Sanctuary Housing Association (202230602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230602

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp, mould, and associated outstanding repairs;
2. Heating and hot water loss.
3. The lack of cooking facilities in her property.
This report will also consider the landlords:
1. Complaint handling;
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom, top floor flat with her partner and children. She is an assured tenant of the landlord and moved into the property in November 2018.
On 3 January 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that she had black mould in her property, which she had been trying to clean for 2 months, and which was beginning to spread. She stated that she had a young child who had asthma and that there was mould in every room.
On 9 January 2019, the landlord sent an operative to inspect the property for mould and, following this, recommended that a damp survey was arranged. A survey took place on 15 January 2019 and made the following findings and recommendations:
1. The main cause of the mould was due to high levels of humidity within the property;
2. Most of the windows were “running with condensation”;
3. The bathroom and main bedroom had black spot mould formation on the walls, the bathroom being the worst affected room;
4. The roof did not appear to be allowing any rainwater ingress;

The surveyor recommended that the landlord;

Clean and treat the walls once all wallpaper was removed;
Install a positive input ventilation (PIV) fan in the property to reduce the moisture;
Treat the mould in the main bedroom and bathroom;
Replace 4 double glazed units.

The resident contact the landlord on 11 February and 11 April 2019 as she had not heard back from the landlord since the inspection. Although it is not clear from the records which repairs the landlord had addressed, it attended on 25 April 2019 to carry out some of the recommended works. The records also suggest that it installed a PIV fan in the living room sometime in May 2019 however the landlord has not provided an exact date.
On 10 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if it could install an extractor fan in her bathroom to address the damp and mould. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord took any further action following this request.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2021, attaching photos of the mould in her bathroom. She said she did not understand why it had been taking so long to install the extractor fan. She added that she had contacted Environmental Health services because her son had asthma. The landlord stated that it was unable to find an order for an extractor fan and that it could only place one following a surveyor’s recommendation.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord carried out a damp inspection. It found that:
1. The condensation in the bathroom was causing the wallpaper to peel off and black mould to form on the ceiling;
2. An extractor fan was required to try to resolve the issue. However, as this was a third floor flat and there was limited external wall space to install an extractor fan, the best option was to install a roof vented fan;
3. The PIV fan in the living room required servicing to ensure it was working effectively;
4. The loft insulation, in particular above the bathroom, needed to be checked to ensure it was sufficient.

It is unclear from the records what further action the landlord took following the inspection.

