Southwark Council (202205202)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202205202
Southwark Council
25 June 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of damp, and cold air transference from a neighbouring property;
- Complaint.
- This report will also assess the landlord’s record keeping.
Background and summary of events
- At the time of his complaint, the resident was living, as a secure tenant of the landlord, in a 1 bedroom, ground floor bedsit. The property was in a three floor end of terrace house, which the resident moved into in May 1994. He lived above a lower ground floor flat that records indicate had been unoccupied and boarded up for several years.
- Although the landlord did not provide specific dates, records show it carried out damp and mould inspections of the resident’s property in February and October 2017. Neither inspection had found any evidence of damp and mould or recommended any works. The inspection of October 2017 reported that the flat was “in good order, no damp detected”.
- On 12 February 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident following concerns he had raised with his MP about damp and mould in his property. It stated that its building surveyor had visited his property on 1 August 2018 and found no presence of damp or mould. It stated that it would be happy to re-inspect the property in the winter, and asked the resident to let it know if he could currently see any mould.
- The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 March 2019 to say he had made “small openings” in his floor to look at the lower ground floor flat. He sent the landlord photos he had taken through the holes in his flooring and said there was a smell of damp and rotting wood coming up into his property. He added that “rising damp and cold from the basement” had been adversely affecting his home and his health.
- The landlord carried out an inspection on 28 June 2019 to determine whether the conditions in the unoccupied flat were contributing to any dampness and humidity in the resident’s home. When inspecting the basement flat, it reported that, although the timber at floor level was wet, the timber closer to the ceiling was dry. It found damp areas of mortar at ceiling level but other areas were dry. The survey concluded that it was possible, due to areas of damp found in the lower flat at ceiling level, that this may have continued up through the walls into the resident’s property. It recommended further investigation to measure the level of damp within the resident’s flat.
- On 27 August 2019, the landlord installed a new boiler in the resident’s property.
- It is unclear from the records if the landlord completed a further inspection. However, it told the resident’s MP on 15 December 2020 that its building surveyor had recommended installation of a vapour barrier between the two properties. It added that it had also made a referral to its New Homes Team to investigate the possibility of converting the basement flat into a new dwelling.
- The landlord advised the resident on 11 January 2021 that work to install the vapour barrier would start within 3 to 4 weeks and would take a week to complete. It also confirmed that the barrier would be a temporary measure whilst waiting for the anticipated works to the basement flat to be completed. The records show that the landlord installed the barrier on 29 January 2021.
- On 19 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint. He stated that:
- Since the beginning of his tenancy, had had noticed the “acrid smell of damp and mould” coming from the basement flat.
- He had been suffering “adverse effects” from the “horrific derelict basement” for 27 years.
- Over the years, he had developed a chronic cough and rhinitis, and had been diagnosed with emphysema and COPD due to the cold, damp and humidity from the property below.
- The landlord’s surveyor who inspected the basement on 3 April 2019 had denied there were any problems with damp and mould.
- Even though he regularly aired his property, regularly ran a dehumidifier and did not use a washing machine, the humidity in his property was always high.
- The temporary vapour barrier the landlord had installed was only 0.24mm thick, which he felt was inadequate.
- He was exhausted and not willing to face “yet another winter with frozen hands and feet, runny nose and coughing” while “incurring huge utility bills” of nearly £1000, which he could not pay.
- The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 22 September 2021 and told him it had allocated it to its repairs resolution team, who would aim to respond by 13 October 2021. On 22 October and 9 November 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an update. On 15 November 2021 he wrote to say that he had not received any response to his recent emails. He added that, since a month had passed since the 13 October 2021 deadline, he wanted to escalate his complaint.
- On 15 December 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to say that the resident:
- Had not received a response to his stage 2 complaint about damp in the basement flat.
- Was concerned that, under current plans to convert the basement into a new flat, that works would not be agreed until 31 January 2022.
- Had other repair issues that remained unresolved. His bathroom door frame had become rotten, and his door was falling out of its frame.
- Stated his gutter was leaking and water was entering his property as a result. He explained that operatives advised him that scaffolding would be necessary but no further work had taken place.
- Wished to know whether the vapour barrier under his property was standard practice across all the landlord’s properties.
- Had sought support to increase his home’s energy efficiency but had not received a response about this.
- The landlord responded to the MP on 29 March 2022. It attached a copy of a response it had sent the resident, answering questions he had raised about the vapour barrier. It added that its investment team was addressing the other issues, including repairs to his door, were on site and communicating with the resident.
