Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202403595)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403595

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

9 January 2025

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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, since 2016. The resident has mental health difficulties that are known to the landlord. The resident’s adult daughter also resides at the property and has been living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for several years.
The landlord raises repairs on an online platform that allows it to assign jobs to local repair contractors. For ease of readability, all contractors are referred to as ‘the repair contractor’ throughout the report.
The resident first informed the landlord that the property had damp and mould issues on 7 February 2023. She reported that damp and mould were present on the ceiling at the front of the property, the kitchen, and the outhouse. These reports were allocated to the landlord’s dampness project team the same day, and it also raised a repair for the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 and 9 February 2023 to arrange a damp inspection. It then attended the property on 23 February 2023 but was unable to gain access and left a calling card for the resident. The landlord told the resident at a later date that it had tried to contact her a “few more times to rearrange, but to no avail”. However, this Service has seen no evidence of these interactions.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord’s repair contractor advised the landlord that it had attended the property and confirmed that both the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were faulty and therefore required replacement. The repair contractor confirmed on 9 May 2023 that new fans had been installed.
It is unclear from the records provided to this Service what date the landlord spoke with the resident to rearrange the damp inspection appointment. However, on 10 May 2023 the inspection was undertaken by the landlord. It took damp meter readings throughout the property and concluded that damp and mould were present in the living room, kitchen, hallway, and bedroom 1. Within its inspection report, it stated that emergency repairs were required as some of the walls in the property were wet.
On 12 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that a “tradesperson” had visited her property unannounced that day, to undertake an inspection. She said that as they did not have any ID, she did not allow them access to the property. She asked the landlord to confirm if this was a genuine appointment, and if so, could it be rearranged with prior notice. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
A survey of the property was undertaken by a damp specialist on 4 July 2023. The inspection identified:
1. Dampness on the party wall of the hallway and bedroom 1. The resident reported that the damp first occurred when the neighbouring private property built a new extension, however the damp patches were remote from the extension. It was possible that the neighbour had reconfigured the internal layout of the property, to move a kitchen or bathroom against the party wall, and the leaks were from the pipework servicing these areas.
2. Water stains and high damp meter readings to the wall of bedroom 1, which appeared to be caused by a leak emerging from the rainwater goods at the gable end. Water appeared to be entering the property at the mid wall due to water hitting the window cill and penetrating through the external wall.
3. The wall and ceiling finishes in the closet of bedroom 1 appeared heavily damaged, with damp meter readings indicating a possible leak.
4. No evidence of mould in bedroom 2, although the room was noted to be at risk of condensation due to poor ventilation.
5. Dampness to the kitchen partition wall, which appeared to be caused by excess humidity from the cooking area. It was noted that the kitchen extractor fan was remote from the cooking area and could not adequately extract excess humidity.
6. The external downpipe appeared to have a minor leak, however the internal areas in the kitchen immediately near the pipe did not have any damage or damp meter readings.
As a result of the survey, the specialist contractor recommended the landlord to take the following immediate remedial action:
1. Investigate the neighbouring property for any leaking or faulty pipework.
2. Investigate and repair damaged rainwater goods to the gable end to determine the source of the leak affecting the living room.
3. Relocate kitchen extractor fan near to cooking area or replace with a chimney style extractor fan.
4. Clear out passive ventilation grille and trickle vents to bedroom 2.
5. Clear out all trickle vents to the property.
6. Consider performing a water test to confirm a leak to the bedroom 1 closet roof. If no faults were found, it should consider redecorating the closet and monitoring.
7. Consider correcting faults in the rear downpipe adjacent to the kitchen door to improve long term health of the property.
On 13 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair to investigate and repair damaged rainwater goods, correct faults to the downpipe, and perform a water test to confirm a leak to the bedroom 1 closet.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair to clear out the passive ventilation grille in bedroom 2, and trickle vents throughout the property.
On 17 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair to move the kitchen extractor fan. The repair contractor contacted the resident the following day to arrange an appointment. The resident stated that she did not want the extractor fan moved, as she felt that this was not going to resolve the damp issues in the property. The repair contractor placed the repair “on hold” and asked the landlord’s dampness project team to call the resident to confirm what the inspection report had recommended. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident.
The repair contractor contacted the landlord on 2 August 2023 regarding the repairs it had raised for the ventilation grille and trickle vents. It reported the resident’s concerns about the repairs potentially causing further issues in the property and requested guidance from the landlord on how to proceed.
