Somerset Council (202305160)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305160

Somerset Council

30 August 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:
1. Communication and response to the resident who has vulnerabilities, disabilities and complex needs.
2. Handling of a rat infestation within the resident’s property.
3. Handling of outstanding repairs including damp in the hallway, damp and mould in the bedrooms and a defective lintel above the dining area window.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 25 October 2006. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord is an Arms-length Management Organisation (ALMO). The resident is autistic. She has complex disabilities and vulnerabilities including Asperger’s, PTSD, depression and communication difficulties. She is non-verbal on the telephone and in face to face settings and has specific communication requirements. She lives with her daughter, who is also autistic.
The resident has reported various repairs and issues to the landlord between August 2020 and August 2022. These include damp in her hallway, damp in the bedrooms, a rat infestation in the loft area, and a defective concrete lintel. The resident also raised communication concerns with the landlord in 2022, as she felt that the landlord was not listening to her or understanding her communication needs. The resident attempted to raise formal complaints with the landlord on several occasions in 2022, and she thought her complaints were being investigated by the landlord.
In July 2023 the resident contacted this Service for assistance as the landlord had not responded to her complaints. We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a complaint response.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023. It said it understood the complaint to be about the leak in the hallway and the rat infestation. The landlord said it had asked the resident to allow access into her home so that it could see what repairs were outstanding. It said it had hoped that its specialist tenancy sustainability officer would be able to reassure the resident and support her during any inspections and works, and it had tried its best to be respectful of the resident’s wishes and requests. It said it had been mindful of her preferred method of contact, whilst it attempted to complete necessary works. It wanted to attend and complete the outstanding works and it asked the resident for her availability.
Following escalation to stage 2, and further input from this Service, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its service failures. It said it would ask a specialist to review its processes to ensure the resident’s need for written communication was translated and highlighted across all systems and works orders. It would support the resident’s wish to move and would outline the potential options. It would arrange for an independent building survey to identify the outstanding repairs. It would also ensure that its teams had the skills and knowledge to support and meet the diverse needs of its residents, and it offered £400 compensation to the resident.
It is the understanding of this Service that the resident’s issues and repairs remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Act, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
The resident has also expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, where landlord failings are identified, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s communication and response to the resident who has vulnerabilities, disabilities and complex needs

The resident has told this Service that the landlord has been aware of her disabilities, vulnerabilities and communication requirements for at least 6 years. The evidence shows that the resident told the landlord on 16 May 2022, whilst reporting a rat infestation, that she had a diagnosis of autism, psychogenic voice disorder (a condition where individuals experience voice disturbances due to emotional or psychological stress) and PTSD.
On 20 May 2022, she asked the landlord what support was available for her, particularly in relation to her communication and understanding difficulties, and the difficulties she had with people coming to her property. She asked the landlord whether there was anyone on the team with a real understanding and awareness of autism. The landlord responded and said, as it was a relatively small organisation, it did not have the expertise to provide additional support.
The landlord does not have a vulnerable persons policy. However, under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As the resident’s communication difficulties clearly put her at a substantial disadvantage (as she was unable to communicate with the landlord over the phone or face to face) it should have considered implementing reasonable adjustments in the way it communicated with her at this point, such as by agreeing a formal communication plan.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered implementing a communication plan, in relation to its communication with the resident, or that it considered any other reasonable adjustments to assist her. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to educate itself on the resident’s diagnosis, or that it made any attempts to gain a further understanding of her requirements. This clearly demonstrates that the landlord did not have due regard to its duties under the Act, and its failure to consider making reasonable adjustments was inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unfair and unreasonable to the resident and caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows numerous further instances where the landlord had a duty to the resident under the Act.
On 25 May 2022, the resident’s elderly parents received a call to inform them that pest control were due to visit the resident within a couple of hours. The resident told the landlord that she had repeatedly asked for their number to be removed from the system and for the landlord to contact her directly by email or text. She also asked the landlord for at least 24 hours notice of any appointments with contractors and communication via one key person. She said she did not think it was unreasonable for someone with autism to expect the landlord to have an understanding and make reasonable adjustments. She told the landlord that there was information available online from organisations that do understand the condition.