On 19 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she did not have any heating or hot water. The landlord provided her with temporary heaters while it sourced parts to repair the boiler.
On 23 December 2022, the resident reported that there was water dripping through her ceiling and her PIV fan was not working. The landlord decanted the family into hotel accommodation on the same day so it could carry out repairs to resolve the damp and mould.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 26 December 2022, in which she stated that:
1. Her boiler broke down on 19 December 2022 and she was told it was not an emergency, even though she had a “sick child” who she could not bathe or keep warm;
2. The operative who arrived said that someone had ordered the wrong parts, which meant the repair would not be completed until the New Year;
3. The landlord had called her on 23 December 2022 to say it was putting her family into a hotel for around 2 weeks;
4. There was damp and mould dripping from her ceilings and the ventilation system, and they were “all ill from breathing in mouldy air for 5 years”;
5. Her windows did not shut properly;
6. She was not able to have a cooker for 5 years because the heating engineer had advised that it was too close to the gas meter and the property did not have smoke alarms.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 December 2022 and, on 3 January 2023, it called her to let her know that it had repaired her boiler.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord carried out a further damp inspection. The surveyor made the following findings:
1. The windows were first generation and some of the double glazed units were “blown”;
2. The resident’s cooker required a 300mm space either side of the hob and did not meet the current decent home standard;
3. There has been a recent leak in the kitchen but the resident informed the surveyor that the roofing contractor had attended and carried out the necessary repairs to the roof;
4. There was mould around the child’s window, which appeared to be caused by the condensation from the windows;
5. The bathroom appeared to be the major problem. There was moisture detected throughout, which appeared to be condensation due to the lack of an extractor fan;
6. The loft appeared “very cold and drafty [sic] and the insulation was minimal”;
7. The surveyor recommended that the resident did not return to the property until the necessary works had been completed in the bathroom.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord sent the resident what it referred to as an “interim stage 1 response”. This stated that:
1. It had installed a PIV fan to help prevent any further damp and mould in her home. However, she had stated that it did not work properly and was leaking.
2. On 12 November 2021, the resident had reported that there was damp in her bathroom. Unfortunately, it had not yet fitted the extractor fan and it had chased this up. It apologised that the fan had not yet been installed.
3. It was pleased to note that her boiler had been repaired on 3 January 2023. In addition, she had been decanted to a hotel on 23 December 2022 while works took place to repair her boiler and remove the damp and mould.
4. It would contact her to arrange a suitable date to repair her windows. The target date for this was 13 February 2023.
5. She had reported a leak from the roof, which had made the loft insulation wet and caused water to drip through the PIV fan. It had inspected the loft space on 6 January 2023 and had requested a further survey to ensure the correct works were carried out. The target date for this was 17 March 2023.
6. It had been chasing the works “as an urgent priority” and had been in contact with her housing officer to make them aware of her circumstances.
7. If she was dissatisfied with its response, she should reply within 10 days, explaining why she remained dissatisfied. Her complaint would then be reviewed at stage 2 of its procedure.
On 20 January 2023 the local authority wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident and said that:
1. It understood the resident was living in a hotel because her property was uninhabitable due to extensive damp and mould.
2. It wanted to know when works to the PIV fan, installation of the bathroom extractor fan, and repairs to the windows and loft were scheduled. It also asked for copies of inspection reports.
3. It wanted the landlord to look into the issue regarding why the resident’s cooker could not be connected and whether this could be resolved.
4. The family had been decanted into a hotel but this was several miles from their home and the child’s school. In addition, the family were often unable to source meals on site at breakfast and in the evening, which threw into question the suitability of the decant accommodation.
The local authority chased the landlord for a response on 30 January 2023 and the landlord responded on the same day. It stated that:
1. Its contractor had not yet been in contact with the resident to arrange servicing of the PIV fan. It would chase this up to ensure a suitable date was arranged as soon as possible.
2. It had inspected the property on 20 January 2023 and works to improve the kitchen and bathroom were scheduled to start on the week beginning 13 February 2023. This would include installing an extractor fan in the bathroom.
3. A contractor had attended the property on 24 January 2023 and removed the moisture between the window panes. It was arranging for its operatives to carry out additional works to the windows, with a target date of 13 February 2023.
4. It had inspected the loft again on 13 January 2023 and the operative reported that there was no leak and the insulation was dry. However, it would arrange for additional insulation to be fitted.
5. It was unable to provide information about the cooker installation and had raised this to be looked into urgently. It would let the local authority know once it had an update.
6. It apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced with the hotel and would chase this up with its Decant team so it could investigate further.
The resident contacted the Service on 9 February 2023 and explained the landlord’s response to the problems she was having with her property, and the impact it was having on her and her family. She stated that they had been enduring the problems for 5 years and asked for any assistance the Ombudsman could provide.
On 15 February 2023, following contact from the Service, the landlord sent the resident a further “interim stage 1 response”. This stated that:
1. The PIV fan was due to be fully inspected and serviced and a new kitchen fan installed. However, this work could not be completed until the leak to the roof had been fully repaired and this work was currently taking place.
2. Its contractor attended on 9 February 2023 and completed works to repair the windows.