- The resident approached the Service for assistance on 16 June 2022. He said that he had not received a response to his formal complaint. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that the resident had raised various enquiries with different MPs and that he had not yet made a “direct complaint”.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2022 to say that, as it had been a very dry summer, he wanted to inspect the basement flat for himself. He stated that, when he went down there, he discovered that the vapour barrier the landlord had installed in January 2019 had “fallen down”. He added that the basement smelt of damp and rot and that the humidity levels inside were 40% higher than outside. He attached photographs he had taken of the basement flat. The landlord responded on 11 August 2022 to thank him for sending the photos and advised the resident that, once it had agreed the actions it needed to take, it would instruct its contractor to complete any works to “finally” resolve the damp issues in the basement.
- On 9 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that his new boiler was using more gas than it should. He contacted it again on 13 September 2022 to say that operatives had removed a large part of the ceiling in the basement and that it caused his floorboards to be “exposed” even more to the property below.
- The landlord responded on 14 September 2022 to explain that it was removing the basement’s plasterboard ceiling to address the resident’s concerns about rotten floor joists. It assured him that, if it found rotten joists, it would complete remedial works without delay. It stated that it had removed refuse from the basement in case this was contributing to a possible damp issue, and would be installing fixed vents to the front and back of the property. The landlord added that its senior technician had investigated the resident’s concerns about his boiler and confirmed it was working correctly.
- On 16 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to thank him for his complaint that it had received on 13 September 2022, regarding ongoing repair issues. It said it would aim to respond by 10 October 2022. The resident responded on 17 September 2022 to say he was not sure what complaint the landlord was referring to. He stated that he had made a stage 1 complaint on 19 September 2021, then escalated it on 15 November 2021 and was still waiting for a response to this. He added that the only thing standing between his property and the basement was a carpet, and he was already being “forced” to put his heating on.
- The landlord responded on 22 September 2022 to apologise for the delay in escalating his complaint. It acknowledged that an investigating officer would review his complaint and respond by 27 October 2022. On 11 October 2022 it wrote again to say it would make a contribution towards his heating bills whilst completing the refurbishment works to the basement flat. It also confirmed that it would reinstate the plasterboard ceiling “over the next few weeks prior to the works commencing”.
- The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 24 October 2022. It stated that:
- It understood the resident remained dissatisfied because:
- The basement flat had been neglected for 28 years.
- The cold, damp and mould below his property was having an adverse impact on his health and wellbeing.
- He had not received a formal response to his complaint.
- The Ombudsman had written to it on 12 September 2022 and asked it to log a complaint. As the resident had already received a response to his MP enquiry, it had decided to review his complaint at stage 2.
- It was unable to look at 28 years of reported issues as this fell outside the scope of its complaints policy. It had therefore reviewed events from 12 months back, from when the resident had raised his complaint.
- It had summarised all repair records for his property between June 2021 and August 2022 and was satisfied it had completed all the repairs the resident had raised.
- It had not identified any reports of damp or mould in his property over the previous 2 years.
- It was unable to review any repairs information relating to another property but confirmed that the basement flat was in the process of being converted into a dwelling.
- If the resident still had issues with damp and mould, he should report this to its repairs service.
- It understood the resident remained dissatisfied because:
Events following conclusion of the internal complaints process
- On 25 January 2023, following further reports by the resident that his boiler was using too much gas, the landlord carried out a site visit to test its efficiency. During the visit, the operative checked the gas rate both for hot water and heating, and found they were in line with the manufacturer’s instructions. The operative also contacted the boiler manufacturer to reassure the resident that the boiler was working correctly.
- The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 16 February 2023 to say that the resident was distressed about his heating bills in light of the unoccupied basement flat. The landlord responded on 2 March 2023 to confirm that it had arranged for £600 to be paid to the resident at £100 a month, to compensate him for any higher bills he may incur. It stated that it had “made a promise” to keep the resident informed about any important developments regarding the refurbishment project. The landlord added that it had instructed a “mediator” to liaise between the resident and the various departments to resolve the issues within his own property.
- The resident approached the Ombudsman for assistance. He stated that the landlord had “completely dismissed” his complaint. He said that, between 2020 and 2022 he had reported damp and mould in his property 60 times. The landlord had exposed rotten joists in the basement flat, and left him with only his carpet as “insulation” from the basement, leading to increased gas bills. Since April 2021, when the landlord took on the project of converting the basement into a new flat, it had still not carried out any works.
