Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202342852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342852

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

25 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a leaking roof.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Reports of a leaking radiator.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. She lives at the property with her husband (who. is a joint tenant) and her 5 children. She has lived at the property since May 2021.
On 19 January 2022 the resident reported a leak from the roof and a leaking radiator. She said that it was causing damp and mould. The landlord inspected the roof on 31 January 2022. It did not record any leak but did remove plastic from the loft insulation which it believed was causing the roof to sweat. It repaired the radiator on 22 March 2022. On 15 November 2022 the resident reported grey mould on the bedroom ceiling.
The resident complained on 3 July 2023 about the lack of action to repair the leak or inspect the damp and mould. She was concerned about the impact on her family’s health as she had young children. She asked the landlord to inspect the property. She reported the grey mould on the ceiling again on 1 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. It apologised for the lack of communication and repairs delay. It offered £300 compensation which comprised of £50 for its complaint handling and £250 for repairs delays and poor communication. It scheduled an inspection for 1 September 2023 and a mould wash for 16 August 2023.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 August 2023 and asked for the inspection to go ahead before the mould wash. She said that her children were unable to use the bedroom and were sleeping in the living room. The landlord inspected the property on 1 September 2023. It said that the damp and mould was a result of condensation in the property.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 8 September 2023. She rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation. She reiterated her concerns about the impact on her family’s health. She asked for a comprehensive plan to resolve the damp and mould issues which she believed were caused by a leaking roof. The landlord raised a second damp and mould inspection on 25 September 2023, which the resident cancelled. The landlord conducted a mould wash on 10 October 2023 to 2 of the bedrooms. The third was inaccessible as there was a bed too large for the resident to move in time. It scheduled a second mould wash for 26 October 2023.
The landlord unsuccessfully attempted to conduct the second mould wash on 9 and 13 November 2023. On 14 November 2023 the resident said the mould had returned in the areas of the previous mould wash and asked the landlord to inspect the roof. On 23 November 2023 the resident said a roof leak caused the electrics to trip in the property. The landlord inspected the property again on 28 November 2023. It found water droplets on the ceiling caused by condensation. It recorded “major” mould visible in the bedroom and that the room was unusable. Other rooms were also “badly” affected by mould. On 12 December 2023 the landlord passed works to its contractor to:
1. Conduct a mould wash.
2. Thermal board 2 bedrooms.
3. Conduct damp related repairs to the living room, toilet, and stairwell.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2023. She said there were multiple unresolved repairs including leaks, mould, electrical problems, and a radiator leak. She asked the landlord to provide her with temporary accommodation. She reiterated the impact on her family’s health. On 5 January 2024 the landlord’s electrician was unable to conduct repairs because of water coming through the roof and “severe mould”. In January 2024 the landlord’s internal records show that it considered enforcement action stating that the resident had refused access to repairs. The resident disputed this statement by the landlord on 11 January 2024. She asked for it to escalate her complaint.
On 23 January 2024 the resident reported issues with the loft and roof inspections, including no-shows, cancellations, and inadequate assessments. She said the inspector dismissed her concerns about water and damp, attributing the issues to condensation. She believed a thorough internal inspection was necessary to address the underlying problems. The landlord planned to provide a dehumidifier on 6 February 2024, however the resident reported that the landlord did not attend. The internal works to treat the damp and mould began on 9 February 2024. On 9 and 12 February 2024 the resident raised concerns about the impact the works had on her family. There had been a water leak on 9 February 2024 leaving her without lighting and soaking her furniture she was using to sleep on. The landlord placed the resident in temporary hotel accommodation on 13 February 2024 until 26 March 2024.
The internal works were complete on 29 February 2024. The landlord cleared and repaired the gutters on 15 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. It apologised for its delay in responding to her emails and complaint. It offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. It did not uphold the complaint about the handling of reports of a roof leak, and damp and mould. It said that the inspections conducted found no evidence of a roof leak. It recognised that there were issues with its record keeping and offered £250 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2024.
The resident paid for a contractor to conduct a roof survey on 27 May 2024. She provided a copy of this survey to the Ombudsman. It identified the following:
1. Fascia, soffit, and gutters were damaged and required replacement.
2. The lead flashing around the chimney was in poor condition, with signs of wear and gaps. The poor flashing condition caused water ingress into the loft and interior walls, exacerbating moisture problems and contributing to mould growth and structural damage.
3. The chimney required repointing.
4. There was an absence of underlay felt or breathable membrane in the loft. There was insufficient attic ventilation, worn and old roof tiles in a poor condition, debris accumulation, and exposed joist deterioration.
5. If found mould growth in the loft on the roof deck, joists, and attic insulation.
6. There was a damaged joist.
7. The roof tiles were in a poor condition, with many broken, cracked, or missing.
8. There was debris such as leaves and twigs on the roof tiles.
Between May and July 2024, the landlord replaced the roof. The works formed part of a programmed improvements schedule across the estate. On 29 August 2024 the landlord installed extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord planned a further damp and mould inspection in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint, the resident told the landlord that there was a severe impact on her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the resident and her family’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused.
During the complaint journey the resident raised the issue of a leaking radiator on 13 December 2023. This should have prompted the landlord to review its handling of the matter and offer an outcome through its stage 2 response. Therefore, as it was a complaint handling failing that the landlord did not address the radiator matter, the Ombudsman has investigated.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s guide to repairs sets out the following timescales in which it will attend repairs depending on severity:
1. Emergency repairs are within 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are within 1-5 working days.
3. Non-urgent repairs are within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It acknowledges all complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where there are delays it will contact the complainant to inform them and give a revised timescale. This will be no more than 10 working days beyond the original response due date. It will seek the consent of the complainant for any other extension.