The landlord confirmed on 25 May 2022 that it had removed her parent’s number from the system and apologised that this had not been done previously. However, in terms of support, the landlord offered to make referrals to external community organisations. This was an unreasonable response and demonstrates that the landlord had misunderstood the nature of the support required by the resident, even though her request for support with communication was very clear.
The resident expanded further in her response, she said she required communication in a clear way, texts were easier to process because they tended to be shorter. Due to her vulnerabilities, she could not facilitate communication by phone call. She asked for appointments to be planned and on a regular day, if possible (such as Wednesday afternoons), to minimise distress. She asked for a text message in advance of the appointment confirming the time.
The landlord responded on 26 May 2022 and said it would look into how it could add a flag to its system to reflect how the resident wished to be contacted. It said it would let her know when it had put this in place. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to inform it that its surveyor had just left her parents a voicemail message to arrange an appointment for a survey. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 May 2022. She told the landlord that contacting her parents was humiliating and demeaning to her and a constant harassment to them. She said that not being able to speak at times and experiencing distress did not mean she was incapable. She told the landlord that it had taken away her choice, her independence as an adult woman, and her voice. She said she felt the majority of distress being caused around miscommunication was a lack of clear communication from the landlord, both internally and directly to her, and what was communicated clearly to her was not followed up with actions.
The resident further explained that after major works around 6 years previously, she lost the ability to speak and she had not fully regained her speech from that time. She told the landlord that she could not cope with it again and she asked to be moved to a property that was not in a state of disrepair. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. This was unreasonable and is evidence of an unsympathetic and unreasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord’s actions demonstrated a lack of awareness and understanding of the resident’s communication requirements, and its failure to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 8 July 2022 to confirm the resident’s disabilities, vulnerabilities and complex needs. They informed the landlord that her mental health was deteriorating and it was felt that this was connected to the housing issues she was experiencing. The GP said the resident would not be able to cope with the disruption to her life with constant strangers in her home, which would no doubt increase her symptoms of anxiety. The GP asked if there were any alternative housing options available for the family and stressed that communication was often a barrier for the resident to access the help needed. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord made any contact with the resident following receipt of the GP’s letter. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage with the resident to consider appropriate adjustments.
The resident informed the landlord on 18 July 2022 that its contractors had called and left messages asking her to call back, which she was unable to do. A drainage contractor had turned up without notice, and when she did not respond, they left a calling card asking her to call them. On 19 July 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the problems experienced with its contractors. The landlord discussed the resident’s contact requirements internally and decided the best option would be to arrange to visit, even though both the resident and her GP had explained that a visit would be distressing for the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord continued to repeatedly offer and insist on visiting the resident to discuss the issues she was experiencing, even though the resident repeatedly told the landlord that she could not communicate face to face and wanted to discuss her concerns via email. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was often distressed by the landlord’s insistence on visiting her, when it was not necessary, and its attempts to provide unsuitable and inappropriate support.
It is reasonable to conclude, given the repeated failures and lack of positive action, that the landlord had not taken the time to gain even a basic understanding of autism to at least ensure that it understood the resident’s communication requirements, or to recognise the distress caused by its failure to adhere to her communication requests. This was unfair and unreasonable and clearly contributed to a breakdown in trust between the resident and the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 22 December 2023, did not specifically deal with the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate, even though it was clear that the resident had attempted to raise a complaint on several occasions. The response also offered to visit the resident at home to ensure it was doing all it could to assist, even though the resident had made her communication requirements clear on numerous occasions.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 28 February 2024, identified a “number of areas” where its communication and service did not meet the resident’s needs. The landlord said it would like to work with the resident to understand how it could resolve her outstanding concerns and it suggested the following:
1. It would ask a specialist to review its processes to ensure that the resident’s need for written communication only was translated and highlighted across all systems and works orders. It would ensure the resident had adequate advance notification for all further appointments from any of its representatives.
2. It would support the resident’s move to a different home and it could outline the potential options for moving. Whilst not in the resident’s current location, it would soon have some new build homes available which would require minimal ongoing future maintenance.
3. It would implement further organisation wide training to ensure that its teams had the skills and knowledge to support and meet the diverse needs of its residents.
