Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southern Housing (202307305)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307305

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. Outstanding repairs required to address damp and mould in the property.
    2. The level of service and conduct of a member of staff.
    3. Queries in relation to a possible temporary or permanent move from the property.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a bungalow.
  2. The landlord has records of health vulnerabilities in respect of the resident’s husband. The resident supplied a GP letter to her landlord in 2017 which stated that her husband’s health conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sarcoidosis and ulcerative colitis.
  3. The landlord raised a works order on 5 April 2022 to overhaul the shower. At a bathroom inspection on 19 April 2022, the landlord’s surveyor reported significant damp issues with the solid concrete floor. The landlord advised the resident that it would complete a desktop study and would phone the resident within 2 weeks to discuss the findings.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2022 stating that she was raising a complaint. The resident stated that the landlord’s surveyor had not been in contact with her. The resident stated that she had also phoned the landlord to find out what was happening and that she was told that there was no update on the computer. She asked for her email to be passed to the landlord’s maintenance services team.
  5. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email on 3 May 2022. It advised it had forwarded the resident’s email to its maintenance services team.
  6. The resident submitted a formal complaint email on 26 May 2022. In this she restated the complaint issue referred to in her email of 30 April 2022 concerning the surveyor not getting back in touch with her. She advised that the surveyor had taken photographs and that the landlord had conducted a number of previous inspections over the years. As a remedy she wished for a proper response to be given, along with a reason why the landlord’s surveyor had not got back in contact.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 June 2022 as she had seen the landlord’s surveyor speaking to a neighbour at the end of the road who she alleged was responsible for antisocial behaviour. She believed that the manner of the discussion was not appropriate. She was disappointed that the surveyor had not also visited her property to discuss the outcome of the inspection that had taken place on 19 April 2022.
  8. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 18 July 2022. The landlord advised that the bathroom required an upgrade, the sub floor needed replacement and it also referred to repairs required to the kitchen, hallway and bathroom floors. The landlord advised that a visit needed to be conducted with its contractor to agree the works and a timescale. It apologised for the delay in progressing the repairs and for its lack of communication. It awarded £75 compensation comprising £25 for delays, £25 for service failure and £25 as a “goodwill gesture”.
  9. The resident phoned the landlord on 20 July 2022 as she was concerned about the works and the potential impact on her and her family. She reported that her daughter and her husband had health needs and required a working bathroom. She asked if the landlord would decant her (offer her a temporary move) during the repairs. She requested a copy of the landlord’s surveyor’s report and asked to be given a specification of works once the contractor attended with the surveyor.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 July 2022 to request an escalation of her complaint to stage 2. She stated that the landlord should investigate its surveyor and advised the landlord that she was reluctant to let another surveyor access her property. She explained why she was upset as she said the landlord had sent a number of different people over the years to inspect the property and take photographs. She would then hear nothing.
  11. The resident chased up the landlord on 30 July 2022 and 2 August 2022 to ask if the complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August 2022 to advise that it had tried to phone the resident but was having difficult connecting the call. The landlord said that its surveyor would be happy to visit with a contractor and asked for a convenient date. The landlord advised that it had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process as it was trying to discuss the matter with the resident. It asked if it would be acceptable to visit with the surveyor or whether the resident wished to escalate the complaint.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2022. She advised that she missed the landlord’s call on 9 August 2022 and had tried to ring back but was unable to get through. She did not wish for the original surveyor to attend and she confirmed that she wanted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  14. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 24 September 2022 as the landlord had not provided a stage 2 complaint response.
  15. The landlord phoned the resident on 6 October 2022 to make an appointment with a different surveyor. The resident refused the visit stating that she had been “worn down” by all the visits made previously with no action taken. She had requested things to be “paused”. The landlord suggested that a decant may be needed if all the works required were to be undertaken as the resident was not in great health.
  16. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2022 to request it do issue a stage 2 complaint response by 14 November 2022.
