Southwark Council (202113463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113463

Southwark Council

28 November 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s request to be rehoused;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling;
4. The landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Rehousing request
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident wants to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation on health grounds. The evidence shows the landlord declined to consider the resident’s rehousing request for reasons that will be explained below.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
Since the resident’s rehousing request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The landlord’s refusal to consider the resident’s rehousing request is relevant to the below assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and the tenancy began on 18 January 2021. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is the resident’s local authority. The tenancy agreement shows the resident’s weekly rent is £100.82. The resident occupies the property with his wife and young children. The Ombudsman has seen medical information that shows the children have medical conditions including eczema and allergies. The resident was anxious to leave his previous accommodation, also rented from the landlord, due to its condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Typically, improvement works are the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. Because it did not provide a policy document, the Ombudsman found a relevant document from our own records. The document, effective 1 March 2021, confirms the landlord responded to complaints within 15 working days at stage one. At stage two, it responded within 25 working days. Complaints were acknowledged within three working days at both stages. Online searching shows the landlord has since updated its timescales.

Summary of events

During internal correspondence on 6 October 2020, the landlord’s voids department notified the landlord the property was in suitable condition to let. Various “hand-back” documents were attached to the email. The Ombudsman has seen a number of documents from around the same time, which include gas and electricity safety certificates. The Ombudsman has also seen an undated list of void works. The list details the landlord’s repairs to the property while it was unoccupied. It shows the repairs undertaken were broadly decorative in nature.
The list confirms plastering works were completed to the living room walls and ceiling. Further, silicone sealant was applied to multiple areas of the kitchen and bathroom, along with multiple areas in both bedrooms. No information was seen to indicate the landlord raised any concerns about the condition of the property during its void process. Nor was any information seen to show it identified further issues in need of repair. As a result, there was no indication the landlord was aware of any underlying issues with the property at this time.
During its later internal correspondence, on 19 May 2021, the landlord said the resident viewed the property on 7 December 2020 and completed the signup process on 6 January 2021. It also said his tenancy start date was delayed by around ten days so the landlord had time to complete works before the family moved in. The resident has not disputed this timeline. The correspondence also said:
1. “(the resident) was fully aware that there was water penetration to one wall in the living room…at the time…and that work would be required to remedy this. Due to his then circumstances he was most insistent on signing the tenancy as soon as possible…”
2. The landlord’s lettings operative agreed to the resident’s occupation of the property following discussions with a senior colleague and a Void Surveyor. The resident was asked to sign a document confirming he was aware that the property needed further works. The resident was not pressured to agree the tenancy.
The Ombudsman has seen the resident’s signed document. The version seen was undated. It said the resident was made aware further works were needed to address a damp wall. However, the landlord was prepared to agree the tenancy because it understood he needed to move urgently. It also said, by signing the document, the resident acknowledged additional works were needed during the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 18 January 2021. The information seen suggests the resident and his family moved in on this date.
The landlord’s repair history shows a works order was raised on 25 January 2021 to trace and remedy a leak into the property from above. The repair notes said the leak was affecting both bedrooms and the living room. The order was marked complete two days later. The landlord’s corresponding notepad entry said several open vents to the exterior of the property were sealed, and inspections were completed to both a rainwater fall pipe and a flat roof. However, several jobs were required to the block’s exterior.
On 16 February 2021 a works order to rectify a leak to a small roof at the front of the block was marked complete. The notes said there were concerns the leak would affect the property. The records show the order was raised on 9 December 2020. The timeline therefore indicates this repair may relate to the resident’s signed document.
On 19 February 2021 a similar repair order was raised to address an “uncontainable” leak. The notes show the same three rooms were affected. The repair history shows the order was marked complete the same day. The corresponding notepad entry said the works were incomplete because the landlord was unable to gain access to the flat above.
Another repair was raised on 23 February 2021. Again, the landlord’s records show water was leaking into the property from above and it was unable to access the upstairs flat.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 February 2021. It said its contractor claimed repairs to the uncontainable leak were complete. It asked the resident to complete a survey about its contractor’s performance. The landlord’s repair records confirm the email related to the repair order raised on 19 February 2021. The resident later told the Ombudsman the landlord failed to attend a number of reported repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 9 March 2021. He said he reported water leaking from above when he moved in on 18 January 2021. However, the landlord had done nothing to address the issue. He also said the leak had worsened and it was affecting every room. His main points were:
1. The resident and his family were cleaning the affected rooms every day. Nevertheless, the water had damaged the property’s new wooden flooring. The resident was concerned the landlord knew the property had unresolved issues but it had decorated over them.
