Squared Housing (202307830)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307830

Luton Community Housing Ltd

30 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request to keep an assistance dog at her property;
2. reports of a leak and damp and mould at her property;
3. reports of repair issues in her property;
4. associated complaint

Background

The resident and her partner held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord from 4 October 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. At the time the tenancy began the landlord was in a joint venture with the local authority. This was to lease and let properties from private landlords. The venture between the landlord and local authority ended on 14 July 2023. Therefore, between 4 October 2022 and 14 July 2023 the landlord and local authority both had responsibility under the tenancy agreement. From 15 July 2023 onwards the responsibility under the tenancy agreement for the resident remained with the landlord only. The building is owned by a third party and managed by a maintenance company (MC) who are responsible for repairs at the property. The resident was evicted from the property on 25 January 2024. This was due to the owner of the property requesting it back under Section 21. The landlord told the Ombudsman the resident reported no vulnerabilities at “sign up” for the property. There is evidence that the resident reported several mental and physical health issues throughout the course of the complaint.
On 2 November 2022, the resident requested to keep a service dog at the property. The landlord told it on the same day it had a “strict no pet rule.” It told her it would reconsider this if she could provide further evidence. This included medical evidence the resident required the dog and evidence it was “verified” and vaccinated. The resident did not provide the evidence, stating on 29 November she could not afford £20 to get another letter from her doctor. She confirmed on 1 December that she had rehomed the dog.
The resident reported mould in her property to the MC upon moving in on 4 October 2022. It is unclear what, if any action took place at this time. The resident reported mould in the property on 19 December 2022 and 25 January 2023. The MC and landlord inspected the property on 27 January 2023 finding mould around the windows. The MC completed a mould wash of affected areas on 7 February 2023. The MC obtained consent from the building owner to repair the roof and guttering. It believed this was the root cause of the damp and mould issue. These repairs were completed by the end of February 2023.
There were a number of further repairs reported by the resident and/or identified by the landlord or MC as follows:
1. The inspection of 27 January 2023 found the floor coverings were coming apart due to a leak from the water tank in the property. The MC fixed the leak on 31 May, tightening a “loose nut”. On 11 May and 1 June, the MC found the flooring including the floorboards to be in “poor condition”. It is unclear if the flooring was repaired at the property.
2. The resident reported her washing machine was not working on 28 November 2022. She reported her oven was not working on 19 December 2022. The MC provided a new washing machine and oven to the resident on 9 February 2023. She reported she had no heating or hot water on 27 January 2023. An MC operative attended on 7 February 2023 finding the resident had the “hedge timer off” as it was “too expensive”. The MC found no issue with the heating or hot water and advised the resident to contact her energy supplier.
3. The resident reported a blockage in the only toilet in the property on 31 May 2023. The MC did not treat the resident’s lack of toilet as an emergency. The resident reported the MC told her to use “the shower or a bucket” for the toilet. The MC plumbers attended on 4 occasions between 1 and 5 June but were unable to find the cause of the blockage. The landlord arranged for a blockage specialist to attend, who removed a “plastic toilet block” on 7 June. It stated the issue was a “tenant issue.” It recharged the resident for the MC and blockage specialist attendance.
On 10 September 2023, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 28 September. The landlord provided an informal complaint response to the resident on 20 October. It said she had raised the assistance dog, floorboards, and mould issues with the council. It believed the issues were the responsibility of the council and she should contact them. It told her it “would not process her complaint to stage 1” as it could not uphold her complaint. It failed to refer the resident to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman asked the landlord on 24 October to provide a formal complaint response to the resident. It failed to do this and as such a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) was issued to the landlord on 19 December 2023.
Due to the landlord’s lack of formal response the Ombudsman treated the complaint as having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 3 January 2024. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 10 June. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 June. It stated the following:
1. The resident’s request for an assistance dog “was not denied.” The landlord advised her on 2 November 2022 it and tenancy agreement do “not permit pets.” It said it asked the resident to “provide more information” and there was “no record” that she did this.
2. It completed all repairs regarding the roof and guttering, water tank leak, and oven not working by the end of February 2023. There was “no issue” with the boiler and it advised her to contact her energy supplier. It said it recharged the resident for the boiler visit as there was “no fault.”
