Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202108049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108049

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

18 July 2023

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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the front door.
2. Repairs to the skirting board.
3. Re-sealing the windows.
4. The replacement of fencing.
5. Damp and mould treatment within the property.
6. Rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
7. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a two-bedroom flat and the resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 22 May 2013.
The resident is vulnerable due to his medical conditions and issues regarding his mental health.
Under the tenancy conditions set out in the landlord’s tenants’ handbook, tenants are required to pay the rent and any applicable service charge weekly in advance.
The resident’s benefit payments have been the subject of an Alternative Payment Arrangement since 2019 involving the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) paying a proportion of the resident’s benefits directly to the landlord to cover his rent. However, as the resident under-occupies his property, he is required to pay a spare room subsidy, which is not covered by his benefits.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that there are two categories of repairs, i.e. emergency repairs, which are completed within 24 hours and appointable repairs, which are normally completed within 5-20 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised orders on 19 February 2021 and 2 March 2021 to inspect the property for damp and mould. The log indicates that the inspections were carried out on 1 March 2021 and 24 March 2021 respectively.
The repairs log also shows that a repair order was raised on 15 March 2021 to carry out various repairs, including overhauling the front door, treating mould on the wall behind the WC and filling gaps between the skirting board and the floor.
On 12 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to place restrictions on his contact with the landlord because of reported unacceptable behaviour towards its staff. The landlord stated that the resident should direct any future enquiries to its online complaints inbox.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the repairs to overhaul the front door, treat the mould on the wall behind the WC and fill the gaps between the skirting board and the floor were completed on 24 June 2021.
The landlord’s records show that a repairs order was logged on 30 June 2021 to remove and refit the front door and the job was scheduled to be completed on 1 July 2021. However, the landlord’s repair log indicates that a door sub-contractor carried out the work to the front door on 10 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2021 to confirm that he should contact the landlord via the complaints inbox due to previous unacceptable communication.
On 22 October 2021, the resident submitted an online enquiry form to the complaints team stating that he had phoned the landlord on 29 September 2021 to report a gap in the garden fence. The resident stated that the landlord’s contractor working next door had removed part of the fence and had not replaced it. The resident reported that his garden had been “vandalised” as a result of the gap in the fence.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord completed a ‘concern report’ in which it stated that the resident had contacted the landlord about repairs that were causing a loss of heat to the property and mould in some of the rooms. The ‘concern report’ indicated that the resident had threatened suicide.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 November 2021 and asked whether it could visit the resident to discuss the impact that the repairs were having on his wellbeing and to discuss possible support. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day to decline the offer of the visit as he had been told previously that he could only communicate with the landlord’s complaints team.
The resident wrote to the resident on18 November 2021 to say that he had been waiting for the landlord’s designated point of contact to make contact with him to discuss the repairs. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that it would ask the designated person to contact the resident. The landlord also asked the resident whether he was receiving support and whether he would be interested in receiving support in the future.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 18 November 2021 and stated that the landlord’s designated contact team had not contacted him. The resident stated that he had reported the gap in the fence on 22 October 2021 and this had not been acknowledged by the landlord. The resident also mentioned that he had “multiple repairs” outstanding.
On 24 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that he previously had in place a reduction in his Universal Credit (UC) because of rent arrears, which were now under £300. The DWP informed him that this arrangement had stopped and they were unable to inform him who had asked for the arrangement to cease due to confidentiality. The resident was unhappy that the arrangement had ceased without a discussion with him first.