  17. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 14 November 2022. In this the landlord:
    1. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint as its surveyor did not follow up after the visit that took place in April 2022. It advised that no explanation had been given for the lack of follow up. It explained that there had been a delay in organising a visit by its contractor. However, this had not been communicated to the resident.
    2. Advised that after speaking to the resident on 21 September 2022 it had been agreed for a different surveyor to attend. However, the resident subsequently had refused the visit. This was due to the resident wishing to have written confirmation of the works prior to a further inspection. It advised that it had tried to contact the resident again but was unsuccessful in getting through. It was unable to confirm what works were to be undertaken without a further inspection.
    3. It would consider the full scope of works required and then would aim to work with the resident, so she did not have the upheaval of a decant.
    4. Awarded £125 compensation comprising £50 in relation to delays to complete identified repairs following the surveyor’s visit in April 2022, £50 in relation to the poor quality response at stage one and delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2, and £25 as a “goodwill gesture” to recognise the time, inconvenience and stress that this caused to the resident.
  18. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response at stage 2 and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 November 2022. As a remedy she wanted the landlord to investigate the level of service she received, for outstanding repairs to be completed and for the landlord to investigate if a permanent move could take place.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referred to earlier reports of damp and mould in the property from 2016, that resulted in a court order being made for the landlord to gain access to the property to complete identified works. It is evident from the landlord’s records that the resident made further reports of damp and mould in 2018 and 2019. The resident made an earlier complaint at this time that the landlord responded to. There was no further report of damp and mould until the plumber reported the issue following the works order of 5 April 2022. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to her landlord of 30 April 2022.
  2. The resident has referred to the impact of the damp and mould on hers and her husband’s health. Damp and mould issues are widely reported as having a negative impact on the health of residents. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  3. The resident has referred to repair issues with regard to the property’s windows, and repairs carried out to the guttering. However, this has not formed part of the complaint brought to the landlord at stage one and 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident may wish to raise these repair issue as a separate complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She may be able to bring this further complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (member landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy requires the resident to allow the landlord’s employees or contractors access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of the property and to carry out repairs or other works to the property. It stipulates that the landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice (except in an emergency).
  2. According to the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, external pipes, the roof, walls, doors, window frames and sills, external painting and decorating, internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, skirting boards, plasterwork, installations for heating, water heating, sanitation and the supply of water, gas and electricity. The landlord is not responsible for internal decoration.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy details that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours of being notified. It will attend to routine repairs “as quickly as possible”. Its procedure states that it may prioritise a repair where there is a resident with vulnerabilities or disabilities. As no timescale is given for routine repairs, a timeframe of 28 days is considered reasonable for the purpose of this investigation, in line with industry best practice.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy details that it will respond at stage one within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. If an extension is required at both stages, this will not exceed 10 working days. If this timescale is not possible to meet it will provide referral rights to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy details that it may make a compensation payment where there has been a service failure up to £50. It may pay compensation for delays or failure to complete a repair up to £50. It may also pay compensation for not following policies and procedures and for missed or failed appointments.
  6. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will consider a decant where there is disrepair and that this includes cases where there is damp. In initial communications with residents, it will consider a resident’s vulnerability. A permanent decant may be considered for planned large scale schemes but may be considered for one off moves.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs required to address damp and mould in the property.

  1. The landlord’s contractor alerted the landlord to the condition of the bathroom following the landlord’s works order of 5 April 2022. The landlord’s records do not detail the completion date however, it was evident that the repair was completed by 7 April 2022. This was the date that the landlord emailed the resident in response to the plumber’s report, to advise of an inspection appointment that was due to take place on 19 April 2022. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable as it had carried out a repair to the shower within a reasonable timeframe and it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. The inspection took place within a suitable timeframe. The landlord’s surveyor’s notes from the inspection highlighted issues of damp and mould in the property. This was affecting different areas and the sub floor. The surveyor stated that there was a “desperate need of an upgrade”. The landlord failed to get back to the resident with a promised 2-week update causing her additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter, which was not reasonable, or in line with its repair procedures relating to vulnerable residents.