3. The resident reported a blockage in her toilet on 31 May 2023. The MC sent several plumbers who could not identify the source of the blockage. The landlord arranged for the blockage specialist to attend who found the cause to be a “plastic toilet block.” The landlord said it was “unreasonable” for the resident to say the blockage was present in October 2022. It attributed the blockage to the resident for either failing to report it in a timely manner or being the cause. It said it recharged her due to this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident said that the health of her partner has suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
The resident has stated the landlord denied her request to have an assistance dog at the property. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments. Organisations, including landlords, are only obliged to make adjustments when it is reasonable to do so. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord acted reasonably given all the circumstances. We will also investigate if it has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people.
In correspondence the landlord has confirmed the MC was responsible for the “repairs element of the contract.” The tenancy agreement was between the resident and the landlord. As such the Ombudsman is unable to assess the MC’s handling of any repairs reported to it or completed at the property. The landlord’s overall management of any repairs in its relationship with the MC will however be assessed. This is because the tenancy agreement confirmed the landlord had an overarching responsibility to ensure the property was in a reasonable state of repair.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to keep an assistance dog at her property.

The tenancy agreement states that “the tenant shall not keep any pets or any other animals on or in the property without the prior written consent of the landlord.” The Tenant’s Handbook also states the resident must ask the landlord’s permission before getting a pet as not all homes are suitable. The application to keep a pet must be made to the Housing Officer.
The landlord holds a separate Pet Policy, which states it will give permission to keep a pet if the property is “suitable, has been well maintained” and the resident has the “capabilities to take on the responsibilities of looking after the pet.” It will not refuse permission for “registered assistance dogs such as guide and hearing dogs.” It will consider the “diversity” of the resident during the “implementation of the policy.” This will include considering the “individual needs” of the resident and it will “tailor (its) approach and actions appropriately.”
The handbook also referred to “adaptations” if “you are disabled or have serious health issues.” The landlord states it “may be able to adapt” the home so the resident can live in it “safely and independently.” A self-assessment completed by the landlord in 2023 confirms that “staff are trained to identify and offer reasonable adjustments or to respond to such requests.”
The resident requested an assistance dog to live at her property on 2 November 2022. It is unclear if the dog was living at the property before the request. The landlord responded on the same day stating the MC had a “strict no pet rule.” The Ombudsman has not seen the MC’s policies and procedures; however, this information was not in line with the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement and tenancy handbook both confirm pets are allowed if the resident obtains consent from the landlord. The landlord’s statement to the resident was therefore misleading and caused uncertainty to her.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord did take appropriate steps to obtain further information from the resident to determine if her request was reasonable. It asked for medical evidence confirming the resident needed an assistance dog. It also asked for proof the dog was a “verified” assistance dog and had its “relevant vaccinations.” This was a reasonable request, and the landlord left the resident to forward this information to it. The resident confirmed the same day she would supply this information to the landlord.
By 29 November 2022, the resident had not provided the requested information to the landlord. It contacted her the same day stating she had not provided the information to it. It stated the dog was living at the property “without permission.” This rectified the misinformation it provided on 2 November. As it now clarified it could allow pets “with permission” in line with its policy. It stated the resident was “in breach of her agreement” as the dog was living at the property without permission. This was accurate as the resident had not engaged with the landlord’s attempts to progress the issue through its procedure for determining whether it could grant permission. The landlord therefore demonstrated its management of the resident’s expectations on the matter.
The resident said on 29 November 2022 she was affected by “postal strikes”. The landlord appropriately listed the dates affected by postal strikes. It informed her she had 19 days out of 28 not affected by strikes to provide the information. The resident said, “other residents in the block had pets.” The landlord appropriately informed her it could not comment on other tenants housed by the MC. It said it could only follow its own process. This was accurate at this point. It also appropriately informed her there would be “no breach of tenancy” if she had the relevant documents in her possession before keeping the dog at the property.
Further on 29 November 2022 the resident said she “could not afford £20 to get another letter” from her doctor. It is unclear why the previous copy of the letter was not in the resident’s possession. The landlord informed her “it was down to her to get the documents.” This was appropriate as the Ombudsman can find no evidence to suggest the landlord is obliged to support the resident with the cost of obtaining further evidence.
On 1 December 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord she had “rehomed the dog.” There is no further evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the matter after this. The landlord failed to address the matter in its “informal complaint response” of 20 October 2023. This is further assessed in complaint handling. The landlord did address the matter in its complaint response of 12 June 2024. It stated the resident’s “request was not denied.” This was accurate and in accordance with the tenancy agreement and policy. There is no evidence of the resident providing evidence to it to authorise the dog at her property before she rehomed it. The policy states it “will not refuse permission for assistance dogs” and there is no evidence it did this.