The landlord rang the local authority on 23 February 2023 to provide an update, and the local authority wrote to the resident on the same day. It told her that contractors were at her property fitting the new kitchen and bathroom, which should be completed by 27 February 2023. During the installation, they had noticed an issue with the roof felt, and could further delay her moving back. The property would be inspected on 23 February 2023 to determine whether any work was required. The landlord would contact her to let her know when she could return to her property. It added that the landlord had agreed to redecorate her property and this was scheduled for 6 and 7 March 2023.
On 23 February, a roofing contractor inspected the resident’s roof on behalf of the landlord. It stated that works were required to erect scaffolding to the front and rear of the property, replace the felt under the roof tiles and fit new lead flashing to the soil pipe. It recommended for a “damp specialist to assess further insulation and ventilation requirements”.
Following completion of the new bathroom and kitchen, and other works, the landlord carried out a home visit on 28 February 2023. It explained to the resident that redecoration only applied to the kitchen and bathroom and that this work was due to start on 6 March 2023. It added that it was due to fit new window units and confirm dates for thermal insulation works. The landlord met with the resident at the property, on 1 March 2023, and recorded that she was “happy with he works that [had] been carried out so far”. It advised her of the works that remained outstanding and said it would let her know of any start dates as soon as it had them.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident its “final stage 1 response”. This stated that:
1. The work to have mould removed from her child’s bedroom window had been raised and the target date for the work was 24 May 2023.
2. It had inspected her windows on 1 March 2023 and 5 were scheduled to be replaced by 23 May 2023.
3. The repairs to the roof were scheduled to start within the following 2 weeks and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the date.
4. Once the roof had been repaired, the insulation in the loft would be topped up, and this was booked to take place on 9 May 2023.
5. It apologised to the resident for having cause to complain and offered £606 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay in correspondence;
  2. £160 temporary heater payment;
  3. £96 due to having no hot water and heating;
  4. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience;
  5. £150 in recognition of any future impact up to 23 May 2023.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 March 2023 and stated that:
1. The landlord was offering her £606 compensation for 5 years of its “negligence”.
2. She had been decanted for 10 weeks and the repairs were still not complete.
3. She had reported the repairs over 5 years ago and the landlord had sent numerous surveyors to the property but “nothing was ever resolved”.
4. She had a small child with chest problems and he had to use an inhaler “probably for the rest of his life”.
5. She was not accepting the landlord’s offer as she did not feel this was reasonable for what her family was still going through.
On 16 March 2023, the resident moved back into her property and, on 22 March 2023 the landlord wrote to her to confirm that her complaint had been escalated to the “investigation stage” (stage 2) of its complaints process. It advised that it would send her its response no later than 19 April 2023.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. This stated that:
1. Following its inspection on 11 January 2023, there were delays in carrying out the recommended works. This was “due to contractors not having the capacity to attend within a reasonable timescale”.
2. Its Maintenance team was therefore asked to carry out the works instead and operatives had attended on 10 March 2023 to install a fan in the kitchen and isolation switch on the PIV fan. It had also applied a mould treatment and silicone sealant around the bedroom window.
3. While its window contractor had initially attended on 24 January 2023 to assess the windows in the living and dining rooms, it only specialised in repairs to the glass panes. Its Maintenance team therefore attended to look at repairing the window frames.
4. Following an inspection on 9 February 2023 the landlord returned on 1 March 2023 to obtain measurements for replacing 5 double glazed units along with new handles, hinges and gaskets.
5. It had replaced the kitchen and bathroom and would be arranging to replace the loft insulation as soon as possible after further roof repairs had been completed.
6. Although it had intended to reconnect the cooker, the job was cancelled. This was because, as per its policy, it was unable to reinstate appliances that were the property of the resident.
7. Its gas engineer attended the property on 3 January 2023 to fix the boiler and tested the system to ensure all radiators were warming up correctly. However, after the resident had returned home, she reported that the boiler was only providing intermittent heating and hot water. An engineer attended on 30 March 2023 and recommended that the boiler was replaced. Its Gas team would contact the resident to arrange the installation.
8. It was sorry for the delays in carrying out roof repairs that had been recommended following repairs undertaken in February 2023. This did not reflect the standard of service the resident should have received and it would discuss the delays with its relevant teams to ensure improvements in future service provision.
9. There was a delay of about 8 months before approval was received for works to repair some damaged and dislodged roof tiles. The repairs to the roof tiles were not completed until February 2023, after the contractor had arranged for scaffolding to be erected.
10. The contractor provided it with a quotation for further works to the front and rear of the main roof, which included fitting insulation to the eaves and fitting new tiling felt and battens to ensure the roof was watertight.
11. An order had subsequently been issued to the contractor who confirmed that operatives were attending on 19 April 2023 to carry out the work. It would continue to monitor the works through to their completion.
12. Although the resident had requested increased compensation, it was only able to investigate incidents that had occurred in the 6 months prior to the resident making her complaint. While it was unable to look into any historical costs she had incurred, it could consider recent damage to her belongings. It asked her to send supporting evidence of the items she wished to claim for.
13. It was satisfied that the compensation it had offered was appropriate. However, it appreciated the inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the leaks and the issues with damp and mould. It offered the resident an additional £250 in recognition of the impact of the delays and revised its total offer of compensation, which it referred to as a “goodwill offer”, to £856.