4. It acknowledged that it had caused distress to the resident and her daughter and it offered £200 compensation as an apology.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the distress caused to the resident and made some assurances that it had attempted to put some things right, the response did not reflect the gravity of the landlord’s communication failings. The landlord did not acknowledge its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, or its failure to have due regard to those duties. Due to the level of distress caused to the resident, its offer of £200 compensation was insufficient to provide reasonable redress.
In summary, the landlord repeatedly failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010, as it did not make reasonable adjustments in the way it communicated with the resident. On several occasions its planned communication approach with the resident directly contradicted her requirements, and instead of making things better for her, it made things considerably worse. At times it treated the resident in an unsympathetic and inappropriate manner which caused her significant distress and inconvenience. It showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s communication requirements and it repeatedly failed to respond to her concerns. It failed to gain a basic understanding of autism and it missed opportunities to engage with the resident and consider appropriate solutions. The complaint responses were insufficient and the landlord failed to provide reasonable redress through its complaints process.
As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of a rat infestation within the resident’s property

The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022, as she could hear rats in the loft area of her property. She told the landlord she was not sleeping because of the rats and her daughter was also feeling stressed. The resident expressed her fears that the rats may enter the house or contaminate the water supply. She told the landlord that she had a diagnosis of autism and a voice disorder.
The landlord responded on 18 May 2022, and said it may be able to do a “one-off” pest control visit. However, further visits would be charged to the resident. The resident responded on 19 May 2022. She told the landlord that its response had left her with a lot of uncertainty. She asked the landlord several questions about the costs involved and whether she was responsible for pest proofing the property.
The landlord responded on 20 May 2022, and told the resident that pest control was “broadly” a tenant’s responsibility. It said it offered an initial free visit to try and eliminate the issue. If it found that the pest problem had been caused by a structural issue then it may offer further free appointments. The landlord said it was on a “case-by-case” basis. It said if the resident reported structural defects it would arrange for those to be repaired and, if necessary, arrange an inspection. It confirmed that it did not have any repairs logged for the resident, but it could raise them if she could tell it what was required. It also said it could arrange an inspection.
The resident told the landlord on 20 May 2022, that she was not certain what steps needed to be taken and she could not think how the rats were able to access her loft area. She told the landlord that she thought it had to complete repairs to stop the rats and keep them out of the building. She also said she was struggling to understand and make sense of what the landlord was saying. The landlord responded and said it would make a pest control appointment.
The landlord does not have a pest control policy, it only has an internal procedure. The Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on pests says that landlords should undertake timely inspections and complete timely repairs to address reported pest control issues. The guidance says that the landlord should not place the onus on the resident to resolve the issue. The resident may not be the root cause of the infestation and landlords should investigate fully before deciding who is responsible. A risk assessment of the situation should be carried out to assess whether it is appropriate to decant the resident whilst the issues are resolved. This should consider the resident’s individual circumstances.
Based on the evidence provided, and the Ombudsman’s guidance, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation was unfair and unreasonable. Pest control should not be “broadly a tenant’s responsibility”. The landlord’s offer of a one-off visit was unfair, particularly as it would not be clear until after the first visit as to the root cause of the infestation, or the resolution required. This could potentially force residents, who cannot afford to pay the recharges, to live with infestations.
The onus being put on the resident to tell the landlord what work was required, in relation to any structural defects, was also unfair and unreasonable. This would have meant the resident accessing the loft area. The resident told the landlord that she was struggling to understand what she was responsible for and yet the landlord made no further attempt to explain and reassure her that she was not responsible for structural defects or repairs. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord completed a risk assessment.
It is unclear from the evidence provided when the pest control visit took place but it appears to be some time at the end of May 2022. The landlord received confirmation on 6 June 2022, from the pest controller, that the rats had been dealt with. A recommendation was made to fit a rat flap in the drains to prevent further infestation. The landlord completed a drain survey on 16 June 2022, to see whether it could identify where the rats were getting in. It told the resident that the rat flap would be installed once the survey was complete.
The resident reported further concerns of rat activity to the landlord on 16 June 2022. She said the rats could be heard above her daughter’s bedroom. She asked the landlord when the rat flap would be fitted, although there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided a response. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2022, to ask whether the rat infestation had been dealt with. However, again, the landlord did not respond. This was unfair and unreasonable and demonstrates an overall lack of concern for the resident’s situation.