In summary the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord handled the resident’s request to keep an assistance dog at her property in a reasonable manner. It responded to the resident’s request in a timely manner and asked her to provide evidence so it could determine if it could allow permission. It initially misinformed the resident about its policy for allowing pets but rectified this in further correspondence. Furthermore, there is no evidence this affected the resident’s ability to obtain further evidence. The resident rehomed her dog before she provided evidence to the landlord. As such there is no evidence it was able to decide on whether it could allow the dog at the property. Furthermore, there is no evidence it denied the resident’s request for an assistance dog at her property. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to keep an assistance dog at her property.

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

The Tenancy Handbook confirms the resident should report repairs to it through its portal or by telephone. Its Repairs Policy confirms minor leaks or overflows to be urgent repairs which it should attend to within 7 calendar days. The landlord has a separate process for condensation and mould. This confirms the landlord is responsible for damp and the resident for condensation. Its “key driver” should be to “ensure the root cause is identified, and a schedule of remedial works produced at the earliest possible stage.” It will complete these works whilst “taking necessary steps to protect the resident’s health and wellbeing.” By taking “action early” it says, “many symptoms of damp defects will not reoccur” and “potential claims for compensation kept to a minimum.”
After receiving a report from a resident, the landlord will ask the resident further questions to ascertain the cause of the problem. It will guide the resident to help and guidance on its website for condensation issues. If it arranges a survey, it will inform the resident in 2 working days. The survey will be carried out in accordance with Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidelines. If it detects a “grade 5” failure it will arrange remedial works within 10 working days of the survey.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
The resident initially reported mould to the MC on 4 October 2022. It is unclear what action the MC took as a result of the report at this time. There is no evidence of the resident raising the issue with the landlord. It is uncertain if the landlord was aware of the report made by the resident. As such the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s management of the issue and whether it pursued the MC to take action. However, there should have been a clear line of communication between the landlord and the MC. Had this been effective the landlord would have been able to manage the situation and evidence would have been available for the Ombudsman to assess.
The first evidence of the resident reporting mould in her property to the landlord was on 19 December 2022. She said there was mould due to a “leak from her boiler.” The landlord took appropriate action and raised a repair with the MC the same day. It is unclear if the MC took any steps to investigate the issue following this. There is no evidence of the landlord chasing this with them to expedite the resolution of the issue for the resident. The landlord or MC did not investigate, and the resident was forced to live with the impact of the leak and mould.
The resident chased the issue on 25 January 2023. She said her property was “infested with black mould.” She said she had been “diagnosed with bronchitis” and her “partner was sick.” The landlord raised the issue with the MC on the same day. The landlord and MC completed a joint visit at the property on 27 January. It identified the leak was still present and there was mould around the windows. The investigation took over a month to arrange and complete. This was not in accordance with its policy of “taking action early.”
An MC operative attended the property to resolve the leak on 30 January. The evidence suggests the MC stopped the leak at this appointment. The leak was stopped after 42 calendar days, exceeding the timescale in its policy by 35 calendar days. The MC found a “gas safe” operative was required as it believed the pipework needed fixing. The MC arranged an appointment for 6 February. The landlord appropriately asked the MC to expedite the appointment on the same day. However, the MC said the appointment booked was the only available one. The resident reported to the landlord on 6 February the MC had not turned up. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord taking affirmative action with the MC on the same day. It told the MC it needed to send an operative “in 24 hours” or it would “arrange repairs itself and bill” the MC.
An MC operative attended the property on 7 February 2023. From this point, the MC took effective action to manage the leak and damp and mould at the property. On the same day, it completed the following:
1. It washed the mould at the property and hired a dehumidifier. It installed the dehumidifier on 1 March 2023.
2. It completed repairs to the pipework for the boiler, fully rectifying the leak issue. It found vents were needed on the bedroom and living room windows and installed these on 7 March 2023.
3. It also found and raised roofing and guttering works and obtained approval from the property owner. In further correspondence, the landlord stated the MC completed this at the end of February 2023.