Events following completion of the complaints process

The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 April and 22 May 2023 to chase up the compensation. She said she felt its offer was not reasonable considering what her family had been through over the past 5 years. She stated that the roofing contractor had not attended and that this was another day she had taken off work to wait, and another day’s lost pay.
The landlord responded on 7 June 2023 to say that, while it understood the resident was not happy with its offer, it could not look at complaints about historical issues. It stated that:
1. It was aware there had been further delays with the roof repairs, replacement of windows, fitting of a bathroom fan and the fitting of tile vents.
2. It was sorry that its roofing contractor has not attended on 18 May 2023 and for the inconvenience caused. The contractor had informed it that it had completed the necessary repairs and it had asked the contractor to send it photographs to evidence this.
3. Operatives who had attended on 1 June 2023 advised that the landlord required a specialist contractor to replace the windows. It apologised for the further delays and stated it would organise this as soon as possible.
4. Its contractor had been asked to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom but advised it could not do this until the roof repairs had been completed. It said it would let its contractor know when the roofing works were complete so it could fit the fan.
5. Its contractor had recently assessed for work to fit tile vents above the bathroom and kitchen to help manage condensation.
6. In recognition of the continued delays, it offered the resident a further payment of £200, along with an additional £75 for its lack of communication. It’s increased overall offer of compensation was £1131.
On 9 August 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that it had been 2 months since she had accepted its compensation and yet still no repairs had been completed. The landlord responded on 29 August 2023 to say that scaffolding was being put up that day and that works to the roof would begin on 6 September 2023. It had emailed the relevant team for an update on when the bathroom fan would be fitted.
The landlord carried out a roof inspection on 29 September 2023 and found several holes on both sides of the roof as well as several areas that had already been patched. Due to the age and condition of the existing felt, it recommended replacement of the felt and roof battens, making use of the existing tiles.
According to internal communication from 6 December 2023, the roofing works were completed. All ventilation fans it had installed at the property had been switched off but, as the roof had received an overhaul, the resident could switch it back on.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 December 2023 to say that operatives had attended on 19 December 2023 to complete window repairs. However the resident had refused access because she wanted new window rather than replacement double glazed units. It added that the windows in her property were less than 25 years old and fell “well inside their life expectancy”.
The resident contacted the Service on 8 March 2024 and stated that the landlord had installed an extractor fan in her bathroom on 3 November 2023, 9 months after it had replaced her bathroom. However, the fan was not on because it was leaking water. An engineer had told her not to use it because he believed there was still an issue with the roof.

Assessment and findings

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, window frames installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation, and heating and water heating equipment provided by the landlord. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. Section 9a of the Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same Act, ventilation.
Section 11 of the Act places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication and regularly monitor and report performance against agreed targets. It will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It states that emergency repairs are those that need to be done because there is:
1. A serious health and safety threat to people living in or near the property, such as a dangerous electrical fault;
2. A risk of serious damage to the property, such as water leaking through the ceiling.

The landlord will carry out appointed or responsive repairs within a maximum of 28 days. According to the same policy, the landlord is not responsible for repairing appliances such as cookers and fridges. This information is also available in its Repairs Handbook.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can consider offering compensation for:
1. Time, trouble and inconvenience due to the landlord’s action or inaction;
2. Delayed or poor responses to the resident’s complaints;
3. Lack of, or unreasonable delay to, the provision of services;
4. Loss of facilities, including rooms or key installations within a room;
5. Damage to or loss of belongings due to the landlord’s action or inaction.

Payments range from £1 to £400 depending on the impact on the resident and the time and trouble they have taken to pursue the matter.