The resident told the landlord on 19 January 2023, that the rats had visited again during the cold weather. She told the landlord on 1 March 2023, that she thought the rats were entering her loft under the tiles or eaves. Again, there is no evidence of a response or any further action relating to the rat infestation from the landlord. This was unfair and unreasonable and demonstrates the landlord’s lack of empathy and understanding of the situation. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord investigated where the entry points were in the loft, or that it attempted to pest proof the property by blocking the possible entry points.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 May 2023, to arrange to complete outstanding works to the property. However, it failed to mention the outstanding rat infestation issues. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2023. She told the landlord that she was being woken up at night by the rats and the stress of not sleeping was affecting her mental and physical health. She told the landlord that it had not responded to her question as to whether the rat flaps had been installed. She said she could not cope with the rats anymore as she could hear multiple rats running across the upstairs ceilings, and she was afraid to open her cupboards. She said the longer the situation was unresolved, the less able she felt in being able to communicate and interact with the landlord.
The landlord responded on 3 August 2023. It said it understood the resident’s main concern to be the rat infestation, so it would try to deal with that before addressing her other concerns (outstanding repairs). It asked her to provide suitable dates and times for a visit, although this appears to be in relation to a visit from the landlord rather than its pest control contractor. It is unclear from the information provided why the landlord did not ask its pest controller to re-attend at this point or why it felt a visit was necessary when it was unable to address the rat issue directly. It was also fully aware that the resident was unable to communicate face to face.
It was clear that the rat infestation had been ongoing for some time and that it was causing the resident and her daughter distress. It should have been a priority for the infestation to be addressed. The landlord’s approach was unfair and unreasonable and only added to the overall delay in resolving the infestation for the resident. This also further demonstrates the landlord’s unsympathetic approach to the situation and its lack of understanding of the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 December 2023, did not adequately address the resident’s concerns relating to the unreasonable delays in resolving the infestation. Instead of agreeing to make a pest control appointment, which would have been the most appropriate response, it again wanted to visit the resident beforehand, despite being fully aware of the resident’s communication requirements at this point. The stage 1 response provided no resolution to the pest issues and offered no redress for the delays.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 28 February 2024, said it upheld the resident’s complaint. However, it did not specifically address the rat infestation issues, offer any resolution, or offer any redress to the resident. This is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord’s offer of a one-off pest control appointment and the onus it put on the resident to identify related structural issues was unfair and unreasonable and caused the resident distress. It failed to respond to the resident’s further reports of rats and failed to provide an update in relation to the rat flap. The landlord demonstrated an overall lack of concern and a lack of empathy and it failed to understand the resident’s needs. It made no attempt to pest proof the property to provide relief to the resident. It delayed unreasonably in resolving the infestation issues for the resident by insisting on unnecessary visits prior to issuing a job to the pest controller, and it provided no resolution or redress through its complaints process.
As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delay in addressing the infestation, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs including damp in the hallway, damp and mould in the bedrooms and a defective lintel above the dining area window.

Under the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, and in line with its obligations under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, outside walls, outside doors, floors, window frames, drains, gutters and external pipes. Also, the internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, doors and doorframes.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 August 2020. She said the radiator behind her front door was leaking, her carpet was wet, and mould was growing. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to when the surveyor attended, however, it appears that he suggested some form of explorative works to see where the damp was coming from.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2020, and asked if it would just replace the radiator rather than carry out the explorative works, unless there were further signs of a problem, as it would be less disruptive and there had been no further signs of damp. She said she did not think she could cope with further work, other than the radiator being replaced, unless the surveyor felt it necessary. The landlord agreed and the radiator was replaced on 2 September 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2022. She said she had water coming into her property from a leaking gutter, which had caused damp and mould in her property. The landlord confirmed that it had asked its surveyors to attend her property and carry out an inspection.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 1 June 2022, giving further details of the issues within her property. She said she thought the damp and mould could be related to the cavity wall insulation, although the brick work needed pointing in places. She explained that asbestos tiles had been removed in the hallway and she thought they were acting as a damp proof course over the concrete. She said some damp still appeared to be coming up under the hall radiator, and she thought the damp could be related to a leaking water pipe in the sub floor. She also reported a defective lintel as the steel reinforcing was exposed.