From 19 December 2022 to 7 February 2023 the landlord took no action to complete mould washes or any alternatives to manage the mould at the property. This was despite the resident raising the issue on a number of occasions and raising the impact it was having on her health. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at her property herself over a prolonged period. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
The resident reported a further leak to the landlord on 21 May 2023. The landlord was delayed in picking the email up until 23 May as its staff member was on leave. The landlord raised the leak with the MC on the same day, and the MC attempted to attend at the property also on the same day. However, the resident was not in the property and said she would call the following day. There is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the matter. However, on 1 June the MC completed a repair “tightening a nut” on the boiler. The repair was completed in accordance with the landlord’s timescale in its policy. This is taking into account the mitigating circumstance of no access on 23 May.
The landlord failed to address the issues in its informal complaint response of 20 October 2023. Its stage 1 complaint response of 12 June 2024 gave a brief overview of the action it had taken. Its failings in this regard have been assessed further in complaint handling. The landlord failed to acknowledge any failings with its management of the reports of the leak and damp and mould It also failed to offer any compensation. It should have done so for the total detriment caused to the resident and also for the following reasons:
1. The landlord failed to expedite further action from the MC for the reported leak and damp and mould between 19 December 2022 and 25 January 2023. It did not investigate the issue for over a month and did not complete the repairs for over 6 weeks.
2. Between 19 December 2022 and 7 February 2023, the landlord took no further action to manage the mould at the property. It did not pursue the MC in arranging to complete mould washes or arrange for a dehumidifier.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for managing the damp and mould and leak at the resident’s property. Its overall completion of each issue exceeded the timescale in its policy by over 1 month. It also failed to consider pursuing mould washes or the use of a dehumidifier in this same period. It is noted that the landlord was limited in its handling of the issues by its reliance on the MC to complete the required repairs. Between 19 December 2022 and 25 January 2023, it did little to expedite the repair. Following this, there is evidence of it taking robust action with the MC to rectify the issue. This was in particular once the resident raised the impact it was having on her health. Once it took this stance there is evidence of the MC progressing with the repairs for each issue and completing them in a timely manner.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so between 19 December 2022 and 25 January 2023 which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £300 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property over a short period. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in her property.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy categorises repairs under 3 categories:
1. Emergency repairs are those that threaten the resident’s health safety or security or could cause significant damage to the property. It will attend to such reports within 24 hours. Examples include blocked drain or soil pipes, failure of heating and hot water supply in winter months and a blocked or unusable toilet. This is where there is only one toilet in the property.
2. Urgent repairs are those that cause inconvenience. It will attend to such reports within 7 calendar days. Examples include minor leaks and blocked drains which are not emergencies.
3. Routine repairs are non-urgent repairs which do not pose a risk to health or safety. It will attend to such reports within 28 calendar days. Examples include minor repairs to internal joinery and plastering work.
The tenancy handbook confirms the landlord will recharge the resident for any damage they, their family, or visitors cause to the home. It will also recharge residents for any callouts for “non-emergencies” as well as “broken appointments.”
There were a number of reports made by the resident to the landlord. This included her washing machine and oven breaking, damage to her flooring, no heating or hot water, and a blocked toilet. These are assessed in turn below. It should be noted that the landlord’s informal complaint response of 20 October 2023 only addressed the toilet blockage issue. It did not assess any of the further issues. This is further assessed in complaint handling.
The resident reported her washing machine had broken to the MC on 28 November 2022. It is unclear if the landlord was made aware of this report. The MC would later confirm internally its policy was to replace internal appliances rather than repair. The first evidence of the resident making the landlord aware of her broken washing machine was on 1 December. On the same day, she reported her oven was not working. There is no evidence of the landlord raising the issue with the MC until 19 December. However, at this point it only raised the broken oven and not the washing machine. This prolonged any replacement of either item for the resident. This left her unable to appropriately wash clothes or cook food in her property.
The resident chased the issue on 25 January 2023. Nothing further was done until the landlord and MC completed a joint visit to the property on 27 January. The MC recorded that the washing machine and oven both needed replacing. This was almost 2 months after the resident had reported the issues. The landlord chased both issues with the MC on 30 January, and 1 February. The MC ordered a replacement oven and washing machine on 3 February. The MC installed these at the property on 9 February over 2 months after they were reported as broken. The resident reported on the same day her new oven was not working. The landlord raised this with the MC the following day. It is unclear what the MC did to resolve this. However, there were no further reports of the oven not working from the resident or landlord following this.
It is commendable that the faulty washing machine and oven were acknowledged and replaced. However, it is of concern it took 2 months to complete. It is not clear what interim arrangements were made by the landlord to enable to household to wash clothes and cook during this period. The landlord offered no apology or compensation relating to the delay in its complaint responses.
