractors to handle complaints. However, the Code at the time allowed landlords to allocate complaints to another person if they had complaint handling skills and there was no conflict of interest. It is unclear whether its contractor had complaint handling skills. However, we consider there was a conflict of interest as part of the resident’s complaint related to the leak which its contractor did not diagnose at its first visit. The approach the landlord took here is a concern and was a failure by it to follow its complaint procedure and the Code.
The landlord’s further stage 1 provided the resident with a response about the cavity wall issue. However, the same contractor that had sent him its further stage 1 response, said it would contact him to arrange an appointment. This was not reasonable. This caused the resident further inconvenience that could have been avoided if its response had told him when the cavity wall inspection would take place.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the cavity wall job was still outstanding. This was 104 days after the recommendation from its damp contractor. However, it did not provide the resident with an explanation for the delay, and it is unclear whether it had completed this inspection. This was unreasonable and indicates a lack of ownership by the landlord, which caused the resident inconvenience. He told it on 13 January 2024 that it was “unacceptable” that he had to chase up another appointment and that it had not told him earlier that the damp contractor had recommended an inspection of his cavity wall.
The resident contacted us on 6 January 2024, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s further stage 1 response. We then contacted the landlord to advise that its response was not compliant with the Code and asked it to explain why it did not send the resident a stage 2 response. Its stage 2 response said that it had sent a further stage 1 response as it considered the resident had raised new issues following his first complaint. However, its complaint procedure did not include a provision for steps it will take when a resident raised new issues with it after it had sent its stage 1 response. Had the landlord referred to the Code it should have considered raising a new complaint if it felt this would delay its stage 2 response. However, it did not do this which caused the resident inconvenience and delayed him accessing this Service. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This was 1 working day over its published timeframe. This delay had minimal impact on the resident. However, its response was poor, and it advised the resident its stage 1 responses had properly considered his complaint. This indicates the landlord’s response was rushed or lacked due care. It did not acknowledge the failures that this investigation has found. It also did not tell the resident that he could escalate his complaint to stage 3 of its complaint process. This was a failure to follow its complaints procedure. Although it said the resident could escalate his complaint to this Service its response did not include the Ombudsman’s contact details. This was not compliant with the Code and a complaint handling failure.
During the landlord’s stage 2 investigation it asked the resident how much compensation he wanted. He told it that he wanted £3000 to replace his damaged belongings and redecoration costs. However, its stage 2 response did not provide the resident with an answer to his request for compensation. Instead, it arranged for an inspector to visit his property so it could consider the outcome fully. This was not reasonable, as the landlord’s records show that it had available evidence to decide about this without a further inspection.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 response on 18 March 2024. This was 34 working days after an inspection of his property on 30 January 2024, that its stage 2 response arranged. It offered him £175.60 for the stress and inconvenience caused. However, it did not provide a response to the resident’s request for compensation to the damage caused to his belongings. This was unreasonable. It should have considered setting out its position on his request and explaining why it would not pay him for the damage as he requested. This was a complaint handling failure.
The evidence shows that the resident had received a copy of the damp inspectors report at some point during the complaint process. He told this Service the landlord’s insurance department provided him with this after it had told him the damp and mould were due to his living conditions. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence of this, so we are unable to determine this part of the issue.
The resident’s complaint took 93 working days to complete the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, the landlord did not apologise to the resident for this. Had the landlord conducted a meaningful investigation into the resident’s complaint it could have sought to put things right for him. Despite his concerns about its communication with him about the damp contractors report, its complaint responses failed to consider this. Overall, its responses did not demonstrate that its complaints process was used as an effective resolution tool for the resident with vulnerabilities. This adversely affected him, as he had to spend time and effort in chasing it for answers. This was not reasonable.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation for his distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the detrimental impact the landlord’s failure had on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses predated the current version of the Code. It has since changed its complaint policy following the introduction of the Code in April 2024. While its complaints policy still has an optional third stage which we would not consider is compliant with the Code, its complaints procedure has only 2 stages which would be compliant with the Code. However, we acknowledge that it is currently working with us to address this.
We have also ordered the landlord completes training with its complaint handling staff focussing on the failures we have found in this investigation to assist it with effectively handling any future complaints.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was lacking. For example, there is no record of conversations with the resident that its evidence states happened.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. There is no record that it told him what damp repairs it would be doing. He also had to chase it for answers about the progress of his complaint.