On 3 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain about his experiences since February/March 2021. He requested information about the reason for the restrictions imposed on his contact with the landlord. The resident stated that his emails had not been answered by the landlord. The landlord’s designated contact team replied on the same day and apologised for the delay in responding to the resident. The landlord explained that it had been dealing with a backlog of complaints. The landlord also advised the resident that the ‘communication flag’ would be removed from the resident’s account. Finally, the landlord requested the resident to list all of the outstanding repairs so that it could arrange for a surveyor to visit the property to identify the works needed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 December 2021 and advised that although he could now speak to the landlord, he was still ‘blocked’ on Facebook. The resident sent a further email on 27 December 2021 to say that he had been “ignored” by the landlord.
On 10 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to emphasise that he did not want anyone from the landlord to visit him and that he would contact the police if there was any attempt to visit him. This was followed by an email from the resident on 14 January 2022, in which he requested the detailed reasons why the restrictions had been placed on him. The resident enquired about compensation for the loss of heat from the property due to draughts. The resident acknowledged that the landlord had asked him to list the outstanding repairs but he refused to provide this.
On 17 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that heat was being lost from his property due to gaps under the front door. He explained that the cold was affecting his health. The landlord replied on 19 January 2022 to confirm that there were no restrictions in place in terms of the resident contacting the landlord as these had been removed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2022 to report that there had been a problem with the front door since it was fitted nine years ago. The resident wrote again on 20 January 2022 to say that the landlord had not addressed his request for compensation. The landlord replied on the same day to ask whether it could visit the property in the next two weeks with a surveyor. The landlord said it would also use the visit to discuss compensation.
On 28 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire about claiming compensation for his sofa, which he reported had been damaged by damp. The landlord replied on 31 January 2022 and confirmed that it would take photos of any damaged items during its planned visit on 1 February 2022.
On 31 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord on three occasions to report that the damp had started when works were carried out next door and that he had not received a reply to his email dated 3 December 2021. The resident added that he was cancelling the landlord’s visit that had been planned for 1 February 2022 because he had not received answers to his questions.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 2 February 2022, in which he stated the following:
1. He requested the landlord to visit his home to take photos of the items that had been damaged by damp.
2. He asked why the contact restrictions had been in place for so long.
3. He advised the landlord that his repairs had still not been carried out.
4. The resident refused to meet with the landlord as he believed the landlord had “ignored” him.
The landlord sent various responses to the resident on 2 February 2022, in which it reassured the resident that it was not seeking to evict him, explained the reasons the restrictions had been imposed and confirmed that these restrictions had been removed some time ago. The landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss the previous restrictions and emphasised that arranging a surveyor visit was the key to resolving the repairs issues. Finally, the landlord confirmed that it would record the resident’s latest contact as a formal complaint.
On 13 and 14 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire about compensation for the “loss of heat” from his property. He added that he would refuse access for repairs unless he was advised of the position regarding his claim. The landlord replied on 14 February 2022 and advised the resident that it would offer compensation of £100 and would refer the resident to the hardship fund for a one-off payment of £70. The resident replied on the same day and requested clarification on what the compensation was for as he had lost much more than this through heat loss from his property.
There was a further exchange of emails between the resident and the landlord between 16 and 25 February 2022, in which:
1. The resident asked whether the landlord’s offer of £100 was its final offer;
2. The landlord confirmed that it had referred the resident to its Welfare Team for the £70 one-off payment;
3. The resident said he had waited over a year for a reply.
On 25 February 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property due to a report that the front door was “ill-fitting”. The contractor replaced the gasket and the threshold was re-sealed.