  2. The landlord also needed to consider what other measures should be put in place to remove excess moisture in the air. It could have considered providing dehumidifiers and it should have also checked the efficiency of the extractor fans and whether they were working okay. The Ombudsman has seen no record that any action was taken with regard to this, which was inappropriate. The fact that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s husband’s health vulnerabilities that could be exacerbated by damp and mould should have meant that it acted with more urgency. However, it did not do this which was a significant failing. This caused unnecessary detriment and distress to the resident and her husband due to the landlord’s failings in tackling damp and mould in the property.
  3. The landlord’s communication was inadequate, and it failed to give appropriate updates to the resident on steps it would take to deal with the damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord recognised this in its complaint responses at stage one and stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord also needed to provide a realistic timeframe of when its surveyor and contractor could visit and the likely timescale of repairs to be completed but it failed to do this. The landlord mainly responded to the resident when she chased up rather than proactively keeping in touch with her. This caused the resident unnecessary distress as the landlord was failing to respond to her concerns about damp and mould. It also meant that there was unnecessary inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase up the landlord on several occasions. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response of 18 July 2022 that its surveyor was aware of the need to visit with a contractor and that the surveyor would be in contact within a few weeks. This was non-specific and would not have given the resident much reassurance that any action would be taken. The resident was clearly upset by the landlord’s stage one response as she explained of the landlord’s previous inspections that had led to insufficient action being taken.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that its surveyor had attempted to phone the resident between 4 and 10 August 2022 to arrange a follow up appointment but had been unable to get through. It therefore emailed the resident on 9 August 2022 to request her to contact to arrange the appointment. It was appropriate to email the resident following the unsuccessful phone call attempts. The resident advised at this point that she did not want the original surveyor and contractor to visit until she received a proper explanation as to why it had taken from 19 April 2022 until August 2022 for the landlord to get in touch with her. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s frustration as it had been nearly 4 months since the initial inspection and the landlord had taken no definitive action which was a significant failing.
  5. It is clear from the tenancy agreement that the resident is required to provide access on reasonable notice, of at least 24 hours. The Ombudsman can see that there had been issues with the resident providing access to her property so that the landlord could inspect it and to allow its contractor to carry out work. This had previously led to the landlord taking legal action to gain access to carry out work. Therefore, the fact that the resident had provided access in April 2022 was positive. As time elapsed from April 2022 to 3 October 2022, the resident was by this point unwilling to allow the second contractor access to the property. The landlord missed the opportunity to rebuild confidence in its service delivery, whilst the resident was willing to engage which was a failing. It did not adhere to its policy to deal with the repair issues “as quickly as possible” and within a reasonable timescale. The landlord addressed the issue of access in its stage 2 complaint response and it was correct that it would need to inspect the property, as by this point the condition may have deteriorated further and it would need to understand what work would be required. This would then enable it to understand how long it may take for the work to be completed so that it could appropriately advise the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report one year on (February 2023) gives a number of recommendations. The landlord has used the Spotlight report to conduct a self-assessment and it has produced a damp and mould framework in 2023. This is a positive step to ensure that the landlord takes damp and mould issues seriously. It should therefore act in line with its framework to ensure that the damp and mould issues are addressed with urgency in the resident’s property. Photographs provided by the resident indicates a significant amount of mould growth in the bathroom and in other parts of the property that is concerning, especially given the resident’s husband’s health conditions as mentioned above. The landlord had also previously inspected the property in 2018 and the photographic evidence from this inspection showed the same damp and mould issues highlighted in 2022. This evidences that the resident had been living in a property affected by damp and mould for a considerable period of time. The landlord’s lack of a proactive approach to the resident’s issues of damp and mould has clearly caused detriment to the resident and her husband.
  7. The resident has since requested that the landlord pause any completion of works with regard to the damp and mould pending the Ombudsman’s investigation. As such the issues remain and the landlord has not had the opportunity to progress the work any further.