On 4 August 2023, an external survey to the property was undertaken by the repair contractor. This was in relation to the repair that was raised on 13 July 2023. The notes on the report stated that during the appointment, the resident advised that she had not experienced any further issues with the kitchen or living room since the last visit. It said that bedroom 1 showed signs of damp which were coming from the concrete below the window, so it sealed the area and the edges of the window cill. There is no evidence that the repair contractor undertook the repairs that were recommended by the damp surveyor.
The landlord apologised to the repair contractor on 22 August 2023 for its delay in confirming the status of the kitchen extractor fan repair. It stated that it would confirm the action it required the following day.
The repair for the ventilation grille and trickle vents was closed as complete on 7 September 2023. The notes stated that the resident had refused the repair.
On 12 September 2023, the landlord confirmed with the repair contractor that it still required it to relocate the kitchen extractor fan. It stated that it had left a voicemail for the resident to inform her of this and told her that the contractor would contact her to arrange the appointment. The following day, the landlord spoke with the resident to inform her of all the works that it had raised regarding the dampness in her home and requested her to allow the repair contractor to relocate the extractor fan in the kitchen.
The repair contractor attended on 29 September 2023 and informed the landlord that it was not logistically possible to move the kitchen extractor fan nearer to the cooker. It provided the landlord with 2 alternative options and asked it to confirm its preference. The landlord confirmed the same day that the repair contractor should install a humidistat trickle fan with a boost function.
The repair contractor attended the property on 2 October 2023 to replace the kitchen extractor fan. However, it replaced the bathroom fan in error and had to return the following day to complete the works. The closure notes on the landlord’s repair system stated that the resident was happy with the work undertaken.
On 28 November 2023, the resident requested to make a formal complaint about how the landlord had handled her reports of damp in the property, as the issues were still unresolved. She stated that she had considered contacting her solicitor and obtaining her own independent survey of the property to confirm exactly what work needed to be undertaken.
The resident said that she had attached photographs of some cracks in the brickwork of the flat roof which she believed were the likely cause of the damp in her daughter’s bedroom. She also provided a copy of a doctor’s letter dated 20 October 2023, which stated that her daughter suffered from relapse and remitting MS, which was worsened because of the damp conditions in the home. As an interim measure until the work was completed, she requested that the landlord provide a dehumidifier for her daughter’s bedroom.
The landlord responded to the resident on 1 December 2023. It stated that it had not received a copy of the photographs that she had referenced and asked her to provide them so it “could raise the complaint”. It stated that once it had received the photographs, the dampness project team would confirm if it would provide her with dehumidifiers. The resident provided the landlord with the photographs on 11 December 2023. She also noted that damp was present in the kitchen, first bedroom, and the outside wall adjacent to the neighbouring property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 December 2023 to confirm that it had logged her complaint. It stated that she would receive a further acknowledgement within 2 working days to confirm “if the complaint had been accepted” and she would then receive the response within 10 working days. It also stated that the dampness project team would provide a response within 5 to 7 working days in relation to her temporary dehumidifier request. The landlord sent a further email the same day to advise that it would provide its stage 1 response by 28 December 2023, and it would inform the resident of any delays.
On 10 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delays in issuing its stage 1 response and explained that it required a further 10 working days. The resident responded the same day to advise that she appreciated the apology but had made a note of its delays. She reiterated the damp issues she was experiencing, and the impact this was subsequently having on the household. She also requested again that the landlord provide a dehumidifier for her daughter’s bedroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 to express her dissatisfaction with its failure to respond to her. The landlord responded to the resident on 24 January 2024 to apologise for the delays, which it explained were due to it receiving a high volume of emails. It said it had forwarded her concerns to its complaints team.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 January 2024. It provided a timeline of events, highlighted and apologised for its failings, and offered the resident a total of £648 in compensation.
Within its response, the landlord stated that its records showed the repair contractor had completed the external works to the property in August 2023, however based on the information the resident had provided, it suggested that this was incorrect. It said that it would therefore arrange for an independent damp and mould consultant to inspect the property in the next 2 weeks.
The specialist damp surveyor attended the property on 2 February 2024. Within its subsequent report, it recommended that the landlord undertake the following repairs:
1. Conduct “weathering” to the void between the rear extension of the adjoining property, to ensure that it is suitably weathered with sealant and a flashing detail so that rainwater does not fall or drip between the void. (Consideration was to be given to discussing the works with the adjoining owners as the work fell under the Party Wall Act 1996.)