On 2 and 3 March 2022, further emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord. The resident agreed to allow access for the outstanding repairs, which he clarified were repairs to the windows, mould treatment and the gap in the fence. The landlord offered £300 to the resident as a “final settlement” and clarified that this was a goodwill gesture rather than compensation. The landlord explained it was to recognise that the resident had received a poor service over a long period of time, which included a lack of response to the resident’s emails, the lack of handover when one of the landlord’s staff left the organisation and to recognise that the resident had recently had to chase the contractor dealing with the front door repairs. The resident agreed to accept the payment but mentioned that he would be seeking legal advice.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord explained that it had introduced the restrictions in December 2020 after receiving complaints from various of its staff regarding the resident’s tone and manner.
2. The landlord’s designated contact person left the organisation in June 2021 and because the landlord had difficulty in filling the vacant post, the resident did not have a dedicated point of contact for several months and this made it difficult for the resident to progress his outstanding repairs. The landlord apologised for this oversight and stated that it had lifted the restrictions in September 2021.
3. The landlord confirmed that the resident had still been ‘blocked’ on Facebook due to an oversight, which it had now corrected.
4. The landlord accepted that some repairs had been outstanding for some time, including the gap under the front door, which was letting in cold air. This apparently had been made worse by the contractor in July 2021 when it attempted to straighten the door.
5. The landlord accepted that there were areas of mould inside the property and noted there was missing skirting board that was letting in cold air.
6. The landlord commented that the delay in dealing with the repairs had been as a result of the “various stages of lockdown”. During the first lockdown the landlord’s repairs team was only dealing with “essential health and safety emergencies”, which resulted in a backlog of several thousand repairs that the landlord was still working through.
7. The landlord reiterated that it was offering the resident £300 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the inconvenience caused and requested the resident to now give access for it to carry out the repairs.
On 5 April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that a mould contractor had inspected the damp and mould on 5 April 2022 and now had the relevant information to arrange the treatment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2022 to complain about a letter he had received from the landlord notifying him about a shortfall in the UC payments being credited to his rent account. The resident felt that it was unnecessary for the landlord to intervene as he was already liaising with the DWP about the matter.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 April 2022 requesting an update on the outstanding repairs, which were to repair the fence panels, to treat the damp/mould in every room and to re-seal the windows in every room (apart from the living room, which had already been done). The re-sealing of the windows involved removing the infected sealant, treating the areas and re-applying mastic sealant.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and requested him to notify the DWP about the rent increase so that his UC could be increased. The resident replied and again advised the landlord that it did not have to contact him about his UC as the matter was in hand.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 May 2022 and stated that he was still waiting for the garden fence to be replaced, the windows to be re-sealed and the mould to be treated. He asked the landlord for a firm date on when the mould would be treated.
An internal email from the landlord stated that there had been no follow-on order raised to re-seal the remaining windows after the living room window had been re-sealed. The landlord therefore said it would raise an order for the remaining windows to be re-sealed. The records also indicate that a surveyor had been booked to inspect the damp on 31 May 2022.
The resident and the landlord exchanged further emails on 10, 11 and 12 May 2022 and the key points were:
1. The resident confirmed that the living room window had been sealed but the contractor had informed the resident that the remaining windows also needed re-sealing.
2. The landlord confirmed that the contractor had attended the property on 29 April 2022 to inspect the fencing and the fence panels had been ordered.
3. The landlord had raised an order on 10 May 2022 to repair the skirting board and an appointment had been made to carry out this work on 23 June 2022.
4. The landlord advised the resident that the work to re-seal the remaining windows had been booked to be carried out on 16 May 2022 and the damp and mould contractor was available to carry out the work on 24 May 2022 if this was convenient for the resident.
5. The resident advised the landlord that he had not been able to redecorate for two years due to the damp and mould in every room except the WC.
6. The resident believed that the repairs should have been classed as emergencies due to his vulnerability and long-standing illness and the delayed repairs had affected his physical and mental wellbeing.