2. The resident previously complained to the landlord’s local representative. Though they were aware of historic issues with the property, the resident was advised they were addressed before his tenancy began. Again, the landlord had done nothing about the situation.
3. The landlord had treated the resident and his family unfairly over a number of years. There were leaks, damp, mould and an infestation at their previous accommodation. Contrary to its recent email, no one from the landlord’s repairs team had attended the leak. This was consistent with the resident’s previous experience.
4. The family had various medical conditions and the property’s condition was impacting their mental and physical health. Walls in each room were cold and wet, and the children were “freezing” even when the heating was on. A health and safety officer should inspect the property and the family’s treatment should be investigated.
On 18 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again. He said the property’s former tenant complained about the same issues and the neighbours were aware of the situation. Further, the landlord’s local representative visited the property and was shocked by its condition. Nevertheless, nothing had been done to resolve the situation. The resident said he needed a priority move on medical grounds due to damp, mould and dust.
Between 29 March and 1 April 2021, the resident’s local NHS Trust made two separate written requests for the family be granted a priority move. The requests were made on health and wellbeing grounds. The Trust’s initial letter contained ten different images of damp and mould throughout property. The landlord’s repair records from 1 April 2021 show it forced entry into the upstairs flat. However, in line with the previous record on 27 January 2021, no leaks were found and it was reported the issues were believed to be external.
On 13 April 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around 24 working days after the resident’s initial complaint email. The landlord’s repair history shows it raised a corresponding repair order the same day. The repair notes said the leak was external and a communal repair was raised to the block. The main points from the landlord’s response were:
1. The leak was initially thought to originate from the flat above. The landlord encountered “real difficulties” in gaining access to this flat, which caused a delay in tracing the source of the leak.
2. After eventually gaining access, the landlord found the leak was entering the property from the block’s guttering. A repair order had been raised and a contractor was scheduled to attend on 21 April 2021. However, the contractor’s visit may determine scaffolding was required to complete the repair.
3. When the leak was repaired and the property was dry, an inspection may be needed to establish whether further repairs were needed.
The resident disagreed the same day. He said he requested a health and safety inspection because the property was uninhabitable. Further, the landlord was failing in its duty of care because the property’s condition was causing “significant health damages” to the family. He said the situation was “serious and desperate”, so suitable alternative accommodation, free from damp and mould, was needed.
The landlord’s repair records suggest the property was inspected for damp around 16 April 2021. This was around 38 days after the resident’s request for a health and safety visit. The Ombudsman has seen little information to show the outcome of this inspection. However, identical works orders to clear black mould from all rooms and complete plastering works were raised soon afterwards. The repair history shows both orders were cancelled in January 2022. No cancellation reason was recorded.
On 21 April 2021 the contractor surveyed the property. The survey report said the resident showed the contractor an external leak to the front of the block. It shows the contractor identified an asphalt balcony above the leak was in poor condition. The report also said there was “lots of mould around the entire property”. Further “I believe this could be condensation not from the roof which is two floors above.”
On 18 May 2021 a repair order was raised to address a water pipe leaking somewhere in the structure of the block. The repair notes said the resident reported hearing a constant flow of water. The order was marked complete on 21 May 2021. Other repair records from this date said there were “no signs of leak in properties, sound comes and goes…leak team to investigate.” No information was seen to show any further investigation occurred.
The landlord’s records show it held a meeting on 19 May 2021 to discuss the resident’s complaint. The notes said the resident asked to move in to the property despite a known damp issue. Further, he had asked to move as soon as possible. They also said, since he signed a waiver to this effect, the landlord would not provide compensation or alternative accommodation. The notes show the landlord would chase its contractor in relation to repairs that had been placed on hold.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 21 June 2021. This was around 47 working day (or ten weeks) after both the resident’s escalation request and the landlord’s communal repair order. The response said the resident first complained on 24 March 2021 and his complaint was acknowledged the same day. The Ombudsman has not seen a complaint or an acknowledgement from this date. The response included an extensive list of identified repairs to the building’s exterior. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The main points were:
1. The communal repair order from 13 April 2021 was still outstanding. On investigation, it was found the repair works were extensive and scaffolding was required. As a result, the landlord had been legally obliged to issue the building’s leaseholders a section 20 notice since they were liable for a portion of the repair costs. The required consultation process had delayed the repair.