The joint inspection of the property on 27 January 2023 found damage to the resident’s flooring from the leak, which has previously been assessed. The landlord acknowledged this again internally on 1 February 2023. The resident also raised the issue on 7 February. However, the Ombudsman can find no evidence of any repairs being raised or action taken to resolve the issue. This caused uncertainty to the resident, particularly as the landlord had highlighted the issue twice. The landlord completed a further inspection on 11 May 2023 and this time stated the flooring “was not safe” and “not in good condition.” Despite this, there is no evidence of the landlord taking action to resolve the issue.
The resident raised the damage to her flooring in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 6 September 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord dealing with the issue prior to the resident vacating the property in January 2024. This meant the resident was left managing the effect of the damaged and potentially unsafe flooring for nearly 12 months. Furthermore, the stage 1 complaint response of 12 June 2024 did not address the issue. This was a failure to recognise that it had not acted in accordance with its policy. It should have apologised and offered compensation for the detriment suffered by the resident.
The resident reported she had no heating or hot water on 25 January 2023. The landlord raised this with the MC on the same day but there is no evidence it treated the issue as an emergency. Due to the report taking place in winter, in accordance with its policy, the report should have been treated as an emergency. The landlord and MC highlighted the lack of heating following their joint visit to the property on 27 January. However, neither treated the issue as an emergency and the MC did not attend in 24 hours. There is no evidence of the landlord chasing this with them. This prolonged the difficult situation for the resident, being unable to heat her home or appropriately wash.
The MC attended the property on 30 January 2023 to investigate the lack of heating and hot water. This exceeded the timescale for response by 4 days. There is no evidence of the landlord chasing this with them or considering alternate measures to support the resident. This could have included temporary heaters or alternate locations to bathe. The MC failed to attend an appointment on 6 February and the resident raised this with the landlord. The landlord took robust action with the MC on the same day and the MC attended at the property the following day. The MC’s operative found the resident had turned the “hedge timer” off as it was “too expensive.” It found no fault with the heating and hot water and the issue was due to the resident’s use of the system. The operative told her to speak with her energy supplier about the cost. The landlord advised the resident what the operative had said on the same day. She disputed this, but there were no further reports of no heating or hot water following this.
The landlord did address the reported lack of heating and hot water in its complaint response of 12 June 2024. It said that it had recharged the resident for the visit by the MC to repair her boiler. It said this was because it found there was “no fault with the boiler.” This was in accordance with its policy that it can recharge for “non-emergency” callouts. However, there is no evidence of the landlord ever informing the resident of this whilst she was living at the property. It is uncertain if the landlord actually requested the recharge from the resident. There is no prior evidence to suggest this and no evidence of the resident ever disputing or raising this as an issue.
The resident reported her toilet as “blocked” on 31 May 2023. The MC attended on the same day and attempted to repair the toilet but was unable to find the cause of the blockage. The resident told the landlord on the same day the MC told her to use the toilet in a bucket or her shower. The landlord contacted the MC on the same day and was robust in its approach. It told the MC to deal with the issue as an emergency as the resident “could not stay in the property without a functioning toilet.” It warned it would send its “own repairs team on an emergency call and pass the bill to the MC.” It also raised how “disappointed it was with the lack of service” the MC was offering.
The MC attempted 4 further repairs to clear the blockage between 2 and 5 June 2023 but was unable to resolve the issue. In correspondence with the landlord, the MC denied telling the resident she should use the shower or a bucket. There is no evidence of the MC offering further support to the resident and on 6 June the landlord said the MC had until the end of the day to sort the issue. It said if it was not the MC needed to decant the resident. It also warned the MC it would stop rent payments as the issue had gone on for “too long.” This was an appropriate step, but it should have considered this much sooner. The MC did not resolve the issue that day and up to this point the resident had lived without a working toilet for 7 days. This was wholly inappropriate and caused much distress to the resident.
On 6 June 2023, the MC arranged for a blockage specialist to attend as it was unable to resolve the blockage issue. Both it and the landlord should have recognised this earlier and arranged attendance much sooner. The blockage specialist attended on 8 June. It found a “plastic toilet block” was the cause of the blockage. The blockage specialist attributed this to a “tenant issue.” In total, the landlord and MC took 9 days to resolve the issue. This was an inappropriate timescale to leave the resident without a working toilet. The landlord should have made alternative arrangements if it or the MC was not able to resolve the issue in 24 hours, in accordance with its policy.