The landlord’s decant policy states that it is sensitive to its residents’ needs and will make every reasonable effort to ensure the decanted accommodation is suitable. The landlord must complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity. The assessment should “illustrate the specific issue and remedies to mitigate the need to decant”, if this is not possible, the risk assessment should confirm why.

Scope of Investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the health of her child had been detrimentally affected by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her child’s health. However this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from January 2019 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

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

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have experienced distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while living with damp and mould. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a house with high levels of humidity and poor ventilation. This would have been particularly challenging while the resident was looking after a young child with asthma.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. It was published after the events the resident had complained about. However, given the issues persisted and the report encompasses the good practice the landlord should follow, it has been referred to here. The report states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s report of black mould on 3 January 2019. It attended the property 6 days later to assess the extent of the problem and recommended that a damp survey was carried out. The damp survey also took place in a timely manner, on 15 January 2019, and made recommendations for work to address the damp and mould.
Although the landlord identified that there were several factors causing the damp and mould, the work to rectify this was severely protracted. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to follow up on the inspection and the resident had to chase it in February and April 2019 before it took any further action. That the landlord took 3 months before carrying out any of the recommended works and only when prompted by the resident was a failing.
It was not clear from the records which of the recommended works the landlord completed but there is evidence it had attended on 25 April 2019 to carry out repairs. It was also appropriate that it installed a PIV fan in the resident’s living room in May 2019, although an exact installation date is unknown from the evidence that is available. It is noted that it took the landlord around 4 months to fit the PIV unit. It is acknowledged that this may not have been a straightforward job and that the landlord would have had to allow some time to order the appropriate equipment and assign a specialist contractor. However, given the extent of the humidity that the damp survey had found and the risk the damp and mould would have posed to the family, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made a greater effort to work with its contractors and install the PIV fan sooner. This demonstrates a lack of urgency or customer-focus by the landlord in addressing the problem.
The evidence shows that, on 10 February 2020, the resident made a request for the landlord to install an extractor fan in her bathroom. It is unclear why the landlord had not recommended this following its January 2019 damp inspection. It had reported that “the bathroom and main bedroom had black spot mould formation on the walls, the bathroom being the worst affected room”. There is also a record that the window in the bathroom was too small to provide any reasonable ventilation.
The landlord failed to contact the resident following her request or to send a surveyor to assess the property for an extractor fan. Again, it was only after the resident had chased the landlord up, some 2 years later, to ask why it was taking it so long to install the fan that it took further action. During this time, the resident and her family continued to live with a bathroom that suffered from poor ventilation, and resulting damp and mould. The landlord should reasonably have been aware of the requirement for these works. However, it is also noted that there was no contact from the resident in relation to this matter during the intervening period.
Following a further damp survey by the landlord, on 14 December 2021, the surveyor reported condensation in the bathroom that was making the wallpaper peel off, and mould to form on the ceiling. It recommended installation of a roof vented extractor fan. Had the landlord responded to the resident’s request in February 2020, this could have avoided unnecessary delays in arranging for the fan to be installed.
Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is unclear when the extractor fan had been installed. However, the evidence shows that the fan was not operational until 6 December 2023, which was after the landlord had completed works to the resident’s roof. This was around 2 years following the surveyor’s recommendation, and 3 years after the resident made the original request for the extractor fan. Given the bathroom was a “major problem”, according to the damp surveys, the time taken to provide a working extractor fan in the bathroom was excessively protracted. There is also evidence that the landlord had chased the surveyor 14 times from 7 March 2022 to 17 January 2023 for a quote to install the fan. This demonstrates poor internal communication and lack of a proper system for escalating delays of this nature. Given the urgency of the work, the landlord’s failure in its internal communications caused unnecessary additional delays.
Although the landlord did not provide copies of any damp survey reports, there is internal communication that outlined the findings and recommendations from the surveys. The survey of 11 January 2023, found that the “moisture detected throughout” the bathroom appeared to be “due to the lack of an extractor fan”. It recommended that the family did not move back into the property until the bathroom works were complete. However, contrary to this, the landlord moved the family back into the property on 16 March 2023. That the landlord allowed the resident to return to her property against the advice of the surveyor, around 9 months before they had a working extractor fan in their bathroom was a failing. In addition, this would have put the family at further risk, particularly as they had a child with breathing issues.
There is nothing to indicate that, while the resident was in her property, the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed. There is no evidence the landlord had offered to provide dehumidifiers or offer any support or advice on managing the additional heating costs when the resident told it she was struggling with heating costs.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decant the resident while it repaired her boiler and carried out works to address the damp and mould in the property. It is also appropriate that the landlord responded quickly when the resident reported water dripping from her ceiling, through her PIV fan. This demonstrates that it had recognised the risk and had followed its policy by treating the resident’s report as an emergency.
It was positive that the landlord refurbished the resident’s kitchen and bathroom a month after the works were raised, and while the resident was decanted. However, while the evidence shows some of the works were carried out, many repairs were still outstanding when the decant ended, including roof and window repairs, and installation of extractor fans.
There is no evidence to indicate the landlord carried out an assessment prior to the decant, which was a departure from its decant policy. In addition, the resident, who was originally only to be decanted for 2 weeks, had to experience the continual disruption of living in unsuitable accommodation while the decant was being repeatedly extended. Given the surveyor’s recommendation that the resident should not return until the bathroom works were complete, the landlord could have considered a longer term decant in more suitable temporary accommodation, while all works were completed. There is no evidence landlord had actively explored this option, and it is unclear why not. As a result, the resident had to return to a property where outstanding repairs to her roof and windows were delayed by a further 9 months.
