Sanctuary Housing Association (202217276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217276

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with her windows and damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of this complaint.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background – Legal and Policy Framework

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”), the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Caselaw has confirmed that to ‘keep in repair’ is a continuing obligation to keep up the standard of repair in the dwelling throughout the duration of the tenancy. Moreover, it also requires the landlord to put the premises into repair if they were not in good repair at the outset of the tenancy. The ordinary windows in a house or flat are considered part of the exterior. Repairs should be completed within a reasonable period of time although there is no prescribed reasonable time. It will vary according to the circumstances of the case.
The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident also confirms that the landlord will maintain and keep in proper working order the window frames and windowsills in the property.
Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will carry out responsive repairs in one visit, where possible. Otherwise, it says it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days. (The repairs policy booklet says that all repairs will be carried out in 28 days.) It says if an appointment time is changed it will contact the resident to agree an alternative time and if this is not possible it will keep the resident updated. Where there are serious or persistent repair issues, the record of ‘repair history’ must be consulted to assist with diagnosis and avoid wasted effort with unnecessary repeated inspections. It says it will complete post inspections within ten working days of completion of works.
The landlord says it will consider compensation or goodwill gesture payments in a number of circumstances and will make payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure. It also applies a range to compensation for poor complaint handling, up to £150 for significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response, and poor-quality correspondence.
The landlord says it operates a two-stage complaints policy. The first stage is called its “front-line resolution” (FLR) stage. It says a complaint will be acknowledged in five working days and responded to within ten days. It says at its second stage it provides an “independent investigation” into the concerns. This report should be provided in 20 working days. The landlord says if the resident remains unhappy with the outcome, they are encouraged to say why and the landlord will produce a final response. It says if it is not possible to provide a full response, the complaints handler will discuss this with the resident and agree an extension. If appropriate, staff will provide an interim response.
Section 9(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that members must establish and maintain a complaints procedure which is in line with the good practice recommended by the Ombudsman, including its Complaints Handling Code, (“the Code”).
Section 4.1 of the Code says that “Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt.”
Section 5.2 of the Code says that if an extension to the stage one process is to go beyond 20 working days, there should be agreement by both parties. If agreement cannot be reached, landlords should provide this Service’s contact details so the resident can challenge the landlord’s plan for responding or the proposed timeliness of the landlord’s response. The Code also says this Service’s details should be provided if the landlord goes beyond the allowed time to respond at stage two, and if there is a stage three.
Section 5.5 of the Code says that “A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.”
Section 5.17 of the Code says that a complaints process with more than three stages is not acceptable under any circumstances.
In October 2021 the Ombudsman published a report entitled Spotlight on Damp and Mould, (“the Report”). The landlord said it assessed itself against the recommendations in the Report. It made five commitments to residents, including that it would take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, would work to make sure it diagnosed the problem at an early stage and remedy the situation quickly.