The landlord carried out a property inspection on 8 June 2022. It noted that there were issues with mould and moisture in the property which could be eased by installing an extractor fan in the bathroom. It said there was low level moisture to the front bedroom, which could have been the result of poor cavity wall insulation or cold bridging from the concrete external coping which the gutter was secured to. It also confirmed that a repair was needed to a cracked lintel. However, it concluded that there was little evidence to support the resident’s concerns that there was moisture coming up through the concrete floor in the hallway.
The landlord confirmed in an email dated 16 June 2022, that it had raised a job to install a bathroom fan and raised a job for a cavity wall survey. It said it was looking into the issue with the lintel, although the defect was of no danger to the resident or the property. It said it was unable to evidence a water leak in the hallway as there were no tide lines or areas of moisture consistent with leaks into concrete floors.
The resident responded by email on the same day. She said that, before she installed her flooring, she could see areas of damp bare concrete where the paint had worn off and the skirting was also still damp two years after the radiator had been replaced. She asked whether a damp meter test could be carried out. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided a response. This was unreasonable and unfair. It should have been aware of the previous surveyor’s inspection in 2020, and the explorative work it had agreed to carry out at the time. Although the landlord had carried out a visual inspection, it had not used a damp meter, which would have given a more accurate determination as to whether there was any damp present.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 July 2022. She told it that she had taken her own damp meter readings and she could email them to the landlord. She also suggested that the landlord could verify the results by taking its own further readings.
The landlord arranged for the regional water authority to check the water pressure to the resident’s property on 5 July 2022. It found no drop in pressure and no evidence of a leak on the pipework going into the property. The landlord also raised a job for a plumber to check the internal water pressure, though this does not appear to have been carried out. Although this was a reasonable course of action, and assisted in the investigation as to whether there was a sub floor leak, the landlord did not arrange to take damp meter readings and provided no reason for its reluctance to do so to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2022. She said she had not been kept informed of what was happening in relation to the outstanding repairs. The landlord apologised on 19 July 2022. It said it would arrange a meeting between the previous surveyor and the new surveyor and then it would arrange to visit the resident. It is unclear from the evidence provided why a further visit was required, when it was clear that this would only cause further delay in resolving the outstanding issues.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 5 August 2022. It said it had looked into the resident’s concerns and any required jobs had been raised. It said it could arrange for another survey if the resident wished. The resident responded on 9 August 2022. She queried why the landlord had not taken its own damp meter readings following the high damp meter readings she had recorded in the hallway and kitchen. She referred to the investigative work that had been due to take place in 2020, and asked why this could not be carried out. She also requested an update on the failed lintel.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what happened between August 2022 and 9 January 2023, when the resident re-raised the issue of damp in her hallway. The evidence suggests that the landlord and resident could not agree a way forward and so the matter failed to progress.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs are raised by surveyors following a visit. These repairs will be completed within 28 days unless an extension of time is requested for materials with a long lead time. The initial inspection had been carried out on 8 June 2022, and by January 2023, 7 months later, the repairs were no further on. This demonstrates that the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy, and its failure to complete the outstanding repairs was inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unfair and unreasonable and left the resident and her daughter living in a property with ongoing issues of damp and mould.
The evidence shows that the landlord continued to insist that a visit was required to the resident’s property prior to it addressing the damp and mould, although the reasons for the visit are unclear. The resident explained to the landlord that it could have acknowledged the damp meter readings she had sent and it could have addressed any concerns or agreed an action plan by email, in line with her communication requirements. During this time, there was no further progression in relation to the outstanding repairs.
On 11 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she no longer had confidence in its surveyors. She asked that it instruct an independent structural engineer or building surveyor to assess her property.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 2 May 2023. It said it wanted to attend her property to clean and treat all mould, repair or replace the pipe in the kitchen and to take damp meter readings throughout the property. It also wanted to check the external lintel to scope the works for replacement. It said it would arrange for an independent survey if she still had concerns following the visit. However, the resident asked the landlord not to attend until after her daughter’s exams as she was unable to cope with the stress of the exams and the repairs.