It is not disputed that the initial roof repairs were delayed by 8 months, while the landlord waited for the works to be approved. It is not clear from the records why approval took so long. However, this is further evidence of poor internal communication, and a lack of an effective system for approving works. It is also noted that the records are confusing around whether or not there was a leak in the roof. At one point the landlord reported it could not find a leak. However, in later correspondence, it mentioned works to the roof to resolve a leak. The evidence suggests that the lack of clarity was caused by poor record keeping and ineffective repairs management.
Following a roof inspection on 23 February 2023, which recommended replacement of roofing felt and battens, it took a further 9 months to complete the additional roofing works. The evidence shows that the work to the roof had held up installation of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The records show the landlord had problems with contractors, and had to assign new contractors when existing ones were no longer able to carry out the work. Although it is acknowledged that this would have contributed to the delays, the landlord would reasonably have been expected to have effective contract monitoring in place so it could avoid assigning contactors who were either unable to complete repairs or inappropriate for the required work. While the landlord had contracted the work out, it remained ultimately responsible for ensuring that the repairs at the property were completed in a timely manner.
It is evident the roofing works were continually pushed back to a later date, with little or no clear explanation to the resident why they had re-scheduled them. The landlord consistently failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It provided various dates for when work would take place, or when scaffolding would be erected, only for those commitments not to be met.
Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it was unable to provide proper updates. The evidence shows that this was the cause of significant inconvenience to the resident. Despite being made aware of the extent of vulnerabilities, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it dealt with the damp and mould with the required urgency. It failed to take appropriate steps to assess the potential risks this posed on the resident and her family
The landlord’s damp survey of 11 January 2023 found that the windows in the property were “blown”. Although recommendations were made to repair the windows, the records suggest the works were carried out in a piecemeal fashion, which added to the overall delays. In managing the window repairs, the evidence shows the landlord initially instructed inappropriate contractors for the job. Furthermore, the landlord took an excessive amount of time until it identified that it needed a specialist contractor to carry out window replacements. It is not clear from the records which windows had been repaired, when they were repaired or whether any windows had been replaced or overhauled.
The records indicate there were delays in sourcing window gaskets, and some delays were due to disagreements between the resident and landlord over whether the windows should be repaired or replaced. There are records that show the resident had refused access when the landlord had wanted to carry out window repairs. The Ombudsman accepts that there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to the window repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be reasonably considered to be within the landlord’s control.
However, the landlord could reasonably have made arrangements to repair all the windows at the same time, which would have minimised the need to repeated visits. It is understandable that the resident would have become increasingly frustrated by the numerous inspections, works only carried out on some windows and the ensuing disruption this would have caused. The lack of clarity around the landlord’s window repairs further demonstrates its poor record keeping, a lack of joint working and poor internal communications.
It is noted that the landlord had stated in its response to the resident that some repairs were delayed by the lack of capacity of its contractors, which meant its maintenance team had to complete them. It is unclear why, if the landlord could have done the work, it did not do so sooner in order to ensure it completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. That the landlord could not demonstrate it took sufficient steps to carry out repairs within a reasonable time was a failure, and a departure from its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing an appropriate level of service, or that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
The landlord made no attempt to identify a single point of contact that the resident could approach for updates or queries. Furthermore, there is no evidence it gave consideration to appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating all the repairs.
It is evident the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, provide accurate completion dates or to keep her reasonably informed. The evidence shows the resident was left to contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information. This suggests she took significant time and trouble to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. There is also evidence of contractors failing to attend appointments with no explanation and cancelling jobs with little or no notice. This would have caused the resident additional inconvenience and stress, particularly when records show she had taken time off work to allow access.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did try and put things right. It apologised for the failings it had identified, and advised the resident it would discuss the delays with its relevant teams in order that it could learn from her complaint. In addition, it offered the resident £606 at stage 1, increasing to £856 in its stage 2 response. It later offered another increased offer of £1131 in recognition of further delays and poor communication, However, the landlord’s offer of redress falls significantly short of recognising the impact on the resident and her family of living in a property that suffered from damp and mould for an excessively protracted period of time. The landlord did not adequately consider the excessive delays, consistently poor communication and the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs. It also failed to recognise the impact of its inaction on the resident’s ability to enjoy the use of her bathroom due to excessive damp and mould. Due to the cumulative impact these failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident has paid approximately £540 per month (taking account 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 in February 2020, which was when the resident made her initial request for an extractor fan in her bathroom. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that she was unable to fully enjoy the use of her bathroom due to damp and mould, and the impact of the outstanding works to address this. The length of time has been calculated as 43 months. This is 46 months minus the 3 months when the resident had been decanted and bathroom facilities were available. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £3,483 compensation for loss of enjoyment. This figure has been calculated as approximately 15% of the total rent during the period in question. While 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 will order additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Loss of heating and hot water