2. Following the weatherproofing works, hack off all plaster to the party wall in bedroom 2, provide a mechanical dehumidifier to allow the wall to dry out, and return to replaster and redecorate the wall.
3. Line the rear wall in the kitchen with lining paper and redecorate the rear wall in the kitchen.
4. Redecorate historical damp staining to the bay window area in the lounge.
5. Replace the vent in bedroom 1.
6. Investigate options to reposition the radiator in bedroom 1 and assess the suitability of the radiator sizing and output.
Within the surveyor’s classification matrix, the recommendations were either classified as “attention required” or “attention recommended”. None of the recommendations were classified as an “urgent risk” to the resident or property.
On 4 February 2024, the resident stated that she was pleased with the stage 1 investigation. However, she requested some clarity from the landlord on how it had calculated the stage 1 compensation offer. She said that she anticipated the schedule of works following the damp survey on 2 February 2024 but would not be happy with “cosmetic repairs”. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 February 2024 to advise that she had not received a response and was considering escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 21 February 2024. She said this was because of the poor communication from the dampness project team, and she was frustrated that following 2 requests, it had still not clarified how it had calculated the stage 1 compensation.
This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. However, it issued its final response on 29 March 2024. It stated that:
1. It understood the resident’s frustrations and agreed that it should have provided her with a clear action plan of the works required to the property.
2. A further damp survey of the property had taken place on 2 February 2024, and it had now raised some of the works recommended.
3. It had some concerns about how long the third-party wall agreement would take to obtain. It assured the resident that once it had this, it would promptly undertake the remaining works required to resolve the issue with water ingress from the neighbouring property’s extension.
4. It was sorry it had failed to provide its rationale of the £648 compensation awarded at stage 1. It provided the following calculation breakdown:
  1. £260 for 26 weeks ‘medium’ delay.
  2. £260 for 26 weeks ‘medium’ distress.
  3. £78 for 26 weeks ‘medium’ time and trouble.
  4. £50 for complaint delays.
5. It recognised that she was entitled to further compensation, however it would calculate the appropriate amount once all the outstanding repairs were complete.

Events after the end of the complaint process

This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord or its repair contractors contacted the resident about any of the outstanding repairs between 29 March 2024 and 23 July 2024. Between April and September 2024, the landlord consulted with various external contractors and representatives from the neighbouring property to discuss the repair issues caused by the extension and the third-party wall agreement.
On 24 and 29 July 2024, the repair contractor contacted the resident to arrange some of the outstanding repairs. The resident said that she did not want the outstanding repairs to go ahead. She said that this was because she felt that the landlord had failed to address the root cause of the damp and mould issues in the property and would prefer to wait for the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation into her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 August 2024 to advise her that it was keen to complete the repairs and that her tenancy agreement stated that she was obligated to provide it access. She responded on 8 August 2024 and stated that she was arranging her own independent survey of the damp in the property as she did not agree with the solutions it had offered. The landlord advised that it was happy to engage with her, and if she would like it to contribute towards the cost of the survey, it would require her to send over the quote from her surveyor.
On 13 August 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £675 compensation (making a total of £1,323). It stated that it had calculated up to the date that she had declined the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2024 and stated that her neighbour had informed her that the wall between the 2 properties needed to be removed as it had created a void which was causing the water ingress into her property. She said she was “surprised” that the landlord had not informed her about this, given she was the tenant of the property. She asked the landlord to inform her of the exact work intended. On 20 September 2024, the landlord provided the resident with an update on the proposed works. On 29 October 2024 it advised her that it had received the third-party wall agreement and could now commence the necessary works.
During contact with this Service in December 2024, the resident confirmed that she had continued to refuse the landlord access to the property to undertake any outstanding works and had not accepted the compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident feels that the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property affected her family’s health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate her concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy, dated February 2023, states it is responsible for investigating and diagnosing the cause of damp or mould, and will aim to deliver effective remedial solutions. It also states that following a report of damp and mould, it will remain in regular contact with the resident. The landlord commits to providing progress updates from beginning to end, especially on occasions where an investigation into a case may be complex.
The landlord’s repairs policy, dated August 2022, provides categories for repair priorities, based upon the work required. It defines complex repairs as “larger” repairs that may take longer to arrange – for example, a repair where it needs to use a specialist contractor, conduct surveys, or do further investigation. It will provide the resident with an estimated completion date for this type of repair and aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord provided the resident with its timeline of events that occurred in relation to her reports of damp and mould. However, throughout the Ombudsman’s investigation it appeared that the landlord had not supplied evidence to support numerous aspects of its narrative of the damp and mould case. This Service therefore requested the landlord to provide a full copy of the repair history for the property from February 2023 to current date, but some pieces of evidence remained absent from its submission. Some of these examples have been highlighted within this section of the report. The level of evidence has made it difficult for this Service to make an assessment of these aspects of the case. It is, however, indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman will take this into consideration in determining the case.