The landlord did check in with the resident on 7 July 2023, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, on 17 July 2023, the resident responded and said she did not feel the issues could be resolved without causing her further distress. She said if the repairs had been dealt with sufficiently from the start, she would have been able to cope with the works. She told the landlord that she could not see a solution that would not end up making both her and her daughter more ill. Therefore, apart from the installation of a bathroom extractor fan on 11 December 2023, there was no further progress made in the completion of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 22 December 2023, said it had asked for access to the resident’s home, so that it could see what repairs were outstanding. It said it had tried to be respectful of the resident’s difficulties and it had been led by her contact to try to resolve her concerns. It said it would like to clean and treat all mould, repair/replace the pipe in the kitchen, take damp meter readings throughout the property, and check the external lintel to scope the works for replacement. It asked the resident to advise of her availability so it could book the work in with its contractor.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 February 2024, said it would like to understand how it could complete the outstanding repairs to the resident’s home. It said it realised that the resident had lost confidence in it, so it offered to pay for an independent building surveyor to specify and co-ordinate the outstanding repairs. It said it would also arrange alternative temporary accommodation for the duration of the works if the resident felt it necessary. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £200 towards losses incurred as a result of previous repairs to her home. Although it is unclear from the information provided what the losses were, and how they relate to this complaint.
Although the landlord’s offer of an independent survey and a temporary decant was reasonable in the circumstances, the resolution of the issues and outstanding repairs were no further on. The landlord did recognise that the resident had lost confidence in its ability to complete the repairs, however, it did not consider how it could repair the relationship going forward. The landlord did not offer the resident any redress to recognise the unreasonable delays in the completion of the repairs or for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by those delays.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set out for repairs within its repairs policy, and it delayed unreasonably in completing outstanding repairs. It did not carry out adequate investigations into the damp in the resident’s hallway and it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout this case as it failed to respond to the resident on occasion and failed to keep the resident updated. It left the resident living with ongoing damp and mould and it failed to provide reasonable redress through its complaints process.
As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays in completing outstanding repairs, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At the time of this complaint its complaints and feedback policy said it would respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
The resident attempted to raise a formal complaint with the landlord on several occasions. On 27 May 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction after her parents had received a voicemail message from the landlord after she had explicitly told the landlord 2 days before that she did not want it to contact her parents. This was not logged as a complaint.
The resident sent the landlord a complaint in the form of cartoon pictures on 22 July 2022, in an attempt to explain how upset and frustrated she felt about how things were handled when the surveyor visited. On 25 July 2022, she sent a follow up email to her complaint, and on 3 August 2022, she sent a further email with reference to the “complaint cartoon #2 thread” to explain that there was an error in her previous email. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord and said she had been trying to explain that she could not cope with people visiting, however, the landlord did not seem to listen. This was not logged as a complaint.
On 9 August 2022, the resident clearly stated that she was not happy with the survey that took place on 8 June 2022. She told the landlord that she had already complained and she asked what had been done about her complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and said, as she was not satisfied with the survey, it would ask a different surveyor to attend. It made no reference to the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 January 2023. She asked the landlord to explain the next steps so that she could refer her case to this Service because her issues had not been resolved, and she did not feel listened to. The evidence provided notes that the landlord raised an initial complaint and advised the resident of this by email, although there is no further reference to this within the evidence and it appears that a complaint was not actually raised.
On 23 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she would like her case to be referred to this Service. The landlord informed the resident on 3 April 2023, that the Housing Ombudsman would not consider a complaint until the resident had engaged with the landlord, by allowing it to try and resolve the issue, and exhausting its complaints process.
The resident told the landlord during an email conversation on 11 April 2023, that she needed to look into whether she could self-refer to this Service. The landlord did not make any reference to this Service, or to its complaints process, when it provided the resident with a response.
On 17 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to “please escalate and forward my multi-faceted complaint to the ombudsman asap”. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, and it made no reference to its complaints process, or this Service, in its response. The landlord only provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response after she contacted this Service for assistance.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022), and the landlord’s complaints and feedback policy, sets out the definition of a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints and feedback policy says any initial contact that expresses dissatisfaction with its services will be logged as an initial stage 1 complaint. This includes dissatisfaction with the standard of service received from the landlord or a member of staff or its contractors.