7. The landlord requested the resident to confirm whether he was happy for the repairs that were booked for 16 and 24 May 2022 to proceed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2022 to ask whether he wanted further support. If so, it would make the necessary referral.
On 2 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and said he was prepared to let his rent arrears increase because of the outstanding repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2022 and stated the following:
1. The fencing and the window re-sealing were still outstanding.
2. The damp treatment contractor had attended the property without notice and therefore the resident had not provided access. The contractor left a ‘no access’ card.
3. The resident accepted he had missed the appointment to re-seal the windows but the landlord had not contacted him to reschedule the appointment (the landlord’s records confirm that the contractor had attended at the appointed time and had not been able to gain access).
4. The only contact he had received regarding the fencing was to measure the fence.
The landlord replied to the resident on 15 June 2022 and confirmed that the job to re-seal the windows had been rebooked for 23 June 2022 and that it was waiting for a reply from the damp treatment contractor.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 June 2022 to ask him whether he needed tenancy support from the landlord or support from external agencies.
On 21 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that he had not yet heard from the damp treatment contractor and the gap in the fencing was still present, which was causing plants from the garden next door to encroach into his garden. The landlord replied on 22 June 2022 to confirm that the damp treatment contractor would attend on 8 July 2022.
The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 23 June 2022 as arranged and resecured the loose skirting board (the contractor had been informed that the skirting was missing but on arrival this was found not to be the case).
On 28 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he would be cancelling his “housing benefit” as the repairs had not been dealt with. The resident also indicated possible self-harm. The landlord therefore sent a referral to the council’s safeguarding team and also contacted an ambulance.
In response to a request from the Ombudsman for the landlord to send a formal complaint reply, the landlord sent a stage one reply on 5 July 2022, in which it included similar information to its previous stage one reply sent on 9 March 2022. The resident replied to the landlord on 5 July 2022 and stated that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response because:
1. The resident stated that the landlord had not replied to his email dated 3 December 2021.
2. The gap under the front door had still not been addressed.
3. The loose skirting had been addressed but the resident stated that the contractor had been given incorrect information suggesting that the skirting was missing.
4. The resident stated that every room had mould apart from the bathroom, which had been treated in July 2021.
5. The resident outlined the personal impact of the outstanding repairs.
6. The resident felt he was being “harassed” for rent arrears despite having outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates that mould treatment was carried out to the lounge, kitchen and both bedrooms by the mould contractor on 8 July 2022. The work included removal of wallpaper in the affected areas, treating the affected areas, removing the infected sealant and re-sealing the windows.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2022 to expand on the reasons he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply. The reasons given by the resident were:
1. He believed that his repairs should have been considered an emergency during the lockdown, even though work was being carried out in the property next door.
2. The front door still needed repairing, even though the resident accepted that there was less of an issue with the door in terms of draughts.
3. The resident asked where the information had come from regarding missing skirting (the resident said the skirting was never missing).
4. The landlord had disregarded the resident’s mental health issues by contractors arriving without appointments.
5. The landlord had ignored his requests for UC to be paid directly to him rather than the landlord.
6. The landlord had not replied to his email dated 3 December 2021.
7. The gap in the fence had not been addressed, even though someone came out in March 2022 to measure up.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident notifying him that he was £444.61 in rent arrears and this needed to be cleared as soon as possible.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2022 stating that he would not address the rent arrears because of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s internal records dated 18 August 2022 indicate that it had attempted to visit the resident to discuss the rent arrears but he had refused. The landlord had therefore noted that it would apply for a third party deduction from the resident’s UC when the resident’s rent was over eight weeks in arrears.
On 19 August 2022, the resident wrote to advise the landlord that he had stopped paying the shortfall (between his UC and the rent) because of the outstanding repairs and this had therefore led to the rent arrears.