Reports of a leaking roof

The records show the resident first reported concerns of a leaking roof on 19 January 2022. The landlord’s internal records show it attended on 31 January 2022. This was within 8 working days and compliant with the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. However, there were no detailed records of this visit. It is unclear if a full inspection of the roof took place, only that the landlord found the insulation covered in plastic and removed it. The resident said throughout the complaint timeline that she believed the roof was leaking from this point.
The resident reported the condition of the roof frequently throughout her correspondence with the landlord between late 2022 and 2024. There are no records available to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted a detailed survey of the roof at any point. In her complaint on 3 July 2023 the resident said that repairs highlighted in her reports from January and November 2022 were unresolved. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to conduct a full roofing inspection despite the regularity of the resident’s reports during later 2022 to mid-2023.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. It identified that there was a repair raised to the loft hatch on 31 January 2022 that remained unresolved until 7 August 2023. Its apology for its failure to conduct the repairs was appropriate. However, the resident had reported leaks from the roof within her complaint. The landlord missed the opportunity to review its records and conduct a full inspection of the roof.
During a damp and mould inspection on 1 September 2023 the landlord said it found no problems with the roof. The inspector reported finding condensation forming into droplets on the ceiling. The resident disputed the inspector’s findings, saying that the visit did not include a visual inspection of the loft or roof. On 8 September 2023 she asked to meet with the landlord to discuss a plan to resolve the issues. Although the landlord acknowledged the email, it did not provide a full response, an action plan, or visit the resident.
The resident reiterated her concern that the roof was causing damp and mould in the property on 23 November 2023. She said that there had been a leak from the roof causing the electrics to trip in the bedrooms. She told the landlord that she felt the bedrooms were unsafe and was no longer using them. Her family were sleeping in the living room due to the conditions in the rooms. These issues would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord conducted a further inspection on 28 November 2023 where it found no evidence of a roof leak. It considered the water droplets forming on the ceiling to be the result of condensation. However, there was no record of a survey or detailed inspection of the roof conducted during this visit. The landlord was aware of the reports of water tripping the electrics in the bedrooms. It should have conducted a more detailed survey or inspection of the roof at this point. There was no record that it considered any other temporary measures to mitigate the impact on the resident and her family. Its failure to fully assess the risks and impact on the resident caused her distress and inconvenience.
On 5 January 2024 the landlord attended in response to the electrical issues reported in December 2023. The resident told the landlord that the electrician was unable to proceed with any repair work due to the presence of water coming from the loft. In its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024 the landlord denied that this was the issue. It said it was unable to conduct the works because the resident’s belongings and items blocked access to the sockets. It said there was a note to say water was coming from the roof area causing severe mould upstairs. It said the reason the electrician was unable to complete the works was not due to a leak, but due to the resident’s belongings being in the way of the sockets. The Ombudsman has reviewed the notes made during this visit. They show that the electrician did note that they could not access all sockets, but water was coming through the roof. It is therefore reasonable to determine that water was a contributing factor to the landlord’s inability to complete repairs to the sockets.
On 8 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord again for an inspection of the loft. The landlord raised an urgent roof inspection on 11 January 2024 and updated the resident on 17 January 2024. Although it should have made this decision sooner, its response to this request was reasonable.
On 17 January 2024 the landlord visited the property and noted that it needed to conduct a further inspection as soon as possible. It checked the loft space and recorded that there were no visible leaks from the roof and all rafters were dry. In her request to escalate the complaint on 18 January 2024 the resident said the landlord did not conduct a thorough roof inspection. It arrived unprepared to conduct an internal inspection of the loft only attending to check a condensation issue at the property. She told the landlord that she felt the landlord focused solely on an external assessment from the front of the property, neglecting any inspection of the rear. She reported that the replacement of the roof hatch was unresolved. The landlord should have addressed these issues within its complaint response. It should have used its complaint handling effectively to resolve the substantive issues raised by the resident. It did not and this caused additional distress and inconvenience for her.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the roof on 12 February 2024. This was more than a month after the landlord raised an urgent inspection order. Although the contractor reported no evidence of a leak, it did find some issues with the gutters and organised scaffolding to conduct repairs. The repairs to the gutters were complete on 15 April 2024. In total, there were around 3 months between the landlord passing works to its contractor and completing repairs. These delays would have further contributed to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024 the landlord said that there were no defects with the roof and there were no leaks. It recognised that there were record keeping failures as there were no notes from inspections in January 2024. The problems with its poor record keeping were an aggravating factor throughout its handling of the roof leak reports. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making which it could then have shared with the resident.
Having accepted its poor record keeping regarding the roof, the landlord said that it had acted reasonably. It said there was no evidence of a roof leak in November 2023 and February 2024. It believed that the focus on a leaking roof contributed to the delay in the contractor starting works. It set out how it had learned from the record keeping issues. It was fair to reflect on its record keeping faults and it was reasonable to rely on the findings of its specialist contractors.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of any roof survey or inspection report from the landlord or its contractors. The landlord should have ensured that it conducted a thorough assessment of the roof condition. Had it done so, it is probable that it would have identified faults with the roof. The roof survey arranged by the resident on 27 May 2024 is evidence of this. This survey showed various problems with the roof that would have contributed to water penetration into the property.
The weight given to the evidence provided by the resident is difficult to assess because she did not provide a copy to the landlord. Also, the landlord replaced the roof between May and June 2024. When asked, the landlord told this Service that it has not replaced the roof at any time. This is contrary to the evidence provided by the resident showing that the landlord’s contractor did replace the roof as part of an improvement programme. She has provided copies of correspondence from the landlord about the planned works and photos of the works in progress. This indicates that the landlord’s internal services are not communicating effectively with one another and a continuation of its poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking roof. The landlord did conduct some inspections and it relied on the advice and guidance of its specialist contractors. However, its records do not show any detailed survey taking place to assess the condition of the roof. It did not fully address the resident’s requests to meet with her and provide an action plan to resolve what the resident reported as long-standing water ingress. It did not address the impact this had on the resident in its complaint handling. It did not maintain clear records to know whether it had conducted substantial improvement works. There were delays inspecting the property or taking any action to resolve the reported leaks in the property. The landlord should pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of damp and mould