The landlord acted appropriately when it provided the resident with temporary heaters after she had reported loss of heating and hot water on 19 December 2022. However, although it attended the repair the boiler, this was delayed due to incorrect parts being ordered. Given that the resident had reported a boiler repair during the winter period, the landlord should have ensured it made the proper checks before ordering the appropriate parts. That it did not was a shortcoming.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decant the resident on 23 December 2022 while it repaired her boiler so she had proper access to heating and hot water facilities. It is also noted that the landlord repaired the boiler on 3 January 2023, once the correct parts were available. The resident has reported to the Service that the landlord had since replaced the boiler.

Lack of cooking facilities

In her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised concerns that she had not been able to use her cooker since she moved into the property due to safety concerns, and did not have smoke alarms. The resident’s MP and local authority also raised the matter on her behalf on 12, 20 January and 30 January 2023. Despite this, the landlord failed to address this matter in any of its stage 1 responses. It was only until it provided its stage 2 response that it told the resident that it would not be able to reconnect her cooker as its repairs policy did not allow it to repair appliances owned by residents.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to follow its policy, it could reasonably have given the resident some advice and support on how she would be able to have a cooker in her kitchen. It could have also helped her explore options on how she could adapt her kitchen to allow for use of her cooker. The landlord has demonstrated that it communicated poorly regarding this matter and failed to adopt a customer focused approach. Given the resident was looking after a small child, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to have taken the resident’s concerns about lack of cooking facilities more seriously. That the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about her cooker until it issued its stage 2 response was a failing.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s comment that she did not have smoke alarms. Given the absence of smoke alarms poses an important safety issue, it is unclear why it did not address this matter in its response. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord inspects the property to ensure all gas and electricity installations pass current safety regulations and to take appropriate steps if they do not.