The landlord’s records indicate that the repair to the fence was ordered on 25 August 2022 and the repair was done on 2 September 2022 (two fence panels were fitted). However, the resident wrote (and sent a photo) to the landlord on the same day to report that the contractor had not dealt with the gap in the fence.
On 5 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that three repairs had not been adequately completed, ie the damp (the resident stated that the paint that had been applied was cracking and flaking), the gap in the fence and the front door, which had been repaired twice but, in the resident’s view, had still not been correctly repaired.
The resident advised the landlord on 6 September 2022 that the fencing contractor had attended that day but the resident had refused access as he had not been given prior warning, which he had requested on various occasions. The landlord replied on 7 September 2022 and said that it would raise the matter with the contractor.
On 7 September 2022, the landlord agreed with the resident that its contractor would attend on 9 September 2022 to repair the fence. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022 to report that the contractor had failed to attend. The landlord and the resident exchanged emails, in which the landlord stated it had cancelled the visit because the resident had not confirmed his availability. The resident advised the landlord that he was not required to confirm his availability as long as the landlord notified him beforehand of the appointment.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 12 September 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised that the resident’s request to escalate his complaint in July 2022 was not actioned. The landlord explained this had been due to the resident’s email being deleted in error. The landlord had put in place additional safeguards to ensure emails would not be inadvertently deleted in the future.
2. The landlord explained that work had been carried out in the next door property because it was a void property and work to empty homes did continue during the pandemic.
3. The landlord confirmed it had checked the front door and concluded that no further work was required to the door.
4. The landlord had checked its system and was unable to explain why the contractor had attended to deal with missing skirting board when the landlord’s system stated that there was a gap between the skirting board and the floor.
5. The landlord apologised that the COVID-19 lockdown had been given as the reason for the ongoing delays in completing the resident’s repairs.
6. The landlord accepted that the resident had waited six months for the fence repairs, which was unacceptable. The landlord was arranging for the contractor to return to address the gap in the fence.
7. The landlord’s specialist mould contractor had carried out mould treatment on 8 July 2022. However, as the resident still had concerns, the landlord would arrange a further visit and assessment.
8. The landlord stated that if the resident had information about financial losses incurred in relation to the damp and mould, it could consider compensation.
9. The landlord apologised that contractors had visited the resident unannounced. The landlord had arranged for a ‘pop-up’ message to be placed on its system advising staff that all visits must be pre-arranged.
10. In terms of the resident not receiving a reply to his email dated 3 December 2021, the landlord apologised for this and explained that the relevant officer had left the organisation and had not forwarded the email to another member of staff. As the staff member had left the organisation, the landlord was unable to carry out further investigations into the officer’s conduct.
11. In terms of tenancy support, the landlord noted that two of its officers were in regular contact with the resident and a referral had been made to the landlord’s Advice Services team, but the resident had not engaged with them. The resident was also referred to the landlord’s Tenancy Support team and to the Community Mental Health team, but the resident did not take up these offers. The landlord had also raised safeguarding concerns, including contacting the emergency services when it was concerned about the resident self-harming.
12. The landlord confirmed that the DWP were paying the resident’s rent directly to the landlord under an arrangement that was put in place when he had large rent arrears. The landlord stated that it encouraged this type of arrangement be put in place when residents have had difficulties paying their rent.
13. The landlord had noted that the resident had stopped paying the spare room charge at his home pending repairs being completed. The landlord said that it would “strongly advise” the resident to keep up with his rent payments.
14. The landlord did not propose to increase the £300 that had been offered and accepted by the resident. However, it agreed to consider financial losses resulting from the damp and mould separately, subject to the resident providing appropriate information regarding the losses.
15. The landlord concluded by offering the resident a named point of contact who would make weekly contact with the resident and coordinate all outstanding repair issues.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