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. Where it has identified potential hazards it should conduct additional monitoring of the property. In this case, the damp and mould were present in the bedrooms of the property, presenting an increased risk of harm to the resident and her family.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. “Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner”.
2. “Ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy”.
The resident reported grey mould coming from the loft area, affecting the front bedroom, on 15 November 2022. In accordance with its policy the landlord should have arranged an inspection within 20 working days. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that it did anything with this initial report.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on her reports on 4 May 2023, when the landlord recognised the issue and directed her to make a complaint. She complained on 3 July 2023 about the lack of action from the landlord. She highlighted the impact the mould growth had on her family and the risks present to her children. She asked the landlord to conduct an inspection of the property. The landlord should have inspected the property, but it did not. Its failure to conduct an inspection or damp and mould survey early in the timeline caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident made further reports on 1 August 2023 as there had been no action by the landlord. The landlord recognised the delay in conducting repairs in its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. Its apology for the lack of communication and offer of £250 compensation for the delay were reasonable. It appropriately scheduled a mould wash treatment which it conducted on 16 August 2023.
During contact on 16 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that her children were unable to sleep in the bedroom. The landlord appropriately scheduled an inspection of the property for 1 September 2023. Its actions were reasonable following the reports in August 2023, but overall, there was a substantial delay of around 9 months in conducting any repairs. The landlord did not appropriately assess the risks present to the resident or reflect on her reports that some rooms were unusable.
The landlord’s inspection on 1 September 2023 found damp and mould in the bedrooms. The records show the landlord raised orders for a mould wash after finding evidence of condensation within the property. It considered the water droplets found on the bedroom ceiling were the result of condensation. However, there was no detailed inspection report provided by the landlord.
In her escalation request on 8 September 2023, the resident said her baby had a continuous cough for 8 weeks. Due to the exposure to mould her GP prescribed her child had with an inhaler. She also had respiratory issues. She asked the landlord for an action plan on how it would resolve the issues and for a meeting to discuss a resolution. The landlord did not provide a response to these requests. It should have reflected on the increased risks raised by the resident.
The landlord conducted a mould wash on 10 October 2023. It was unable to complete both rooms, due to bulky furniture being in the way. It appropriately offered the resident further appointments to conduct the remaining mould wash in October and November 2023. Many of the appointments offered by the landlord were unsuitable to the resident. The landlord responded reasonably to the requests by the resident and rescheduled its appointments each time.
The resident reiterated her concerns in an email to the landlord on 23 November 2023. She said that the mould had returned despite the mould wash, but the landlord had taken no other action to address the cause. She said her family were sleeping in the living room because 2 of the 3 bedrooms were unusable. The situation was causing “immense distress and hardship” for the resident and her family. She was upset by the lack of progress to resolve the issues.
The landlord did conduct a further inspection on 28 November 2023. During the inspection it recorded that “major mould was visible and the room could not be used as it was”. The other bedrooms were also severely affected by mould. It recommended an additional survey of the property and a very urgent mould wash. It passed the works to its damp team to conduct a survey. It scheduled repairs including thermal boarding to 2 bedrooms, damp related repairs to the living room, toilet, and stairwell. It told the resident that it passed works to its contractor and expected it them resolved them by 12 January 2024. It was appropriate to schedule the additional works and reasonable to arrange for an additional survey of the property.
However, the landlord did not conduct the survey in December 2023. On 13 December 2023 the resident said that the electrical sockets upstairs had no power and had not for a month. She and her family were unwell and were all sleeping in the living room. She said the landlord did not attend the damp survey scheduled for 15 December 2023. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out to its residents. In her communication with the Ombudsman the resident has said that she began to distrust the findings of the landlord. A failure to conduct appointments, or proactively manage a sensitive case, can lead to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident reiterated her concerns about her living conditions and the lack of any repairs progress in an email to the landlord on 3 January 2024. She said that no works had started and the landlord had not given her a start date or revised schedule. The landlord should have been proactive in its approach to these reports and demonstrated additional monitoring given the risks raised by the resident.