Summary of events

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of a top floor flat. Her tenancy agreement started on 6 November 2020, although it is not clear that she moved in then. The rent at the time was £100.26 per week, including service charges. This increased for the year 2022/2023 to £104.39 per week and is currently £112.43 per week. It appears she visited the property in on or around 8 November 2020, when she emailed the landlord to notify it of several problems with the property. In other parts of the records, she said she started living in the flat in February 2021.
In November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. She said, among other things, that her bedroom window did not close properly, was not aligned with the frame and the handle was broken. The landlord responded on 10 November 2020 and on 19 November 2020, it raised an urgent job to repair the bedroom window. The records say this job was completed on 25 November 2020.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord recorded a damp/mould report at the property. The note said that damp had been reported in the lounge by the window and by the front door. It was noted that the resident was due to move in soon and so a note was made to “please make good”.
On 28 January 2021 a housing officer working for the landlord asked that an inspection should be completed with regards to “an outstanding window repair and damp occurring.” A note was made that this should happen within seven days. However, the survey does not appear to have gone ahead within that time.
A surveyor attended on 11 March 2021 and noted that both the lounge and bedroom windows had water ingress around them. He said an external roof inspection was needed to assess the flashing around the windows. It was recorded as being a ‘routine’ job.
The landlord recorded that a damp and mould treatment was applied on 15 March 2021, but from the records, it appears this treatment was not applied to the areas of concern around the windows.
On 26 March 2021 the resident reported more damp at the property. She also, among other things, raised a complaint about the lack of an update on the surveyor’s recent visit. The landlord responded the same day addressing one of the issues raised (but unrelated to this investigation) but its response failed to refer to the resident’s renewed reports about damp.
On 31 March 2021 one of the landlord’s employees told the resident she had spoken to the surveyor about the damp issues, informing him that another inspection may be necessary.
The landlord remained in contact with the resident about other unrelated issues but there was no more correspondence about damp and mould or about the resident’s windows until 25 August 2021, when the resident asked for an update. The records appear to show that the landlord made enquiries with the contractors about why a quote had not been received for the necessary works. However, by 7 October 2021 the resident was still chasing a response. On 9 December 2021 the landlord told the resident it had received a quote for the works and would be in contact when this had been approved.
On 23 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that her windows had still not been repaired and she was freezing. She said the living area was particularly cold as it had two windows. She said this was problematic as she now worked from home and was worried she might fall ill. She said there was condensation dripping from the windows and mould on the seals. She stressed that she had been complaining about these issues since she moved in.
On 25 January 2022 the resident complained again that no action had been taken to fix her windows. She said “When [will] they be sorted? Never?”
The landlord said it was arranging another surveyor appointment to assess the damp. He attended on 3 February 2022 and the outcome of that survey was an order for the following:
1. Treat mould areas around the windows in the bedroom and the living room.
2. Overhaul windows in the bedroom and living room.
On 21 March 2022 the resident emailed to enquire when the works would be completed. She asked the landlord to confirm that the source of the damp and mould would be identified and that the gaps where the windows did not shut properly would be addressed. She added that:
1. The original works had been raised a year earlier but nothing had happened.
2. Her heating bill had gone up over the winter as a result of the extra cold.
3. Although a mould treatment visit had been booked for 28 March 2022, she did not consider this would be worthwhile if the source of the problem was not dealt with.
The landlord responded that it could not access the records at that point but that the repairs team would be in contact.
Around this time the records show the resident contracted COVID so the damp treatment on 28 March 2022 was cancelled. A note was made on 12 April 2022 to rebook the appointment.
On 14 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she was upset that the windows had not been fixed. The landlord called the contractors, and the records show it was told that a visit would be booked in for 4 May 2022. The resident called to check that the contractors would definitely come on that date and the landlord confirmed that was the case. This Service understands from the records seen that workmen attended but said they did not have the right parts for the job.
On 19 April 2022 the resident said she was struggling with her mental health.
On 20 May 2022 the resident emailed to complain that the works had still not been carried out. She said she had tried to submit an online complaint form but because she had initially raised the complaint on 25 March 2021, the form would not register her complaint – it was too far back. She said she was complaining about the landlord’s failure to:
1. Repair the damp in her living room which she suspected was due to the fact that her window did not close properly.
2. Repair the gaps in her windows where draughts were entering her bedroom, living room and kitchen.