- On 14 August 2023, the resident’s MP wrote again to the landlord to say a member of staff had told the resident that the basement flat had passed into private ownership. The landlord responded on 12 October 2023 and stated that:
- The basement flat was still owned by it. It was due to be converted into a new home but work had been paused for budgetary reasons.
- Cross ventilation had been installed to help address the damp in the basement and, during a visual inspection, no mould was identified.
- It expected to have a plan in place for the basement by 18 October 2023.
- It had arranged for additional radiators to be installed in the resident’s flat to improve heating and address some of the condensation; however, he had refused entry for the work to go ahead.
- It was also exploring re-housing options for the resident.
- On 21 November 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property and found no presence of damp or mould that “would require treatment or remedial works to resolve”. It reported that the ventilation in his flat was working and readings via damp meters were within “normal levels”.
- The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 20 December 2023 to say that, because work to refurbish the basement has been stalled, the resident was concerned he would have to endure “another cold winter in freezing conditions”. He also felt the radiators the landlord wanted to install were not appropriate for the building and would be “extremely” expensive to run.
- The landlord responded on 22 January 2024 to confirm that, as it had deferred the works to refurbish the basement flat, it had awarded the resident band 1 priority to bid for a new home. It added that it had also put him forward for a direct offer of accommodation. In May 2024 the resident accepted an offer to be rehoused.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident stated in his complaint that the cold, damp and humidity from the property below had negatively impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health but the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The resident states he had been impacted by the condition of the property below him for 27 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from February 2019 onwards. This was when the events leading to the resident raising a complaint could be reasonably considered to have begun. Reference to events that occurred prior to this is made in this report for the purpose of providing context.
- During his complaint, the resident had raised concerns about his priority banding on the landlord’s housing register and the service Environmental Health had provided to him. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside 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 on a local authority’s choice based lettings scheme, and the assessment of such applications. In this case, the landlord is the resident’s local authority. Since his concern about his priority banding 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 Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Similarly, complaints about local authority run services such as Environmental Health would also be better suited to the LGSCO.
- The resident raised concerns about the condition of the unoccupied flat below his property, and the actions the landlord had taken to convert it into a new dwelling. This report has only focussed on the reports made to the landlord about the basement property in terms of how it had directly impacted the resident. Any matters that are considered not to have caused significant adverse effect to the resident do not form part of this assessment.
Policy and legal framework
- As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
- The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
- The landlord’s repairs guide outlines 3 categories of responsive repair. The landlord will attend to emergency repairs, which pose a serious risk to the resident and structure of the property, within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, which include partial loss of electricity or total or partial loss of heating or hot water between 1 April and 30 September are attended to within 3 working days. The landlord will respond to all other non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
- The landlord’s website states that, when a resident reports damp or mould, one of its officers will visit their home. It will provide a leaflet that explains what it can do to help and it will “talk it through” with the resident and inspect their home to find the cause of the problem.
- The landlord has a compensation policy to recognise where there have been delays or distress as a result of poor service. Payments range from £5 to £20 per week or £250 to £1000 per year depending on the level impact on the resident. It will also pay compensation of between £50 and £250 in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble pursuing their complaint.
- The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints, which is refers to as the “review phase”, within 20 working days. It states that sometimes it may take longer to provide a response. If this is the case, it will discuss with the resident to explain when they can expect a full response by and seek to agree a new timescale.
The resident’s reports of damp and mould
- The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced a great deal of distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting damp and cold conditions within his property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a cold home, especially when he was living with various health conditions. It is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether the resident’s property was damp, or whether the conditions in the basement flat was the cause of this. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice
- This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
- The evidence shows that inspections the landlord had carried out in 2017 and 2019 had found no evidence of damp and mould in his property. A further inspection the landlord completed on 21 November 2023, after it had issued its stage 2 response, reported no issues with ventilation and damp meter readings were within normal levels. The records show that the landlord acted correctly, and in line with its policy, by inspecting the resident’s property following his reports of damp and mould.
- The resident reported in March 2019 that he had made holes in his floor to access the unoccupied property below. He reported that damp smells from the basement were entering his property. The Service understands the resident may have been concerned about the condition of the flat below him. However, that air from underneath had been allowed to enter his property was as a result of the resident’s actions, and therefore beyond the landlord’s control. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord acted promptly when it inspected the basement flat on 28 June 2019 to assess whether the conditions in the unoccupied space were contributing to any damp and humidity in the resident’s property. It is unclear whether the landlord had followed the surveyor’s recommendations and carried out further investigations in the resident’s property. The landlord has not provided a copy of an inspection report after June 2019 or provided any records to show that one took place.