2. The consultation process was now complete and the works order was back with the contractor. The landlord appreciated how the situation looked from the resident’s perspective. However, it took the leak seriously and it was pushing to progress matters as much as possible. The landlord would update the resident again when it had a scheduled repair date.
3. The resident asked to move into the property even though he knew it needed additional works. He was given the option to wait for further works or refuse the property, which would have been considered a reasonable refusal. Nevertheless, he was eager to move given the condition of his previous accommodation. After consulting a surveyor, it was determined that the property was in “liveable” condition despite the need to repair the leak.
4. Given the circumstances, the landlord did not agree to move the resident based solely on the leak. While it was aware the situation had been ongoing for some time, the landlord had statutory obligations in respect of the consultation process, and it encountered delays in gaining access to the upstairs flat. Overall, the landlord was unable to identify any failures in its handling of the repairs.
The landlord’s repair records show its contractor completed the communal repair order, raised to address the block’s roofing and guttering, on 15 December 2021. This was around eleven months after the resident’s tenancy began. It was also around six months after the landlord’s final response letter. They also show a further damp inspection was completed within days afterwards. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s inspection report.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman on 4 January 2022 the resident used the term “discrimination” to describe the landlord’s actions. Repair records from the same date show a works order was raised to redecorate the living room and paint the bathroom ceiling with anti-condensation paint. The works included an “extra coat for new plaster”. The records show the order was cancelled on 19 June 2022, but no cancellation reason was recorded. They also show the landlord was not invoiced for the works.
On 19 June 2022 the above repair order was raised again. Because the corresponding repair notes did not record a completion date, the repair records suggest these works were never completed.
During a phone call on 6 October 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman repairs to the property were largely complete. However, some minor snagging issues and an additional inspection were still outstanding. He also said his family was decanted between June and September 2022 to facilitate the repairs. No repair records were seen to support the resident’s version of events. In response to a subsequent information request from the Ombudsman, the landlord said there had been no repairs that warranted a decant.
In relation to the tenancy sign up process, the resident told the Ombudsman the property was in good condition, having been recently decorated, when he viewed it. Further, the parties agreed to the signed document after he alerted the landlord to damp on a living room wall. He also said the agreed document was based on this specific and limited issue. However, the full extent of the property’s condition only became apparent after it rained. It was understood the resident’s preferred outcome remains a permanent move to alternative accommodation.
Repair notes from 30 October 2022 suggest the resident reported the property was in disrepair. The corresponding notes said the walls were damp and there were young children in the property. This information suggests the damp and mould are ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said his family experienced discrimination from the landlord. It is recognised this is a serious allegation which was likely prompted by a significant level of distress on his part. It may help to explain the Ombudsman cannot make findings under the Equalities Act (2010) or otherwise. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if he needs assistance pursuing legal action.
However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation. On that basis, this assessment considered the evidence carefully with the resident’s allegation in mind. From the information seen, his concerns were first raised with the landlord in March 2021. While no information was seen to show the term discrimination was used during the resident’s communications to the landlord, he used this description several times in later correspondence to the Ombudsman.
No information was seen to show the resident or his family were treated differently based on their personal characteristics. Nor was any information seen to show the landlord ultimately responded to the resident’s concerns. As a result, the landlord’s response to these concerns will be considered during the below assessment of its complaint handling.
It is recognised the situation has been distressing for the resident and his family. The timeline shows he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s actions. It also shows the situation has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances
It may help to explain that this assessment concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. While the resident’s concerns about his previous accommodation are acknowledged, they are beyond the scope of the assessment. This is because the Ombudsman can only typically consider issues that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).
This approach is broadly based on the principle that landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. That said, in this case, the resident did raise concerns during his initial complaint email. Again, the landlord’s response to these concerns will be considered during the complaint handling section of the assessment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property

From the information seen, there was no evidence to support the resident’s assertion that the landlord was aware of significant underlying issues with the property from the outset of the tenancy. Instead, the evidence suggests the property suffered a leak that worsened over time. This is because it shows the property was decorated in October 2020, and was still in good condition when the resident viewed it around two months later. That said, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show the outcome of the lettings operative’s referral.
It is accepted that access issues and the section 20 process were not fully within the landlord’s control. However, the landlord’s internal records show it declined to consider the resident’s requests for rehousing and compensation on the basis he signed a waiver. This was a highly unusual approach for the landlord to adopt. It was also unfair to the resident for several reasons. For example, it is unlikely the resident would agree to rent a property with extensive leaks or damp. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the signed document referenced a limited/localised problem.