She said the damp in her bedroom was being treated but she was still concerned about the damp in her living room. She was worried about her health and said the gaps in her windows caused her “considerable discomfort”, coughs and had resulted in increased energy bills.
She asked that the works be completed and that the landlord follow up to check they were completed. She also asked that the issue with the online complaint form was rectified.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 24 May 2022 and on 7 June 2022, the landlord issued its “stage one interim complaint response”. The key points were:
1. It apologised for the issues she had experienced with damp and with her windows, saying it was “very sorry”.
2. It said policy considerations meant it could not look at the issues she had raised that were more than six months old. However, it had decided to review the repairs raised since March 2021 for context.
3. It referred to the two inspections conducted by its surveyor in March 2021 and February 2022 and said:
  1. Although works were raised in March 2021, they were not “received” until December 2021.
  2. Repairs raised in December 2021 to the resident’s dormer window had not been completed until 4 April 2022.
  3. In relation to the February 2022 inspection, it accepted that although contractors visited the resident on 4 May 2022 to assess the works needed, the works had not been completed.
  4. It apologised that the resident had problems accessing the complaints form and acknowledged that she had emailed several times to register her dissatisfaction but that no action had been taken.
  5. It said that it could not provide a full response until works had been raised for the windows and the damp with its contractors but when this had been done, it would provide her with a full response. It explained that if she remained unhappy with that response she could escalate her complaint to the second stage.
  6. It provided the resident with the opportunity to escalate her complaint to the second stage or to raise her complaint with this Service.
On 15 June 2022 the resident thanked the landlord for its interim response but said that:
1. The mould around her bedroom window had been treated but there was follow up work to do.
2. A surveyor had already visited to check the damp by her living room window. An operative attended and put scaffolding up to inspect the outside of the property but she had not been given an update.
3. The windows needed overhauling as they did not close properly.
4. Her priority was for the windows to be fixed by the winter period. She said: “I will not go another winter with a breeze coming in through the holes in my windows.”
On 16 June 2022 the landlord provided its “first stage one response”. The key points were:
1. It repeated the text set out in the 7 June 2022 response but added that it had now arranged for both her living and bedroom windows to be overhauled and for the damp to be treated.
2. It offered a goodwill gesture payment of £300.
3. It anticipated that the necessary works would be completed by 7 July 2022 and offered a £50 goodwill gesture for any future impact caused by those works.
4. It offered her the opportunity to escalate her complaint to stage two or raise it with this Service.
The records show that the landlord arranged with its contractors to treat damp and mould at the property on 20 June 2022. When this Service first made enquiries with the landlord about this case, it said that these works were completed on that date.
It is not clear from the records but it appears that contractors visited on 28 June 2022 but did not complete any works. The resident informed the landlord and it responded that it was disappointed to hear that the works had not gone ahead. It said it had asked for the windows to be overhauled following the inspection in February 2022. However, it had now asked again and when it knew when this would happen it would update her.
A third survey was completed on 7 July 2022. The records said that following this visit it was noted that urgent repairs were required to the windows that were not closing. A roof inspection was also required to locate the source of the damp.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord provided the “final response to the stage one complaint”. The key points were:
1. It repeated verbatim many of the paragraphs set out in its 7 June and 16 June 2022 responses. However, this time it noted that works had not been completed by 7 July 2022 and so offered her £325 plus £50 for future impact. (Internal records said the compensation offer was for delays in reports being received and repairs being completed, including multiple visits to resolve a simple repair.)
2. It added that following the recent survey, it had been identified that “…the windows had not been repaired and this is more than likely the root cause of the damp around the window.”
3. She was given the opportunity to escalate her complaint to the second stage or to this Service.
On 15 July 2022 following further enquiry from the resident, the landlord saidthe works would be completed before 26 July 2022.
On 19 July 2022, the resident said contractors attended. She said they took measurements and photographs but did not complete any works.
On 27 July 2022 the records show contractors attended at the resident’s property. The landlord said they carried out repairs to one of the dormer windows but, because of access issues, were unable to carry out works to the living room window. The resident denies there were any access issues.
The resident asked for an update on 14 August 2022 but when she did not receive a response by 12 September 2022, she asked to escalate her complaint to stage two. In her complaint she said she had to stay at a relative’s house for a week to get away from the stress of the situation. She was upset that the repairs had still not been completed and she had not received any updates.