- However, the landlord had informed the resident’s MP on 15 December 2020 that its surveyor had recommended installation of a vapour barrier. It is unclear whether this was as a result of a further inspection. If so, this would suggest a delay of around 5 and a half months before the landlord took steps to address possible damp transference to his property. It is unclear from the records why there was a delay or whether there was any contact between the landlord and resident during that time. However, given the length of time the resident had been raising concerns that the basement was affecting his property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken timelier action following its inspection in June 2019.
- It was appropriate that, following a recommendation from its building surveyor, the landlord installed a vapour barrier on 29 January 2021. Furthermore, the landlord acted reasonably when it installed the barrier within the 3 to 4 weeks it had advised it would take to complete the work. The landlord told the Service it had installed the vapour barrier to provide reassurance following the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. This shows that the landlord had appropriately recognised his anxieties about conditions below him impacting his property, and took reasonable steps to address this. In this respect, the landlord had demonstrated it was empathising with the resident and taking a customer-focussed approach.
- The evidence shows that, on the whole, the landlord’s communication outside the complaints process was timely and helpful. For example, when the resident raised queries about the vapour barrier, the landlord provided him with detailed explanations. It was also positive that it kept him updated on the steps it was taking prior to its proposed works to the basement flat. Furthermore, it carried out a prompt and proportionate investigation into the concerns the resident had raised about his new boiler, to provide him with reassurance it was working correctly. It was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for a single point of contact (SPOC), which it referred to as a “mediator” to liaise between him and the landlord’s various departments. Although there were instances where the resident’s MP had to prompt it for a response to some of its enquiries, the landlord’s communication with the resident was largely consistent.
- The resident had raised a concern in his stage 1 complaint of 19 September 2021 that his property was cold and that this was causing him to have high utility bills. The evidence shows that this was of particular worry to him when the landlord had removed the basement flat ceiling, thus leaving him with little insulation from the space below. The landlord acted appropriately when on 11 October 2022, it offered to contribute to his heating bills while completing refurbishment works to the basement flat. Furthermore, following completion of the complaints process, it had offered for additional radiators to be fitted in the resident’s property.
- However, given the landlord was made aware of the resident’s health issues and vulnerabilities, it could have acted sooner and done more to address those issues. There is no record of the landlord exploring whether it could provide any advice and support with regard to the temperature of his flat and his high bills. It could have referred or signposted him to support services that provide advice on managing heating costs or, discussed any grants and funds that were available. It would also have been reasonable in the circumstances to have explored whether any additional insulation could have been installed to minimise heat loss. Although the resident had stated that he had asked for advice on making his home more energy efficient, there is no evidence the landlord had responded to his request.
- It was inappropriate that it took the landlord nearly a year from when he complained about facing “yet another winter with frozen hands and feet” while “incurring huge utility bills” to when it acknowledged the matter and offered a contribution to his heating costs. This would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and worry about having to spend winter in an uncomfortably cold property. The landlord was unable to demonstrate it made sufficiently prompt efforts to address these concerns, which was a failing. However, the landlord’s offer of £600, which it referred to as “compensation” in recognition of the resident’s higher heating costs, was reasonable in the circumstances. For this reason, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
- It is noted that, when the landlord deferred the refurbishment of the basement flat in January 2024, it offered the resident a direct offer of alternative accommodation. It is understood the landlord took this action to prevent the resident from having to continue living above the basement while it waited to restart refurbishment work. The resident subsequently moved to another property in May 2024. The landlord acted appropriately in finding a permanent solution to resolve the resident’s continued concerns about damp and cold transference from the flat below.
Complaint
- The landlord’s complaints process states that it expects its staff to keep in regular contact with resident until the complaint is resolved. In addition, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged, and within 20 working days of it being escalated to stage 2. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when it will issue a response, which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
- The records show that the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 September 2021. Although it acknowledged this on 22 September 2021, it took no further action in progressing an investigation. As a consequence, it failed to provide a response. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 22 October and 9 November 2021, and then asked it to escalated his complaint on 15 November 2021. There is no evidence the landlord provided responses to any of those contacts, or that it acknowledged his escalation request. This indicates a serious failure in the landlord’s communication and systems for tracking complaints.