On 8 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord the presence of mould and damp in the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The landlord arranged for a specialist damp contractor to inspect and the contractor reported that the property had rising damp.
The front door was assessed by the door sub-contractor on 9 December 2022 and the sub-contractor reported to the landlord that there were no repairs required to the door.
The resident was temporarily decanted from the property on 2 February 2023 to allow remedial works to be carried out in relation to the damp and mould.
In April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to offer total compensation of £2,335.40, which included a goodwill gesture of £500, £550 for service failures and £1,560 for contents damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In his letter dated 19 January 2022 to the landlord, the resident stated that he had experienced problems with the front door since it had been fitted nine years ago and in his letter dated 11 May 2022 he advised the landlord that he had been unable to redecorate for two years due to the damp and mould. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, the Ombudsman has only investigated the resident’s concerns about the front door and damp/mould from 2021.
In his letter dated 12 May 2022 to the landlord the resident stated that the outstanding repairs had had a significant impact on his physical and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.

Repairs to the front door

The landlord initially raised an order on 15 March 2021 to overhaul the front door. The job was completed on 24 June 2021 and therefore took 70 working days, which was significantly longer than the 20-working day maximum timescale for appointable jobs and was therefore inappropriate.
A further order was raised on 30 June 2021 to remove and refit the front door and this was completed on 10 August 2021. It therefore took 29 working days to carry out the work, which was again outside the landlord’s published timescale and this was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The resident subsequently wrote to the landlord on various occasions to report a gap underneath the front door; for example, he wrote on 17 January 2022 and 19 January 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 25 February 2022 and fitted a new gasket to the door and re-sealed the threshold. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord took an excessive amount of time (almost a year) between the resident reporting the problem in March 2021 until the final repairs were completed to the door on 25 February 2022. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord carried out repairs to the door in the intervening period, however, this Service considers the overall time taken to be unreasonable given the vulnerability of the resident in terms of his medical conditions and his reports of the property being very cold.
The landlord confirmed in its stage two letter that the door had been checked and did not require any further repairs. A subsequent report by the door sub-contractor also confirmed this view. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident believes that the front door is defective, however, the landlord arranged for the door to be checked by its contractors and is entitled to rely on their advice.

Repairs to the skirting board

The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order on 15 March 2021 to fill gaps between the skirting board and the floor. This work was completed on 24 June 2021, which was longer than the landlord’s published maximum timescale of 20-working days for appointable jobs. This was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The resident subsequently reported a loose skirting board in his bedroom, however, it is unclear from the evidence when this was first reported. The landlord noted in error in its stage one reply on 9 March 2022 that a section of skirting board was missing and was letting in cold air. The landlord raised an order on 10 May 2022 to repair the skirting board and an appointment was made for the work to be carried out on 23 June 2022. The contractor attended on the appointed day and re-secured the loose skirting board. The time taken for the contractor to carry out the work once the order had been raised was reasonable, however, this Service has not seen any explanation of why it took two months after sending its stage one reply for the landlord to raise the order. This delay was inappropriate because it delayed the work being carried out, which the resident stated was contributing towards the draughty conditions in the property.
The resident was unhappy that the contractor who attended on 23 June 2022 had been given incorrect instructions to replace missing skirting board as opposed to the correct description to secure the skirting board. The landlord stated in its stage two reply that it had checked its system but was unable to explain why the contractor had been given incorrect information. Although the resident has not been given an explanation for the error, the landlord responded to the resident’s concern by investigating the matter and advising the resident of the outcome. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was reasonable.

Re-sealing the windows

The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 April 2022 and requested an update on the landlord re-sealing the windows in every room (except the living room), which the resident said had been recommended by the mould treatment contractor on 5 April 2022. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the re-sealing of the windows in May 2022 and on 14 June 2022. However, the resident accepted that he had missed an appointment for the contractor to re-seal the windows. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the mould contractor re-sealed the remaining windows on 8 July 2022. Therefore, it had taken approximately four months from when the resident wrote to the landlord on 14 April 2022 to complete the re-sealing of the windows. The work therefore took longer to carry out than the landlord’s published maximum timescale of 20 working days for appointable repairs. Although the Ombudsman recognises that the resident had missed an appointment for the contractor to carry out the work, the delay in carrying out the work was nevertheless a service failure.

Replacement of fencing

The resident phoned the landlord on 29 September 2021 to report a gap in his fence. He followed this up on 22 October 2021 by completing an online reporting form. The resident then raised the issue with the landlord on various occasions; for example, on 2 March 2022, 14 April 2022, 14 June 2022 and 6 July 2022. The landlord’s contractor fitted two fence panels on 2 September 2022, but did not address the gap in the fencing which the resident had reported. At the time of the landlord’s stage two reply on 12 September 2022, the gap in the fence had still not been addressed. However, the landlord did state in its reply that it was arranging for the contractor to return to deal with the gap in the fence. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two reply that the resident had waited an unacceptable period of time for the fence to be repaired. The landlord mentioned that the resident had waited six months, however, the evidence shows that it had been approximately a year. The delay was therefore inappropriate because the resident had advised the landlord on 22 October 2021 that his garden had been vandalised because of the presence of the gap and he later advised the landlord that plants from next door were encroaching into his garden through the gap.