  8. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s failings and errors identified. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. In this instance, an amount of £600 compensation is appropriate, being £300 for the landlord’s overall delay in addressing the reported repair issues including damp and mould, £100 in respect of its lack of communication, and £200 in respect of the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident in her pursuit of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct and level of service by a member of staff.

  1. The resident initially reported the conduct and level of service from the landlord’s surveyor in her complaint of 30 April 2022. She then made further allegations on 10 June 2022. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord forwarded the resident’s allegations on 15 June 2022 for a senior manager to review which was an appropriate response.
  2. Whilst the landlord apologised for service failure in its stage one complaint response, it did not give any details that it had investigated the allegations which the resident would have expected. It therefore missed the opportunity at stage one to address this complaint issue which was a failing.
  3. As the landlord failed to explain that it had investigated the allegations at stage one, the landlord then needed to address the issue at stage 2 of its complaints process. There was therefore a delay in dealing with the resident’s allegations and it meant that there was unnecessary inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. It was appropriate that the landlord phoned the resident on 21 September 2021, where it discussed the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 November 2022 acknowledged that its surveyor’s lack of response was not appropriate. The landlord appropriately detailed its service expectations for its surveyors to organise a follow up appointment within 4 weeks and this clearly had not happened. It explained that this was an oversight as opposed to an intentional act. This evidenced that the landlord had investigated the issue, though its records were not very clear as the outcome of its investigation was not recorded. It is important that the landlord considers its record keeping practice so that it can give accurate information to its residents. The landlord should conduct a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
  5. There was therefore service failure due to the delay in the landlord investigating the resident’s allegations and in properly responding to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as above, suggests that for cases of service failure that compensation of between £50 to £100 is appropriate. Service failure can include delay in getting matters resolved and failings to acknowledge and put things right. In this instance, £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect the delay in responding to the resident about the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding a possible temporary or permanent decant.

  1. The resident made the landlord aware of the potential need for a decant during her phone call of 20 July 2022. During the phone call, the resident advised that due to her husband and daughter’s health issues she could not be left without a working bathroom. The Ombudsman has seen no further response until the landlord spoke to the resident on 21 September 2022. The landlord’s records are not clear as to whether it gave any advice at this point whether a temporary or permanent decant would be necessary. The landlord’s second surveyor who phoned the resident on 6 October 2022 rightly pointed out, that the resident and her husband were not in good health and that it may be worth exploring whether a permanent move would be appropriate. The phone call record states that the landlord’s subsequent surveyor had discussed this with the resident and that the resident advised that the landlord had refused a permanent move previously. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of a prior request for a permanent move so is unable to draw a conclusion on this earlier reported refusal.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of further consideration of the issue or response to the resident until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 November 2022. There was therefore an unreasonable 4 month delay in addressing the resident’s query after the resident raised the issue on 20 July 2022. This was clearly a matter that the resident was worried about and a delay in responding would have caused the resident unnecessary distress. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided some early advice and reassurance in respect of its decant policy and process which it failed to do. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on the issue was correct, in that it would not be possible to determine whether a temporary or permanent decant was appropriate without understanding the extent of works required. There was therefore a service failure. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as above, compensation of £100 is appropriate in this case in respect of the delay in providing its response to the resident concerning the decant query.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident requested that the landlord raise a complaint on 30 April 2022. However, the Ombudsman has seen no record that this was treated as a complaint in line with the landlord’s policy as it should have been. The resident had raised an issue that she had described as a complaint, which was clearly more than a service request. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not log a complaint at stage one at the time. The resident then sent a further complaint email on 26 May 2022 raising the same issues. The landlord treated this as a stage one complaint referring to this as an escalation to its complaints process in an internal email of 30 May 2022. This would suggest that the landlord was either dealing with the complaint as a service request or at a stage zero which would be inappropriate in either event.