- Furthermore, it is evident poor record keeping contributed to the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This was evident when it advised the Service on 16 June 2022 that it had not received a direct complaint from the resident. This was despite the fact it had acknowledged his stage 1 complaint several months previously. There is no indication of an effective system to monitor complaints or mechanism to prompt the landlord there were complaints that remained outstanding. It is evident poor internal communication between the investigating team and complaints team, along with poor record keeping, allowed the resident’s complaint to effectively be ignored. Although the evidence shows the landlord was communicating with the resident during this time, and providing responses to his queries about proposed works to the basement flat, this should not have prevented it from providing a timely response to the resident’s complaint.
- Although the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement on 16 September 2022 for a complaint it said it had received on 13 September 2022, it could not demonstrate it had received a complaint on that date. Furthermore, the records indicate that the resident was unaware he had sent a complaint on 13 September 2022. He clarified that he was still waiting for a response to the complaint he had sent it on 22 September 2021. Following intervention by the Service, the landlord advised the resident on 22 September 2022 it had escalated his complaint and that it would respond by 27 October 2022. It is noted that it issued its stage 2 response prior to this date, on 24 October 2022. However, the landlord delayed providing a response for over a year. It is accepted that, due to the delay, the landlord made the decision to bypass the initial stage and to progress directly to stage 2. However, its failure to respond at stage 1 or to escalate to its “review phase” when the resident asked it to, on 15 November 2021, resulted in excessively protracted and chaotic complaint handling. This would have caused the resident unnecessary distress, inconvenience and confusion while having to continue pursuing the issues he had raised. That the landlord significantly departed from its policy was a failure.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response was very brief and there is no indication from its content that it had undertaken a full and thorough investigation. As the landlord had not provided a stage 1 response, it was unable to review one. Furthermore, it made no attempt to review any of the responses it had provided to the resident’s MP enquiries. It had therefore missed an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the actions it had taken to address the ongoing concerns the resident had raised.
- Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its poor complaint handling, or its excessive delay in providing any kind of response. It did not offer any redress in recognition of those delays. The response mentioned repairs that bore no relation to any of the issues the resident had originally raised in his complaint. In addition, it omitted to provide any explanation of the actions it had taken to address his concerns about damp and mould, or steps taken to minimise the impact the basement flat was having on his property. Furthermore, the response failed to mention the resident’s concerns about living in a cold property or his energy costs, and did not include its offer of £600 to compensate the resident for higher heating bills. Given it had taken it a year to issue a complaint response, it could have provided a more considered and better researched response that fully addressed the resident’s concerns. The cumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling would have caused the resident additional unnecessary distress and frustration, and amounts to maladministration.
- The Ombudsman made an order on a recent case (ref: 202305461). This was for the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process and fully addressing complaints that residents make. The landlord is to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result. This report will not make a further order but will monitor compliance with the order made in the previous report.
Record keeping
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
- Although there is internal communication stating that the landlord had sent a stage 1 response on 14 October 2021, the landlord was unable to provide any evidence of this. Furthermore, it had advised the Service the resident had not raised a complaint, even though it had previously acknowledged it. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of complaints, responses 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. It is evident that poor record keeping by the landlord contributed significantly to its excessively protracted complaint handling and, as a result unnecessary time and trouble in the resident’s pursuit of his complaint.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, and cold air transference from a neighbouring property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Reasons
- Particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord could have taken timelier action to address his concerns about living in a cold property and how it was contributing to excessive energy costs. However, it made a reasonable offer to compensate him for his higher bills and offered to install additional radiators.
- The landlord departed significantly from its complaints policy by failing to respond to the resident’s complaint or any correspondence relating to it. It was only after intervention by the Service that it provided a stage 2 response, over a year after the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. In addition, the response did not demonstrate that the landlord conducted a full investigation and failed to fully answer the complaint.
- The landlord’s poor record keeping and inadequate systems for tracking, storing and monitoring complaint contributed to the landlord’s protracted complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
- Pay the resident £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
- If it has not done so already, pay the £600 it had offered to the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 response.
- Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s guidance that:
- An apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff;
- An apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret;
- Where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
- In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should conduct a senior management review of the case. It should provide a report to its senior executives and to the Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
- The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Report (KIM) May 2023 to demonstrate how it will improve its service;
- Satisfy itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store complaint information accurately;
- That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication;
- The landlord must share the outcome of this review with this Service also within 8 weeks.