Following the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould in the property on 7 February 2023, the landlord’s timely response to arrange an inspection and raise repairs for the extractor fans was appropriate.
When the landlord was unable to gain access to the property on 23 February 2023 to undertake the inspection, it told her within its stage 1 response that it had tried to contact her a “few more times to rearrange, but to no avail”. However, as this Service has seen no evidence of this contact, or any confirmation of when it had spoken to the resident to eventually rearrange the inspection, we are unable to make an assessment of the timeliness of the landlord’s inspection.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said that on 17 May 2023, the dampness project team reviewed the inspection report from 10 May 2023. This Service has seen no evidence of this. It said that following its review, it recommended that repairs were to be raised to clear the guttering and rainwater drainage, and for a surveyor to inspect the walls for brickwork penetration. It also said that it raised a further inspection for 12 June 2023. However, this Service has again seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to inform her of this appointment. This was unreasonable and resulted in her contacting the landlord on 12 June 2023 to report that a tradesperson had turned up unannounced. This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to confirm if the appointment was genuine, which was inappropriate.
The specialist damp survey that was undertaken on 4 July 2023 recommended that the landlord undertake 7 separate remedial actions to resolve the issues in the property. Between 13 July and 17 July 2023, the landlord raised most of the specialist’s recommendations, which was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it raised a repair to investigate the neighbouring property for any leaking or faulty pipework. This was inappropriate, as the damp meter readings for the areas affected were high and the surveyor had stated within their report that further investigation was required.
The landlord stated within its stage 1 response that its records confirmed the repairs it raised on 13 July 2023 for the external works to the property were completed. However, the notes from the external survey undertaken on 4 August 2023 suggest that the repair contractor attended the property but completed alternative repairs to what was originally requested. This was inappropriate, and had the landlord effectively monitored the resident’s case, it would have identified this oversight sooner. The landlord did, however, acknowledge within its stage 1 response that the photographs the resident had provided it in December 2023 suggested that the works had not been completed.
It is acknowledged that on 2 August 2024, the resident told the repair contractor that she was concerned about the repair the landlord had raised on 14 July 2023 for the ventilation grille and trickle vents. The repair contractor asked the landlord to provide it with guidance on how to proceed with the repairs after the resident requested to cancel the appointment. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to its request, nor did it contact the resident to discuss her concerns. The repair closure notes from 7 September 2023 stated that the resident refused the repair. This was inappropriate and indicative of poor communication.
The repair raised on 17 July 2023 for the kitchen extractor fan was completed on 3 October 2023. Again, it is acknowledged that the resident requested to cancel the appointment on 18 July 2023. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s communication with both the resident and its repair contractor in relation to this repair was poor, and ultimately caused unnecessary delays in completing the work.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will work in partnership with its residents to ensure that it clearly and regularly updates them regarding any actions it can take (or has taken) to resolve reports of damp and mould. It is acknowledged that the landlord raised the majority of the repairs recommended by the damp surveyor. However, before it allocated the work to its repair contractors, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with the findings of the damp survey on 4 July 2023, and details of the action it proposed to take to address each issue. As there were a number of issues to resolve for different repair trades, it also would have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with a timebound schedule of works. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, had the landlord provided the resident with an update following the survey, or contacted her to discuss her concerns in August 2023, she may have had a clearer understanding of the action it was taking to resolve the issues in the property. This would have prevented the works being delayed or cancelled.
During the formal complaint process, the resident asked the landlord on 2 occasions if it could provide dehumidifiers for her daughter’s bedroom. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s requests. This was inappropriate and at odds with its policy, which states that it will ensure the process for reporting issues with damp and mould is straightforward and easily accessible for residents. Also, given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s daughter’s medical condition, this was an aggravating factor in the impact of distress and inconvenience this caused her.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it calculates compensation based on the severity of the issue, how long the issue persisted, and any specific circumstances such as vulnerabilities which may have increased the impact. The landlord’s offer of £598 compensation (not including the £50 for complaint handling) at stage 1 was calculated in line with its policy’s matrix and categorised as a ‘medium impact’. Taking all the above circumstances into account, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was unreasonably low. This is because the resident first informed the landlord of the issues in February 2023, and due to several of its failings, some of these were still outstanding 11 months later in January 2024 when it issued its response.