A note on the landlord’s systems said that the contractors employed to complete the resident’s works closed the job down on 27 September 2022. A note from the contractors said that this was because they could not contact the resident.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord issued its “investigation stage response to the complaint”. The key points were:
1. As the resident’s escalation complaint was about the lack of progress regarding repairs and damp treatment after the 12 July 2022 response, the second stage of the investigation took its starting point there.
2. Repair works had taken place a day after the proposed completion date of 26 July 2022. These were to repair the front elevation dormer window. Workmen were unable to complete the repairs as they could not get access to the living room window.
3. It said all the works to complete the damp treatment were completed on 20 June 2022. It escalated the repairs to her windows and requested an urgent appointment to assess the condition of her windows.
4. It increased the offer of £375 to £550. This represented an increase of £75 for time, trouble and inconvenience and a payment of £150 for future impact.
5. It said if she was happy to accept the offer, she should complete an attached acceptance form. The attached form required the resident to accept the sum “in full and final settlement of all and any claims relating to the subject matter of complaint”.
On 5 October 2022 the resident complained again that repairs to the windows had not gone ahead. She said the stage two response represented, “…an empty offer to complete a job that has been outstanding for [two] years. [Two] years!” She further complained that the stage two response had not apologised for the inconvenience.
The next day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s response and provided an apology. The resident emailed saying she had been contacted by contractors about attending on 6 October 2022. This was then put off until 13 October 2022. She then received a call saying someone was in the area on 6 October 2022 but no appointment had been made for 13 October 2022. She said she did not understand why the repairs were proving so difficult and said, “give me the parts I can likely do it myself. This is ridiculous!”
On 13 October 2022 the resident complained that contractors had attended, but not to repair her windows. Instead, they said they were attending to address a leak in her kitchen, which was something she had reported in April 2022. She said that she had not even complained about that issue as she had wanted to prioritise the window repairs. She said the visit had been an inconvenience because she had moved everything away from the windows expecting the works to be completed and was then told the workmen were not there to complete that work.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord sent a further “final response” to the resident. The key points were:
1. It apologised for the confusion on 6 October and 13 October 2022.
2. It had subsequently arranged with the resident for the window repair works to be completed on 20 October 2022. It said it had received assurances from the contractors that on that date all the repairs to the windows would be completed, the hinges to her kitchen window would be replaced and all the windows that had gaps would have the strip seals replaced.
3. It increased the offer of compensation to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused. It added £20 for missed appointments and £50 for delays. It offered £150 for future impact. The final sum offered was £620.
On 20 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the contractors had not, as promised, completed the works. She later explained that they had attended but said they could not do the necessary works because they did not have measurements of the sizes of the window for hinges and rubber, not enough clarity on which windows needed to be addressed and they needed further parts. The resident complained that she had been assured the works would be completed on that day, not that another assessment would be made, necessitating a further wait. However, when this Service made enquiries in connection with this investigation it was initially told that the window repairs had been completed on 20 October 2022.
On 21 October 2022, the person the resident had emailed asked that another appointment could be prioritised for the resident. It was noted that “…this is not the first time they have gone out for these jobs and not completed them.”
Meanwhile, the resident explained that she could not accept any compensation offer until the works had been completed.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say that a work order had been raised to replace two hinges in the kitchen side window, to close gaps in the bedroom window and the living room window. It said once all the replacements had been done, an overhaul would be carried out to ensure everything was in working order. It said there was a target date for completion of 2 November 2022. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the landlord said this was the last communication it had with the resident.
However, the records show that on 27 October 2022 the resident replied saying that a survey of the works had been completed on 20 October 2022, but she had not heard anything since. The records show the resident was still seeking an update about the above on 2 November 2022. When she took her complaint to this Service, on 18 December 2022, she said the windows had still not been repaired.
When this Service reviewed the records, it was not possible to determine when the relevant works had been completed. We asked the landlord to confirm. It responded that it was “…unclear exactly what works have and have not been completed and on what dates.”
It arranged a survey of the property on 27 April 2023 with the same surveyor that had originally attended the property in March 2021. The outcome of the survey was that it was considered four of the resident’s windows needed replacing as they were allowing water to ingress into the property. It also said the lead flashing around the windows needed to be renewed.