Complaint

The evidence shows that it took the landlord 50 working days to provide the resident with a “final” stage 1 response. Within this time it sent the resident what it referred to as interim responses. Although this may have been a well-intentioned way for the landlord to update the resident, there is no provision in either its own complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to delay the complaints process by sending interim responses.
The expectation is for a landlord to send a single complaint response within a timely manner and make reasonable efforts to do so. If there are likely to be delays, the landlord should explain to the resident why its response it delayed and agree an extension with them. There is no requirement for the landlord to wait for outstanding repairs to be completed before providing a response. However, there is no reason why it cannot send residents updates once it has issued its response. The sending of interim responses only serves to unnecessarily protract the complaints process and delay the resident’s opportunity to escalate her concerns. That the landlord departed from its policy and the Code was a failing.
It is noted that the complaint responses contained errors, such as incorrect dates, which would have made them confusing to the resident. It is unclear why the errors were made, but the evidence suggests that this may have been as a result of the landlord’s poor record keeping. An order has therefore been made to ensure that training is provided to relevant staff so that similar errors may be avoided in the future.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord did not provide a repairs log or inspection reports, apart from a copy of a roofing contractor’s survey report. The only way of identifying any information that pertained to repairs, contractor visits and completion dates was through internal correspondence, and correspondence between the landlord and resident. There does not appear to be any system in place where repairs data is shared between the landlord and its contractor, which can be accessed if any queries are raised or if the landlord needs to check on the progress of works. The records show the landlord often relied on the resident to inform it whether or not repairs had been completed. This would have contributed to the lack of updates, the failure to meet the commitments made to the resident and the excessively protracted delays in resolving the outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating and hot water loss.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the lack of cooking facilities in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The protracted delays in in following up on the recommendations from damp surveys, together with poor contract monitoring, lack of communication and avoidable delays in completing works meant the resident and her family had to experience the impact of damp and mould in their property for an excessive amount of time.
The landlord provided temporary heating while it repaired the boiler fault. It delayed repairing the resident’s boiler because it had not carried out the appropriate checks before ordering replacement parts. However, it decanted the resident into temporary accommodation while it completed the repair.
In its initial response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding her lack of cooking facilities due to safety concerns. It was only after repeated requests by the resident’s MP and local authority to look into the matter that the landlord responded.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, its lack of any effective repairs tracking system, and failure to evidence any repair logs or reports for most of the inspections it carried out contributed the excessive delays and poor communication the resident experienced over a lengthy period of time.
The landlord departed from its policy by sending interim stage 1 responses, which resulted in unnecessarily protracted complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £4,883, calculated as follows:
  1. £3,483 in recognition of the resident not being able to reasonably enjoy use of her bathroom for around 3 years due to delay in addressing poor ventilation and the resulting excessive damp and mould;
  2. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to complete roof and window repairs within a reasonable time;
  3. £100 in recognition of the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the lack of cooking facilities in her property;
  4. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling;
  5. £350 in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping.

This replaces the offer of compensation the landlord made during and after the complaints process.

Advise the resident on how she can claim on the landlord’s own insurance for loss and damage to her personal possessions due to its inaction in addressing the outstanding repairs. If this is not covered by its insurance, the landlord to consider paying an additional sum in recognition of any such losses, subject to the resident providing the appropriate evidence. Provide proof to the Ombudsman that this has been done within the abovementioned timescale.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to carry out gas and electric safety inspection of the property to ensure all relevant installations comply with current safety standards. To take appropriate action if they do not.

The resident has reported that there are still some outstanding repairs remaining. She has stated that she has been instructed not to use her bathroom extractor fan due to a leak and has been advised this may be due to a problem with the roof. She has reported that this has caused the bathroom to be affected again by high levels of damp and mould. In addition, she has reported that operatives broke 2 windows during installation and that damage to the kitchen by operatives who had replaced the boiler has not been repaired. As such, the landlord should:
1. Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, carry out an inspection of the property so that any outstanding repairs may be identified;
2. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should agree a plan for any remedial works to take place. This must include how and when it will update her on the progress of any outstanding repairs, explain the work that needs to be done and provide dates for when any outstanding work is expected to commence. The landlord should share a copy of its plan with both the resident and the Service.
The landlord to review its complaint training to staff, with emphasis on checking that information is accurate and records are properly checked before drafting response letters. The training should also emphasise that staff should ensure they correctly follow the landlord’s complaints policy and avoid unnecessarily delaying responses.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54(f) in relation to responding to [e.g. requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould]. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.