On 29 March 2024, within its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it would undertake the repairs identified in the damp survey from 2 February 2024. It would have been appropriate at this point for the landlord to provide the resident with target dates for completion of these repairs. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord or its repair contractor contacted the resident about the outstanding repairs until 4 months later, on 24 July 2024. With no justification as to why the repairs were not carried out within target timescales outlined in its repair policy, or any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to provide her with an update, the Ombudsman finds the lack of progress unreasonable.
The damp survey from 2 February 2024 also recommended that the landlord should conduct “weathering” to the void between the resident’s property and the rear extension of the neighbouring property, to prevent the unsatisfactory conditions from continuing. This Service acknowledges that landlords can often experience considerable delays in obtaining third-party wall agreements to undertake such work, which is often outside of their control. The evidence shows that the landlord consulted frequently with all relevant third parties between April 2024 and October 2024, with approximately 30 emails exchanged regarding the neighbouring extension. This was a positive and proactive approach from the landlord.
However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident about the action it was taking until 20 September 2024. This was following an email the resident had sent the landlord on 6 September 2024, to express her concerns that the neighbour had informed her about the landlord’s proposed actions of removing the wall between the 2 properties. The resident’s feelings of being ignored by the landlord are concerning and the importance of effective communication highlighted.
The resident refused the landlord access to the property to undertake any further works in July, August, and October 2024. The Ombudsman would always recommend putting things right as quickly as possible, so it was positive when the landlord attempted to encourage the resident to allow it access to undertake the repairs. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have been more proactive in arranging repairs before this point, and that it could have done more to engage with the resident about the works.
The resident first reported issues with damp and mould in her home in February 2023, and she was still experiencing issues in July 2024. The landlord breached its repairs policy timescales as this is a total of 17 months, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is an excessive and unacceptable delay. Whilst the specialist surveys did not identify any immediate harm to the resident or the property, it is reasonable to assume that these issues were a source of anxiety for her.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £675 compensation in August 2024. It said that it calculated this amount up to the date she refused the works, but did not provide a breakdown of its calculation method. However, as it was a similar amount to the stage 1 offer, it would be reasonable to assume that the landlord used the same matrix to calculate the additional offer.
A detailed review of the landlord’s handling of the compensation is included in the complaint handling section of this report. However, taking all circumstances into account, the Ombudsman finds that this additional offer of compensation was not proportionate to the findings identified within this report and did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. Due to the timing of the offer, it also could not be considered reasonable redress (even if deemed sufficient).
The Ombudsman notes that it is positive the landlord has a designated team responsible for managing damp and mould repairs, and it is apparent that it arranged in-depth damp investigations and surveys. However, it failed on several occasions to implement reasonable and timely repair solutions and improvements to manage the damp in the property. The landlord exhibited a lack of oversight of all the issues the resident was experiencing within the property and adopted an incoherent approach in communicating with the resident and resolving the issue.
In summary, the landlord:
1. Failed to action the repairs in accordance with its own policy timescales for an unreasonable period of time.
2. Displayed poor record keeping and communication with the resident.
3. Did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident when offering compensation.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings in this case, which amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The amount ordered reflects the additional failings identified within the report and the impact this had on the resident’s enjoyment of her home, taking the full circumstances into account. Orders have also been made to ensure improvements are made to the landlord’s damp and mould processes.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible due to the specifics of the complaint, the policy states the landlord will explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date to the complainant. It also states that it will keep the complainant informed throughout the process until the complaint is fully resolved.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 28 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 1 December 2023. This was reasonable and in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. However, while it was fair for the landlord to request the resident to supply photographs of the damp issues, it was not appropriate for it to delay opening the complaint until it had received them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord had already received enough pertinent information from the resident on 28 November 2023 to open a stage 1 complaint.
On 11 December 2023, the resident provided the landlord with photographs of the damp in the property. It is unclear why the landlord’s acknowledgement was delayed until 21 December 2023. In any case, this was unreasonable as it took a further 8 working days, rather than the 5 days outlined within its complaints policy. Furthermore, its reference to an additional step of acknowledgement was unnecessary and not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
The landlord’s explanation to the resident on 10 January 2024 about its requirement to extend her complaint by 10 days was fair. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it should have informed the resident of the delays sooner, as it had already exceeded the timescales it had originally agreed with her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 to express her dissatisfaction that it had failed to provide her with an update. The Code at the time of the complaint stated that if an extension beyond 20 working days was required, both parties should agree this. However, where an agreement over an extension period could not be reached, landlords should provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, and therefore this Service finds that it acted inappropriately.