During its visit on 17 January 2024 the landlord noted that there were “serious issues” with the property. The resident was living downstairs due to the amount of mould and condensation. It did not consider if the property was habitable, nor did it arrange for any further details survey of the property.
While conducting repairs on 9 February 2024, a leak caused the living room to be unusable. In an email to the landlord on 12 February 2024, the resident said there were problems with the works from the outset. She said that the leak caused the lights to go out and soaked the sofas where she slept. The contractor had cut out a hole in the ceiling, allowing her to see into the room above. She did not have a working light in the living room or place to sleep between 9 and 12 February 2024. She said that she had reported the issues to the landlord on 9 February 2024, but no one had contacted her back. She was concerned about the chemicals that the contractor used and the lack of consultation or protective masks it provided to her. The family experienced symptoms like hay fever, as well as coughing, breathlessness and headaches. It was clear from the records provided that the detriment caused to the resident over this period was considerable.
After some internal consultation, the landlord did approve a move to temporary accommodation for the family on 12 February 2024. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord should have considered the impact the works would have on the resident sooner. It should have produced an action plan and discussed the works with the resident before they commenced. It did not do so and this led to additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024 the landlord gave a chronology of events that broadly reflected those above. It addressed some of the repairs delays, and said those during October and November 2023 were due to the resident’s availability. It was fair in its handling of the concerns about the damage to her property. It appropriately directed the resident to her own insurance and to its insurer for an assessment of liability. It demonstrated learning by explaining new procedures for managing damp and mould. It was appropriate to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
However, the £250 compensation offered was not proportionate to the inconvenience caused. The landlord did not reflect on the impact the damp and mould had on the resident. It did not consider that the resident was unable to have full enjoyment of the property. She and the landlord had both reported the bedrooms being unusable from 23 November 2023. Additionally, the landlord inappropriately said that the resident refused access for some works. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the resident refused work. There were appointments that she had rearranged because she and her family members were ill or unavailable. There was no record that the resident refused access to the landlord at any visit.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. There were substantial delays early in the timeline to conduct any inspection of the property. The landlord failed to address the full detriment caused to the resident in its complaint handling. There were prolonged periods that the resident was without full enjoyment of the property and times where the habitability of the property was in question. The damp and mould were most prevalent in the bedrooms and evidence provided by the landlord shows that the level of mould was severe.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. The property is a 3 bedroom house and the mould affected 2 bedrooms for most of the timeline. Despite temporary relief from mould washes in October to December 2023 the resident first said her children had to sleep in the living room from 15 August 2023. During the landlord’s inspection on 28 November 2023, it recorded that mould affected all bedrooms. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect her loss of use of the rooms, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has considered the period 15 August 2023 to 12 February 2024 (when the landlord placed the family in temporary accommodation) in our calculation. This is around 26 weeks in total. This additional compensation is in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her and her family by not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It comprises of:
1. £1,950 which is around 50% of the rent for the period.
2. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident told the Ombudsman in October 2024 that there were no longer damp and mould issues in the property. This was after the works conducted by the landlord in February/March 2024, as well as the replacement of the roof in May/June 2024. Therefore, we have made no additional order.