Assessment and findings

As the landlord’s surveyor said it was likely that the root “cause of the damp” was that the windows were not repaired, it is reasonable to conclude that the issues with the window repairs and the damp are inextricably linked. Therefore, this report will refer to both issues alongside each other.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with her windows and damp

Both the law and the resident’s tenancy agreement confirm the landlord’s responsibility to keep the resident’s windows in good repair. Further, the Report says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. When there is a problem, effective diagnosis is critical. The response to reports of damp and mould should be timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord failed to diagnose the source of the damp in good time and failed to repair the resident’s windows in a reasonable time. While there is no prescribed reasonable time in law for making repairs, given reports about concerns with the resident’s windows were first made in November 2020, it is unreasonable that the landlord was still not able to confirm repairs when this Service made enquiries in April 2023. Given reports of damp were made in December 2020, it is unreasonable that the landlord says it did not complete treatment until June 2022. It is also unclear that this actually addressed the source of the problem. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days – this did not happen, meaning it fell far short of its own standards, delaying unreasonably.
These delays impacted the resident in a number of ways. As referenced in more detail below, she said she had to undergo “freezing” conditions in winter and was anxious about the potential effect of damp and mould on her health. She was distressed and frustrated by the seeming inability of the landlord to do what it said it would do and fix the problems she repeatedly identified in the home she both lived and worked in. Ultimately, she said she found the situation so stressful she had to move out for a period.
The surveyor first visited the property in March 2021, over three months after damp had been reported at the property. This is not a timely response.
At the March 2021 survey the surveyor noted that both the lounge and bedroom windows had water ingress around them. He was concerned about the flashing and thought a roof inspection necessary. This Service has not seen any records to show that a roof inspection went ahead, which could have helped diagnose the problem at the outset. It was a missed opportunity to put things right. No action was taken to remedy the water ingress around the windows. Instead, even though the resident registered a complaint on 26 March 2021 – and reported further damp on 31 March 2021 – apart from one treatment in late March 2021, which did not resolve the issue, nothing was done. This failure to further investigate the issues with the windows and the associated reports about damp or to respond effectively to further reports of damp is unreasonable.
The records indicate the landlord may have been having problems progressing appointments with its contractors but that is a matter for the landlord to address through its contract management and monitoring arrangements. The resident, in December 2021, had still not had her windows fixed and reported that she was “freezing”. If the landlord had acted in a timely manner, she would not have had to experience the discomfort of two winters with gaps around her windows allowing the draught and cold in.
At the February 2022 survey the same surveyor considered the windows needed overhauling and that damp and mould needed to be treated. In early June 2022 the landlord said the damp and mould were treated. However, the survey in July 2022 reported damp again and considered that the likely cause was because the windows had not been repaired. Still, no repairs were carried out until the end of July 2022, when only one window was repaired. The resident says there were no access issues to prevent the other windows being repaired at the same time. This Service considers this is likely to be the case given the efforts the resident made to encourage the works to be completed. Even if this were not the case, the resident repeatedly invited the landlord to complete the works in the strongest terms possible. However, despite an assurance that the works would be completed in October 2022, by December 2022, the resident said the windows had still not been repaired.
It appears that once works were raised with contractors the landlord failed to check the works had actually been completed until the resident complained. Its policy says that post inspection work will be completed within ten working days. The records do not show that this happened and given that the landlord was not able to say when repairs did go ahead, it is unlikely that any post inspections were undertaken. This is contrary to its own policy promises.
During the recent survey, in April 2023, the same surveyor that initially reported water ingress around the windows in March 2021, has said that because of the same problem with water ingress, the windows now require replacing.