On 25 January 2024, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response. Taking into account the Christmas period, this was a total of 36 working days to provide its response. This was unreasonable and exceeded the maximum timescales outlined in the Code. Within its stage 1 response, it would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint, and for it to offer an appropriate amount of compensation for poor complaint handling.
On 4 and 13 February 2024, the resident asked the landlord to confirm how it had calculated its compensation offer, as it had not provided her with a breakdown or a copy of its compensation policy. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her requests on these dates, which was inappropriate.
The resident therefore requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 21 February 2024. It is unknown what date the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, as this Service has seen no evidence of this. This is indicative of poor record keeping within its complaint handling. This is not in line with the Code, which states that a full record must be kept of the complaint, including all correspondence with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 March 2024 (this date was a bank holiday), which was 26 working days after the date of the resident’s escalation request. This was slightly outside of its policy timescales but is not considered an excessive delay that was likely to cause significant additional detriment.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer £20 compensation for complaint handling delays up to 10 working days or £50 compensation for any delays that exceed 10 working days. Within the stage 2 response the landlord provided the resident with a calculation breakdown of the stage 1 compensation, which included an offer of £50 for the delays in its complaint handling. This was therefore in line with its compensation policy. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies stipulates that when assessing the impact an issue has caused, landlords should take into account any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the resident. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances and there were multiple failings within its complaint handling, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of £50 at stage 1 was inadequate.
It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer an additional amount of compensation for its poor complaint handling at stage 2 in recognition of the failings identified.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident an additional £675 compensation on 13 August 2024. However, as mentioned previously, it did not provide a breakdown of the calculation. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it records the outcomes of complaint investigations so that it can learn from them. However, as the landlord failed to provide transparency to the resident about the compensation calculation again in August 2024, this shows that it was not taking sufficient learning from its complaints.
The landlord offered the additional compensation over 4 months after it had issued the stage 2 response. It is acknowledged that it had explained to the resident within its stage 2 response that it would offer compensation once the works were completed. However, this Service finds that the landlord did not follow its own compensation policy, as it does not stipulate that it can offer compensation to a resident post stage 2 of its complaints process. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation at stage 2 that reflected the position at the time, and then set out its intended method of calculating future compensation up to the point of completion of the works. Given the circumstances, its late compensation award is evidence of complaint handling delays. Its revised figure cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s ICP.
The Code requires landlords to put things right for residents. At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord outlined the actions it would take to resolve the damp issues. The landlord’s failure to undertake the repairs within target timescales has already been assessed within the previous section of this report. However, this is also a failure within its complaint handling, as following the closure of the complaint the landlord failed to take ownership and monitor the outstanding actions through to completion. This was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience in what was already a protracted complaints process for the resident.
As mentioned previously, the Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at either stage of the complaint process, to introduce its complaint handlers, or to discuss her complaint and the outcomes sought. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so.
To summarise, as the landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for all the failings identified within this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that we have found there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Additional compensation has been ordered to reflect the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,723 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
  1. £1,523 for its handling of her reports of damp and mould. This includes the £1,273 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1 and post stage 2, plus an additional £250 in recognition of the further failures identified within this report.
  2. £200 for its handling of the associated complaint. This includes £50 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1, plus an additional £150 in recognition of the failures identified within this report.
3. Arrange an independent specialist damp survey with the resident to identify any outstanding or new issues with damp in the property. It should share a copy of the resulting report with the resident and provide her with a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted in the report. It should also provide her with a single point of contact who will provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her. It should ensure that all repairs are scheduled within 4 weeks of the survey and resolved within 8 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to do the following within 8 weeks of this report:
1. Conduct a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould to ensure its handling of cases is in line with the recommendations. A copy of the self-assessment should be provided to this Service, and it should consider an assessment of (but is not limited to):
  1. The effectiveness of how it records and monitors damp and mould repairs through to completion.
  2. Its communication touch points with residents who have damp and mould repairs.
2. Arrange training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. Complaints are acknowledged and responded to within the timescales outlined in the Code.
  2. It has effective mechanisms in place to ensure that all outstanding complaint actions are monitored through to completion.
  3. Compensation is offered to residents in accordance with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.