It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did not act in accordance with its own complaints policy, or the Code, when it repeatedly failed to raise a formal complaint even though the resident had clearly expressed her dissatisfaction. Therefore, its actions and responses in failing to do so, were inappropriate in the circumstances. The resident was prevented from making a formal complaint and from escalating her complaint to this Service in 2022, when she first raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord. This was unfair and unreasonable and only added to the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s complaints policy also says it will be consistent in its approach to complaints and treat all customers who access the complaints process in a fair and equal manner allowing for reasonable adjustments as necessary. It says it will offer appropriate support to all complainants and consider any sensitive or special needs. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it made reasonable adjustments to its processes, in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), or that it offered any support to the resident throughout the complaints process. This was inappropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s failure to have due regard to its duties under the Act.
We contacted the landlord on 14 December 2023 and asked it to provide the resident with a stage 1 complaint response by 22 December 2023, which it did. As the resident was dissatisfied with the response, she contacted the landlord on 4 January 2024 to escalate her complaint. She told the landlord that its response was unacceptable. However, rather than escalating her complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a response on 23 January 2024. It told the resident it was “happy to discuss any alternative solutions or approaches” with the resident. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint again on 31 January 2024. She clearly asked the landlord to “please escalate” her complaint.
This Service contacted the landlord on 1 February 2024, to check what stage the complaint was at within its internal complaints process. The landlord told us that it had tried to engage with the resident but she would not engage and they did not know what the resident wanted it to do. We advised the landlord that, as the resident had requested the landlord escalate her complaint, it must do so and it must provide a response within 20 working days to allow the resident to refer her case to us for investigation.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2024. This was 39 days from the date of the resident’s initial escalation request and outside of the timeframe of 15 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. It was also outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set out in the Code. The landlord did not act in accordance with its own complaints policy, or the Complaint Handling Code, when it delayed in providing a stage 2 response and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unfair and unreasonable as the resident had already been subject to a significantly delayed resolution because of the length of time taken to receive a stage 1 response.
The landlord did not address its complaint handling failures within its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses, and it did not offer the resident any redress.
In summary, the landlord did not act in accordance with its own complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code when it repeatedly failed to log a stage 1 complaint. It failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010, as it did not make reasonable adjustments to its processes, it delayed unreasonably in providing the resident with a stage 2 response, and it failed to recognise its complaint handling failures or offer any redress to the resident.
As a result of these failings, the landlord’s repeated failure to log a complaint, the delay in the stage 2 response, the level of detriment caused to the resident, and the landlord’s failure to recognise its failings and provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its communication and response to the resident who has vulnerabilities, disabilities and complex needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a rat infestation within the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of outstanding repairs including damp in the hallway, damp and mould in the bedrooms and a defective lintel above the dining area window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report (the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive in writing).
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,600 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid) made up of:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s communication and response to the resident who has vulnerabilities, disabilities and complex needs.
  2. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of a rat infestation within the resident’s property.
  3. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
  4. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Agree a formal communication plan with the resident. This should address all communication with the landlord and its contractors. This should also include but not be limited to:
  1. All communication between the landlord and resident by text or email, unless an agreed visit is required to complete a repair or carry out a repairs inspection or safety check.
  2. A single point of contact (SPOC) to be appointed for any further contact between the resident and landlord and agreed timeframes for responses.
  3. Notice requirements and contact arrangements for contractors.
4. Arrange for a specialist pest company to fully assess and pest proof the resident’s property. This includes blocking up all possible entry points. The landlord should consider and discuss with the resident, by email, whether it would be appropriate to offer the resident a decant whilst the work is carried out.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Instruct an independent (RICS) surveyor to carry out a full structural survey and damp and mould survey to identify the required remedial repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord must provide this Service, and the resident, with a copy of the schedule of works.
2. Complete all outstanding works within the 8 week period and provide evidence of completion to this Service. The landlord should consider and discuss with the resident (by email) whether it would be appropriate to offer the resident a decant whilst the work is carried out.
3. Implement a vulnerable persons policy to set out its approach to supporting customers with vulnerabilities and complex needs. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the policy.
4. Implement a pest policy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance (available on the website). The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the policy.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report, particularly in relation to the landlord’s lack of consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities and complex needs, and its failure to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include a self-assessment against the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights. Identified improvements should be cascaded to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Progress its offer of a permanent move with the resident should she still feel this course of action is appropriate.
2. Pay the resident the £200 compensation it offered for losses incurred as a result of previous repairs to the resident’s home.
3. Consider whether an insurance claim would be appropriate in relation to the losses incurred.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.