This Service was not given a detailed copy of the recent survey, but it appears likely that because the problems that were reported over two years ago were not effectively diagnosed and dealt with, they got worse. Throughout this period, the resident had to live and work in a property where the windows allowed water ingress into the property, which is linked to the damp and mould. She also, she says, had to endure freezing conditions.
The landlord’s response to her reports was unacceptable and unreasonable. It made a number of false promises to the resident about when the works would be completed:
1. In March 2021: As referenced above, it said a roof inspection would be necessary to see if the flashing around the windows was in place. The records do not show this went ahead and it was again requested in July 2022, over a year later. This is unreasonable delay. In April 2023 it was determined that all the flashing needed replacing. This should have been understood at a much earlier date and it is reasonable to conclude that this would have been ascertained earlier if the March 2021 request for a roof inspection had gone ahead.
2. In June 2022: It told the resident that it anticipated repair works would be completed by 7 July 2022. This did not happen.
3. In July 2022: It told the resident that the works would be completed by 26 July 2022. This did not happen.
4. In October 2022: The resident understood from the landlord’s contractors that window repairs would be completed on 6 and then 13 October 2022. Neither happened. After this, the landlord arranged for works to be scheduled on 20 October 2022 and the resident was disappointed and frustrated to find that these works did not go ahead either. The resident was then given a target date for works to be completed by 2 November 2022. There is no record to show this happened.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that where there are serious or repair issues, the record of ‘repair history’ must be consulted so as to assist with diagnosis and to avoid wasted effort with unnecessary repeated inspections. As demonstrated above, this does not appear to have happened in this case. There were repeated visits to the property to determine the extent of the problem yet the actual work was not completed. It appears sufficient information could not have been gathered on successive visits and the resident had to endure several visits with no actual change to the issues she was facing. At one point the resident said she had to go and stay at a relative’s house for a period to get away from the stress of the situation. She should not have felt she needed to do this in a property that she was paying rent for.
The landlord is now planning to replace four of the resident’s windows. As the resident works from home, it is likely this will cause her some significant inconvenience and the landlord should consider if decanting is necessary during the works.
This Service considers that there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and reports about damp and mould.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In this case the Ombudsman finds that the impact on the resident has been significant and over an extended period.
The resident has paid approximately £452.22 per month (with some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started on 1 April 2021 which is shortly after a surveyor identified the issues with the windows. During this time, and especially during the winter periods, the resident reported that, in particular, the use of her living room space was compromised. The Ombudsman considers that in the circumstances it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the loss of full use of the property. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £3700 compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her property. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. It also includes a payment of approximately £400 as an acknowledgement that during two winters, it is likely the resident’s heating bills were higher than usual. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
The Ombudsman also requires that, when the landlord has completed the relevant works required in this Determination, it should also consider whether further compensation should be offered taking into account the Ombudsman’s comments and findings in this Determination. The landlord should confirm its intentions with respect to this within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first raised her complaint about the failure to update her about the first survey on the property and about damp, on 26 March 2021. While other issues were acknowledged, the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports about damp, was not. The resident had to chase a response and despite communications between the landlord in October 2021 and early December 2021, by 23 December 2021, her complaint had still not been registered and no action had been taken. Both this Service’s Complaint’s Code and the landlord’s policy say that complaints should be acknowledged within five days. The failure to do so is unreasonable and a failure to apply its own policy. It is inevitable that because the resident’s complaint was not properly registered, a structured effective approach to the issues she reported was delayed.
The landlord says it has a two stage complaints policy. The resident’s complaint was first accepted on 20 May 2022. After that there were five stages. The Code says a process with more than three stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. These were:

At Stage One:

stage one interim complaint response; (7 June 2022) – in 10 working days
first stage one response; (16 June 2022) – in 23 working days
final response to stage one complaint; (12 July 2022) – in 53 working days

Escalated to Stage Two on 12 September 2022

investigation stage response to complaint; (4 October 2022) – in 22 working days
final response. (14 October 2022) in 32 working days.

The Code says it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage O’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’ as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. The ‘interim complaint response’ is such a stage. Further, the landlord’s policy says it will complete its stage one process in ten days. There were three different stages within its stage one and overall, this stage was not completed for 53 working days. Its response was therefore not in line with its policy, being 43 days delayed. This Service notes that at all three stages in the first stage of the complaints process the landlord provided the resident with the option of short-cutting the process by immediately escalating her complaint to the stage two process or by raising it with this Service. However, delay is built into this structure of complaint handling. Nothing particularly new was added by these separate stages, other than updates on what works would be arranged (which then did not go ahead) and compensation offers. The landlord should have answered the complaint in ten days and offered its compensation in relation to the complaint made at that point. This would have significantly sped up the process and/or escalation to stage two.
Stage two should have taken 20 working days. It took 32 working days. There was no evidence an extension was agreed with the resident and even if the first response at the second stage is an interim response, overall, there was a delay of 12 working days, which was not agreed.
This Service does not consider the way the landlord approached this complaint was really within a two-stage framework. Because the landlord informed the resident at each stage that another stage would be due soon, it may have given the impression that it was working within the correct timeline. But it was not. Instead, this staggered five stage process resulted in a combined delay of 55 working days. This was an unreasonable delay and prolonged the frustration and distress experienced by the resident. The landlord should review this approach.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy describes its second stage as an “independent investigation”. This is concerning. The second stage was undertaken by a senior complaints officer, not someone independent from the landlord. In this Service’s view, a complaint response provided by the landlord in response to concerns raised about its services should not be referred to as being “independent”. By any understanding of the definition, this implies that the review or investigation has been carried out by a third party not involved in the issues under consideration. While it would be reasonable for the landlord to stress that the complaint responder was a member of staff not previously involved in the complaint process, it is misleading to refer to the review as being “independent”. The landlord should therefore consider how it refers to the second stage of its complaint procedure to ensure it is transparent with residents and clear about who is providing its final stage complaint response.
The complaint letters adopted a sympathetic tone and the way the landlord plainly said at points that it was “very sorry” is to be welcomed. It shows an understanding of the impact caused by the problems the resident faced. It is also welcome that the landlord acknowledged that even though the resident had been unable to use the website’s form, it accepted she had made her dissatisfaction clear through emails.
However, the landlord should have been clearer in its acknowledgement of what had gone wrong. In its stage one response, for instance, it listed that the works raised in March 2021 had not been “received” until December 2021. What that meant was that works thought necessary in March 2021 had still not been completed nine months later. It went on to say that works raised in December 2021 to her dormer window had not been completed until 4 April 2022. This Service has not seen any records to suggest they were actually completed, either on that date or at all. This indicates that there is an issue with the landlord’s record keeping, which is referred to in greater detail below.
The landlord then accepted that works raised in the February 2022 inspection had not been completed. It is positive that it acknowledged the works had not been completed but it did not acknowledge that essentially all of these works were linked to the original request in March 2021 to address the issues. It would have been more transparent for the landlord to say that works raised 15 months ago had still not begun. Because it failed to do so, it failed to fully acknowledge the impact of its failure to deal with the issues, which is inappropriate. This was compounded by the stage two response, which took as its starting position the failure to complete works after 12 July 2022. This approach assumes the resident was content with the works before that date. She was not. Her escalation to stage two should have acknowledged and continued to address her original dissatisfaction with the failure to act on the initial reports of damp and issues with windows since March 2021.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s claims that her heating bills had been affected by living in freezing conditions. It could have asked her for more information about this, such as bills etc. Instead, it did not acknowledge her claims at all in its complaint responses.
The landlord said it was unable to provide the resident with a full response at the early stages until it had raised works for the windows and the damp with its contractors. This is contrary to this Service’s Code, which says that complaint responses should not be sent to the resident when the actions to address the issues are completed, but when the response to the complaint is known. Any outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned but this work can run alongside the response to the resident’s complaint, which should be responded to in line with the Code and/or the landlord’s complaints policy.
It might be that the landlord considered that inputting further stages to the process showed it was being responsive to the resident’s predicament. However, given that it repeatedly missed the expected dates for completion set out at each stage, it did nothing other than further frustrate the resident and damage the trust between the landlord and resident.
This Service is also concerned that the landlord asked the resident to accept its offer of payment as full and final settlement of all and any claims relating to the subject matter of complaint. Because this type of commitment could potentially limit the resident’s ability to seek further redress if something went wrong, before asking a resident to agree, the landlord should, at the very least, advise the resident to obtain legal advice and should make it clear that acceptance of any offer does not prevent a resident from referring a complaint to this Service. Given the repairs had not been made to the property at that stage – and it seems are still not resolved – it was sensible of the resident not to take this route. It was an inappropriate way for the landlord to attempt to secure agreement to the offer of compensation.
Further, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the distress caused by its repeated failures to address the issues complained of by the resident.
Overall, this Service considers there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and has ordered a payment to the resident as set out below.
The Ombudsman also requires that the landlord pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the poor handling of the repairs and its poor communications and complaints handling. The evidence indicates that the resident suffered significant distress over an extended period of time, and we therefore consider an award at the higher end of awards of this type is appropriate in this case. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £1,500 compensation for distress and inconvenience within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Records