Damp and mould treatment within the property

The landlord logged a repair on 15 March 2021 to treat mould on the wall behind the WC. The treatment was completed on 24 June 2021, which therefore took longer than the landlord’s published maximum timescale of 20 working days for appointable repairs. This was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord’s ‘concern report’ shows that the resident had reported mould in some of the rooms. In January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord about damp in the property and he enquired about claiming compensation for his sofa, which he stated had been damaged by the damp. On 5 April 2022, a mould treatment contractor inspected the damp and mould. The resident chased the landlord on various occasions regarding the mould treatment, including on 8 April 2022, 14 April 2022, 4 May 2022, 11 May 2022 and 21 June 2022. The resident had advised the landlord that damp and mould was affecting every room apart from the WC. The contractor attended on 8 July 2022 and carried out the mould treatment to the lounge, kitchen and both bedrooms. It had therefore taken over eight months since October 2021 for the mould treatment to be completed. This was inappropriate as damp and mould can pose a risk to health, particularly for vulnerable residents, which was the case for this resident. The Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord attempted to visit the property with a surveyor on 1 February 2022 to inspect the repairs and the resident cancelled the visit. However, even taking the access issues into account, the Ombudsman’s view is that the delays were inappropriate.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2022 and reported that the paint, which had been applied as part of the mould treatment, had started cracking and flaking. The landlord stated in its stage two reply that it would arrange a further visit by a damp specialist to carry out an assessment. The landlord also agreed that if the resident was able to provide supporting information, it would consider compensation for financial losses incurred by the resident as a result of the damp and mould. Given that the resident had raised further concerns about the condition of the anti-mould paint, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to carry out a further assessment. The landlord’s offer to consider compensation for financial losses if the resident produced the necessary information was also appropriate as it was in line with its compensation policy, which states that compensation for “material financial loss” will only be paid on production of evidence.

Rent arrears on the resident’s rent account

On 2 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he was prepared to allow rent arrears to build up on his account because of the outstanding repairs. The resident also wrote to the landlord to say that he would be cancelling his “housing benefit” as the repairs had not been addressed. The landlord therefore sent its initial rent arrears letter on 9 August 2022 notifying the resident that his rent account was in arrears and the arrears needed to be cleared as soon as possible. The resident’s rent account was in arrears by £444.61 at this stage and the landlord’s rent income collection policy states that all tenants must be at least a week ahead on their rent account. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident regarding the arrears. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the arears letter that was sent and is of the view that the tone of the letter was proportionate. The letter emphasised that the landlord could provide support and advice to help the resident deal with the arrears and invited the resident to contact the landlord’s income team to discuss the matter.
The landlord’s records indicate that its income team attempted to visit the resident in August 2022 to discuss the rent arrears but the resident refused. The landlord had therefore decided to apply for a third-party deduction from the resident’s UC when the resident owed more than eight weeks’ rent. The Ombudsman’s view is that this was an appropriate strategy to recover the arrears, rather than taking enforcement action, as it recognised the resident’s vulnerability. It was also appropriate that the landlord had attempted to visit the resident to discuss the arrears as it demonstrated a willingness on the part of the landlord to engage with the resident to agree a solution.
The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that he would allow the rent arrears to increase due to the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s stage two letter strongly advised the resident to keep up with his rent payments. This was reasonable because the resident was legally obliged under the terms of his tenancy agreement to pay rent in advance. Also, as stated on the Shelter website (https://england.shelter.org.uk/), “in general, tenants do not have the right to withhold rent if the landlord does not carry out repairs. Doing so could jeopardise the tenant’s right to remain in the accommodation”.

The associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process and aims to reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2021 and stated that he wished to complain about his experiences since February and March 2021. Although the landlord replied on the same day, it did not treat the resident’s email as a formal stage one complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2022 to express further dissatisfaction and the landlord replied on the same day confirming it would treat the resident’s email as a stage one complaint. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 March 2022, which was 25 working days after logging the complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not meet its published 10 working day target and this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord (the Ombudsman has, however, noted that the landlord had replied to various emails from the resident in the intervening period). The landlord accepted in its reply that the resident had experienced problems in contacting the landlord and there had been delays in progressing some repairs. The landlord therefore offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £300 for the inconvenience caused.
This Service contacted the landlord on 18 June 2022 and requested that it send a formal complaint response to the resident. As a result, the landlord sent a further stage one letter on 5 July 2022. The contents were very similar to its letter of 9 March 2022. The resident replied on 5 July 2022 to ask for his complaint to be escalated as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 26 July 2022, the resident sent further details to expand on his reasons for requesting an escalation of his complaint. The landlord sent its stage two reply on 12 September 2022, which was 49 working days after receiving the resident’s email of 5 July 2022. The landlord apologised in its reply for failing to respond to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has noted that during the intervening period the landlord replied to various emails sent by the resident and had therefore maintained contact with the resident. However, the delay in replying to the resident’s escalation request sent of 5 July 2022 was inappropriate as it meant there was a delay in the resident’s issues being formally investigated.
The landlord stated in its stage two reply that its failure to respond sooner was because the resident’s email had been deleted in error. It apologised and explained that it had introduced safeguards to prevent emails being inadvertently deleted in the future. This was reasonable as the landlord had explained the reason for the delay and had demonstrated learning by putting in place steps to prevent a re-occurrence of the problem.
The landlord repeated its offer of £300 that had been made in the stage one reply. The Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to offer suitable redress to recognise where things have gone wrong and to help put them right. The offer of £300 is not considered by this Service to be proportionate to recognise the landlord’s complaints handling failings and to put right the specific delays in carrying out the following repairs:
1. Repairs to the front door;
2. Repairs to the skirting board;
3. Re-sealing the windows;
4. Repairs to the fencing;
5. Damp and mould treatment.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord wrote to the resident in April 2023 and increased its overall offer of financial redress to £2,335.40, to cover service failings during the period covered by this report (2021-2022) and for events that occurred after the landlord’s final response letter of 12 September 2022. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make a more proportionate offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint process. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints process to address these matters. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right, and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and this Service has therefore found there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the skirting board.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of re-sealing the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould treatment within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out the repairs to the front door within its published timescales for appointable jobs and overall it was almost a year between the first order being raised and the final order being completed. The time taken was unreasonable given the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord took two months to raise the order for the loose skirting board and this delayed the work being carried out.
There was a delay of approximately four months in carrying out the re-sealing of the windows, which was too long even though the resident missed an appointment.
It took approximately a year for the landlord to address the gap in the fence, despite the resident chasing the landlord on various occasions.
It took over eight months for the landlord to carry out the mould treatment, despite the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord took proportionate action to notify the resident about the rent arrears and to recover the arrears through a third-party deduction from the resident’s UC. The landlord gave clear advice to the resident that he should maintain his rent payments.
The landlord failed to treat the resident’s email in December 2021 as a formal complaint and delayed sending its stage two reply. Also, by not offering adequate redress during the complaints process, the landlord failed to put things right.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £850, which is made up as follows:
  1. £200 for the front door repairs;
  2. £50 for the skirting board;
  3. £100 for re-sealing the windows;
  4. £100 for the fence repairs;
  5. £400 for the damp and mould.
2. Carry out repairs to address the gap in the fence if this has not already been done.