More significantly, no information was seen to show the vaguely worded document amounted to a waiver, which is typically a legal agreement. Nor was any information seen to show the document superseded the landlord’s existing obligations. Ultimately, the landlord should have sought appropriate legal advice before attempting to alter or amend its obligations to the resident. However, no information was seen to show the landlord’s document/approach was based on the necessary legal advice. The signed document was therefore inappropriate.
Given the above, the landlord could not fairly dismiss the resident’s rehousing and compensation requests based on the document. As a result, it should have considered both requests accordingly. Its failure to do this represents a significant failure on the landlord’s part. Based on the period between 18 January and 15 December 2021, the timeline shows the leak was ongoing for around eleven months before it was repaired. The overall duration of this period illustrates the unacceptable risk the landlord took when it allowed the resident to move into a property with undiagnosed damp and unresolved leak concerns.
No information was seen to show this permission was granted contrary to any of the landlord’s policies or procedures. Nor was any information seen to show it was contrary to any applicable guidance, regulations or standards (such the government’s Decent Homes standards). Nevertheless, it is recommended that the landlord learns from the resident’s experience and declines to offer properties, with significant unresolved issues, in similar circumstances going forward. This is on the basis that access issues and communal repairs in excess of the section 20 consultation threshold are not uncommon.
The timeline also indicates the landlord failed to carry out any damp and mould repairs until around June 2022. The evidence therefore points to a core timeline of around 17 months. This calculation is necessarily based on information the resident gave the Ombudsman in October 2022. This is because, other than the information referenced in the above timeline, the landlord’s repair records did not record details of any additional damp or mould repairs. The landlord failed to provide any relevant survey reports despite the Ombudsman’s information requests.
In summary, the landlord’s records show repair orders raised following a damp inspection in April 2021, to clean black mould amongst other works, were cancelled in January 2022. Further, subsequent repair orders, to redecorate and install anti-condensation paint, were never completed. Contrary to the records, it is reasonable to conclude these repairs were completed around June 2022. Nevertheless, the landlord’s lack of resolution focus was especially inappropriate given damp and mould are potential hazards within the scope of HHSRS. Since the records suggest there were two damp inspections, the timeline suggests the landlord was monitoring the situation.
However, the unfulfilled repair orders relating to these inspections suggest the landlord failed to avoid or minimise these identified hazards over an inappropriate timeframe. This was contrary to the approach required by HHSRS and unfair to the resident; it was therefore inappropriate.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
From an early stage of the timeline, the landlord’s repair records show the leak was “uncontainable” and multiple rooms were affected. No information was seen to show the landlord was able to mitigate water ingress into the property before the leak was repaired. Information from the resident’s NHS Trust also shows there was extensive damp and mould throughout the property within around one month of the above referenced records. This is supported by the contractor’s survey comments.
From the above information, it is reasonable to conclude conditions in the property over the above identified 17 month period were highly distressing for the resident and his young family. This is particularly the case given the children’s medical conditions. It is also reasonable to conclude the family found it difficult to avoid the leaks, damp and mould given multiple rooms were affected. During this time, the landlord unfairly dismissed the resident’s requests for alternative accommodation and compensation Concerns about his previous accommodation likely amplified his overall distress.
Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property. The landlord unfairly dismissed the resident’s requests for rehousing and compensation based on an inappropriate approach to the tenancy sign up process. Contrary to HHSRS, it also failed to respond appropriately to the damp and mould over a period of around 17 months in total. Further, it failed to redress the resident for any of these failures.
As a result, this assessment will order the landlord to pay the resident proportionate compensation based on the information seen. The Ombudsman’s order will be based on the premise the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay his full rent for the overall delay period of around 17 months. Our orders will also ensure the landlord learns from the resident’s experience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The evidence points to multiple complaint handling failures by the landlord. For example, the timeline shows there were delays at both stages of its complaints procedure, which amounted to a combined total of around 16 working days. It also shows the landlord’s stage two response contained incorrect information. This is because the resident’s initial complaint was raised on 9 March 2021 and not 24 March 2021. Further, despite setting out a complaint timeline, the landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling during its final response.
Had the landlord considered its complaint handling, it should have at least recognised it failed to comply with its published response timescales at stage two. Once it identified a complaint handling delay, the landlord should have redressed the resident accordingly. This is on the basis that no information was seen to show the landlord notified the resident of any delays in advance. As a result, the unredressed delays, lack of updates and inaccuracy identified above represent inappropriate complaint handling by the landlord.