  2. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord needed to contact the resident to advise of any delay in issuing its response. The landlord initially emailed the resident on 15 June 2022 to advise that it would not be able to respond for a further 10 working days, slightly outside of 10 working days set out in its initial email of 1 June 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord, however, to advise of the delay, to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord then sent a further extension email on 4 July 2022 extending its stage one response by a further 10 working days. The landlord did not issue its stage one response until 18 July 2022, which was nearly 3 months after the resident’s initial complaint was made. It was also 23 working days after the landlord’s later email advising of a 10 working day extension. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy above.
  3. There was further delay in the landlord’s escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It is not clear why the landlord chose to delay the complaint escalation that the resident had made very clearly on 25 July 2022. The resident contacted the landlord several times to ask if it the complaint had been escalated. In the landlord’s email of 9 August 2022, it stated that it had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 as it was trying to discuss the matter with the resident. This was inappropriate as the landlord should have acted in accordance with its complaints policy. It could have continued discussions with the resident whilst progressing the complaint at the same time. Further internal emails suggest that the landlord needed the approval of a manager to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord confirmed this process in an email to the resident of 23 August 2022. This evidence suggests that the landlord was reluctant to escalate the complaint in line with its complaints policy which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2022 to advise of an extension in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. However, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this extension letter. This again indicated that there are some record keeping issues that the landlord needs to address. There was further delay in respect to the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint response which it did not provide until 14 November 2022, following the Ombudsman’s contact. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent 5 months after the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. This was therefore significantly delayed. It caused the resident unnecessary detriment due to the complaint issues she had raised, as well as inconvenience, time and trouble in seeking a resolution to her complaint. This was therefore a failing.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy is non-compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (The Code) which is a statutory requirement. The Code is published on our website and sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The landlord’s policy states that a response will be sent at stage one within 10 working days of an acknowledgement. A complaint response should at stage one should be sent within 10 working days of the complaint being made. The landlord should therefore pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy. The Ombudsman’s revised Code is due to be published on 1 April 2024 and the landlord should refresh its self-assessment based upon the new Code. It should then ensure that it updates its policy so that it reflects the new Code.
  6. The landlord offered compensation of £125 at stage 2 which comprised £50 discretionary payment in respect of delays in completing repairs, £50 in respect of complaint service failures and £25 as a goodwill gesture. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adequately address the failings identified in this investigation.
  7. There was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the Remedies Guidance, as above, £300 compensation is appropriate in this case (inclusive of the £125 offered). This comprises £200 for the landlord’s overall delay in its complaint handling, and £100 for the distress, and time and trouble caused to the resident due to the landlord’s errors and failings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs including repairs to address damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the level of service and conduct of a member of staff.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding a possible temporary or permanent move from the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident by a director or higher in respect of the failings identified in this case. This includes the communication issues, delays in responding to the resident in addressing the issues of damp and mould in the property, its delays in logging the resident’s complaints at stage one and stage 2 and non-compliance with the Code.
    2. Pay the resident £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of her reports of outstanding repairs to address damp and mould in the property.
    3. Pay the resident £50 in respect of the landlord’s handling of her reports concerning the level of service and conduct of a member of staff.
    4. Pay the resident £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of her queries regarding a possible temporary or permanent decant.
    5. Pay the resident £300 (inclusive of the £125 offered) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full inspection of the property. It must draw up a schedule of works and complete the works identified in this inspection within a further 8 weeks. It must provide evidence of satisfactory completion of the works to this Service within a further 2 weeks following completion.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a senior management review of this case to identify learning opportunities and to help prevent failures reoccurring. The outcome of this review is to be reported to both this Service and the landlord’s governing body. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case. The review is to address four specific issues of concern:
    1. How the landlord records vulnerabilities and takes appropriate action.
    2. Its communication and approach to gaining access to properties where necessary.
    3. The circumstances and steps it takes to provide a temporary and/or permanent decant.
    4. Its record keeping. It should set out its intention and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment of its record keeping practice using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy once the Housing Ombudsman’s revised Code is published on 1 April 2024. It should undertake a self-assessment of its complaints policy (using our self-assessment toolkit available on our website) to inform its review. It should publish its revised policy within 12 weeks of the publication of the revised Code.