The clearest indication that the landlord’s record keeping was below standard is that the landlord told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould at the property had been resolved on 20 June 2022 and the windows had been repaired by 20 October 2022. This was not the case. When this Service made further enquiries, the landlord said it actually did not know when the repairs were completed. It transpired that it is likely the repairs, if attempted, were not effective. As set out above, the April 2023 survey has found that four windows at the property need replacing.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. Given the above, the landlord’s repairs record keeping was inappropriate.
Therefore, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. Given the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and her repeated complaints about operatives attending to complete works without actually doing anything.

Determinations

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about issues with her window and about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act early when reports of damp and mould were made at the property. It then failed to complete relevant inspections and/or when it did attend to address issues with the windows, which were linked to the continued reports about damp, it failed to complete repairs. It is likely this led to the progression of the problem and over two years since the initial reports were made, the issues are still not resolved, meaning the windows now have to be replaced, causing the resident further inconvenience.
The landlord did not apply its complaints process in line with its policy or the Code. While it professes to use a two-stage process it prolonged the process with five stages which inevitably delayed the final response to the issues. The complaint responses failed to properly acknowledge how long the issues had been outstanding which would have caused the resident frustration and offers of compensation were not sufficient. Neither was it appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to accept its offer in full and final settlement of issues that had not been resolved.
The landlord is responsible for record keeping failures. It initially provided this Service with dates that were inaccurate about when repairs were completed. It then admitted that it did not actually know when repairs had been completed. This reveals a serious failing in record keeping and likely contributed to the landlord’s failure to have a structured and appropriate focus on repair works that were necessary and repeatedly asked for by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £5200 in compensation within four weeks, comprising:
1. £3700 to acknowledge that, because of unattended damp and mould and a failure to complete or complete effectively, repairs to the resident’s windows, the resident did not have the full enjoyment of her property for over two years, including two winters where conditions would have been colder.
2. The Ombudsman requires that, when the landlord has completed the works required in this Determination, it should also consider whether further compensation should be offered, taking into account the Ombudsman’s comments and findings in this Determination. The landlord should confirm its intentions with respect to this within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.
3. £1500 forthe distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s repeated failure to address the issues the resident reported. This sum acknowledges the landlord’s poor complaint handling and record keeping and how the landlord’s approach in both these areas contributed to the overall failure to manage the issues presented by the resident.
Within four weeks the landlord is ordered to provide an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive Officer. The apology should acknowledge the severe maladministration and maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express sincere regret.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord must replace the windows recommended by its April 2023 survey and complete a follow up survey which should also address if there continues to be any damp and/or mould at the property. If this remains a problem, it should be addressed within the same timescale.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The review should include, but not be limited to, consideration of two specific issues of concern:
1. Its failings in record keeping in this case and how it can improve its systems. It should consider how it can implement the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
2. The steps it can take to ensure that when it uses contractors any works raised are attended within reasonable timeframes, that post-inspections are arranged and recorded and what systems it has in place where there are repeated reports that work is not completed or attended too.
The outcome of this review, along with an action plan setting out how the landlord intends to implement any findings or considerations made, is to be reported to both this Service and the landlord’s governing body. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It should review its complaint handling and ensure that, in line with the Code:
1. It does not have more than three stages that can cause delay or unnecessary confusion;
2. It considers whether its use of the term “independent review” to describe stage two of its complaint procedure is appropriate and transparent.
3. It considers whether it is appropriate to use ‘full and final settlement’ agreements when the issues that are the subject of the complaint are not yet resolved.
The landlord is then to confirm to this Service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

Once the repair works to the windows are completed, the landlord should proactively contact the resident in November 2023 to ensure that she is no longer experiencing any issues with damp and mould.