Reports of a leaking radiator

On 13 December 2023 the resident said that the radiator was leaking. The landlord should have logged a new repair for the radiator at the time. It could have directed her to report a new repair through its portal. There is no record available to the Ombudsman that it did either.
On 9 February 2024 the leak from the radiator caused the lights to go out in the living room and soaked the resident’s sofa. In her email to the landlord on 12 February 2024 the resident said that this radiator had flooded the living room. It is unclear over what period the radiator had been leaking. However, the resident had clearly notified the landlord of a fault from December 2023. The landlord’s failure to conduct the repairs contributed to the subsequent issues on 9 February 2024.
The landlord’s records show that it repaired the radiator during the works in February 2024. When it checked the heating system on 29 February 2024, it found no issues.
The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of a leaking radiator. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s report on 13 December 2023. The failure to conduct the repairs was a probable cause for the leak into the living room in February 2024. The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Associated complaint

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in our opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s policy states it will record an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 complaints were sent outside those timeframes.
It took the landlord around 30 working days to issue the stage 1 response after the resident’s complaint on 3 July 2023. It did appropriately contact the resident in the intervening period on 13 July 2023 to seek an extension to issue its response. Despite the extension request, there were further delays in its complaint handling. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures in its response and its offer of £50 for its delay was reasonable.
There were further delays in the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 response. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 18 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request within its timescales on 23 January 2024. It should have issued its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. Instead, on 9 February 2024 it sought an extension and explained that the issues were still under investigation. Its apology for the inconvenience and the request were reasonable.
However, the landlord did not issue its response until 23 May 2024. This was around 68 working days outside of the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. The landlord did appropriately apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response. It was fair to set out the reasoning for the delay. It demonstrated learning and explained that it was changing its process. It accepted the delay was unreasonable and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. Its offer of £150 compensation for the complaint handling delays was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. There were combined delays of around 3 weeks to issue its stage 1 response and 4 months to issue stage 2 response. The offer of £200 compensation and the apology provided by the landlord were reasonable and reflective of the detriment caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking roof.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3,400. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation awarded through its complaint responses. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the Ombudsman’s compensation order. This compensation is comprised of:
  1. £600 for the failures identified in its handling of reports of a leaking roof.
  2. £2,600 for the failures identified in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the failures identified in its handling of reports of a leaking radiator.
Within 12 weeks of this report, in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to review the circumstances of this case and provide the Ombudsman with an action plan to show lessons it has learnt and how it will improve its service. This should include, but not be limited to, reviewing the processes and systems it has in place to:
1. Ensure that it is able to respond promptly to roof inspection requests.
2. Ensure that property inspection reports are retained and kept easily accessible for relevant staff.
3. Ensure that it is able to identify, in advance of works starting, when an offer of temporary accommodation may be needed and that there is then clear communication with the resident and options considered for the duration of their time away from their property.

It should present this review to its housing and safer communities senior leadership team and share it with the Ombudsman.

The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £200 combined compensation for its complaint handling failures from 10 August 2023 and 23 May 2024. This should be in addition to the compensation ordered above.