More significantly, the landlord’s responses failed to address all of the concerns referenced in the resident’s original complaint. For example, the resident raised concerns about: unfair treatment, which he said should be investigated; conditions in his previous accommodation and the need for an inspection on health and safety grounds. Nevertheless, the landlord’s responses failed to address any of these significant points, which it is reasonable to conclude were of considerable importance to the resident.
This was contrary to section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which confirmed “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. If the landlord was unsure about any of these issues it should have contacted the resident to clarify the content of his complaint. Again, had the landlord considered its own complaint handling, it could have reasonably identified this failure at stage two and responded accordingly.
Nevertheless, no information was seen to show the landlord ultimately responded to the resident’s concerns around his treatment or previous accommodation. As a result, the evidence suggests they remain unaddressed around 21 months later. This calculation is based on the timing of this assessment. This was unfair to the resident whose concerns warranted a response. Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

In response to the Ombudsman’s request for further information, the landlord acknowledged some of its repair notes were limited. However, the evidence points to failures in relation to the landlord’s record keeping. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested records including: dates the property was attended, copies of any survey or inspection reports, an explanation of any works carried out and details of any advice or support given to the resident about handling damp and mould in the property.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman was given limited information in respect of the above requests. For example, from the landlord’s records, we were unable to establish when works to redecorate the living room and paint the bathroom ceiling, raised on 4 January 2022, were ultimately completed. Similarly, the repair notes did record the findings from damp inspections in April and December 2021. Since no survey reports were provided, this assessment was unable to refer to a detailed professional opinion as to the cause of damp and mould in the property.
Given the situation’s health and safety implications, this type of information should be readily available to the landlord. Further, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered its response to the resident’s reports, of leaks, damp and mould, and his subsequent complaint. For example, no information was seen to show the landlord’s leak team ever followed up on its May 2021 instruction to investigate further. Nor was any information seen to show why repair orders to clean black mould from all the property’s rooms were ultimately cancelled.
It was also noted there was conflicting information about whether the resident and his family were decanted to facilitate repairs. However, the Ombudsman was unable to clarify the situation with reference to the landlord’s records. Given all the above, it is reasonable to conclude it was difficult for the landlord to keep track of its activities or coordinate its response. The lack of clear records certainly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. Given the above, the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord was unable to clearly demonstrate how it responded to a situation with serious health and safety implications. Given the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered its response to the resident’s reports, of leaks, damp and mould and his subsequent complaint. The lack of records also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould at the property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord unfairly dismissed the resident’s requests for rehousing and compensation, following a leak, based on an inappropriate approach to his tenancy sign up process. Contrary to HHSRS, it also failed to respond appropriately to damp and mould over a period of around 17 months in total. Further, it failed to redress the resident for any of these failures.
The evidence points to multiple delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling at any stage of its investigation. Contrary to the Code, it also failed to address significant concerns the resident raised during his initial complaint. They included concerns about his previous accommodation and unfair treatment. From the information seen, these concerns remain unaddressed around 21 months later.
The landlord was also responsible for record keeping failures. It was unable to clearly demonstrate how it responded to a situation with health and safety implications. The evidence suggests its record keeping hindered its response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. The lack of records also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £7541.25 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £5,141.25 in reimbursed rent. This figure is based on a 75% rent reduction over the above identified 17 month period.
2. £2050 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks damp and mould.
3. £350 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to inspect the property for damp and mould within three weeks. The survey should focus on reasonable steps that can be taken to avoid or minimise damp and mould in line with HHSRS. The landlord should share the report’s findings with the Ombudsman. This should also include a plan for additional monitoring of the damp and mould.
The landlord to respond accordingly to the resident’s rehousing request, along with his discrimination and previous accommodation concerns. His rehousing request should be assessed in line with any relevant policies. His concerns should be addressed through the landlord’s formal complaints process. The landlord should evidence its progress to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to review this report’s key findings at a senior level and share a summary of its identified improvements with the Ombudsman within four weeks. The identified improvements should also be cascaded to the landlord’s relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. Topics for inclusion include:
1. The circumstances that led to the waiver being issued. The landlord should also establish whether a similar approach has been used in any other cases. Other affected cases must be reviewed to ensure the landlord has acted in accordance with its obligations. Any additional waivers likely need withdrawing.
2. Given this report’s findings, the landlord’s: response to the damp and mould, complaint handling and record keeping should also be reviewed.

Recommendations

The landlord’s complaint investigations to include consideration of its own complaint handling at each stage. This is with a view to ensuring any complaint handling failures are identified and redressed accordingly.
The landlord to alert complainants to any complaint handling delays within its published response timescales.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.