The landlord recharged the resident on 16 June 2023 for £520 for the MC’s attempted repairs and £107.84 for the blockage specialist’s repair. It added this amount to her rent account. The resident disputed this stating it “must have been blocked” before she moved in. The landlord provided an effective response on 19 June stating the resident never raised the issue during the joint visit to the property on 27 January. It said if she failed to report the issue for a prolonged period, she would still be liable for the recharge. It said she moved in, in October 2022 and if the blockage was there then, the toilet would have been backing up from this date. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy for recharges.
The landlord repeated the information regarding the recharge in its informal complaint response on 20 October 2023 and its complaint response of 12 June 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge any failings with its approach. Its later response stated it “took reasonable steps in a timely manner.” This was not accurate, as although the MC was responsible for the repairs, it was responsible for the welfare of the resident. When it was clear after 24 hours the resident had no working toilet, it should have arranged a decant or alternative arrangements. It should have chased the MC at the earliest possible opportunity and arranged its own repairs.
The landlord offered no compensation to the resident in either its informal complaint response or stage 1 complaint response. It should have done so for the total detriment suffered by the resident plus the following reasons:
1. It prolonged the replacement of the residents’ washing machine and oven. As it failed to raise the issues between 1 and 19 December 2022. Then it failed to chase this with the MC until 27 January. Each item was not replaced by the MC for over 2 months as a result.
2. Despite the resident raising the damage to the flooring on 27 January 2023 and the landlord later finding it to be “unsafe”, there is no evidence it ever rectified the issue. The issue was therefore present at the property for over 12 months whilst the resident lived there. The resident was forced to live in a potentially hazardous environment as a result.
3. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s lack of heating and hot water as an emergency between 25 and 30 January 2023. The landlord offered the resident no support such as alternate bathing facilities or temporary heaters during this period.
4. It did not act quickly enough when aware the MC was unable to complete an emergency repair to the resident’s only toilet. It should have considered a decant or alternate arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity. Its failure to do so meant the resident was forced to live without the use of a toilet for 7 days.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required. Its inaction caused delays in replacing the washing machine and oven for over 2 months. There is no evidence it replaced damaged and “unsafe” flooring at the property for over 12 months. It did not act quickly enough to support the resident in emergency situations. This was when she had no hot water or heating and a blockage in her toilet. In each instance, its delays caused much detriment to the resident having to manage without being able to bathe, heat her home or use her toilet. There were some mitigating factors in the MC being responsible for completing repairs. However, in particular with the emergency repairs the landlord should have been more resolute in finding a resolution as quickly as possible. The delays were often worsened by the often ineffective working relationship between the landlord and MC. An order will be made for the landlord to address this.
The landlord failed to rectify the issues and communicate over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £800 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This has been considered to be proportionate and reasonable for the following reasons:
1. The 2 months the resident was without a working oven or washing machine and failure to address damage to her flooring.
2. The landlord’s failures relating to her blocked toilet and lack of heating and hot water.
3. Its failure to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to her property.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it views complaints as “an opportunity to learn, improve service delivery and staff development, as well as to communicate with (its) customers and stakeholders more effectively.” It aims to “take complaints seriously” and “tries to resolve them without avoidable delay.” It also aims to “provide an effective procedure for members of the public, (its) customers to be listened to, acknowledged and a resolution offered” if they have suffered a “failure” in the landlord’s service.
The landlord’s policy confirms all complaints will be handled in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It will attempt to “resolve any complaint at the point of contact” with the aim to “resolve the issue before escalation is required.” It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It will provide its stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days and its stage 2 response in 20 working days. If it cannot respond in these timeframes, it will “agree a timeframe with the complainant and keep them regularly updated.” Its policy confirms residents have the “right at any stage in the complaints process” to access support from the Ombudsman.
The resident raised her concerns to the Ombudsman on 6 June 2023. It was unclear if she had raised these concerns as a formal complaint to the landlord. However, on 6 September she said she had reported all issues but her blocked toilet in November 2022. The Ombudsman supported the resident in raising the complaint and on 6 September asked the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman asked landlord to provide this by 28 September. The date of the resident raising her complaint is therefore attributed to be 6 September.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident by 28 September 2023 and the Ombudsman chased its response on 16 October. The landlord provided an “informal complaint response” to the resident on 28 October. This response took 38 working days to provide from the complaint date of 6 September. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 28 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident during this period. As such it failed to acknowledge the complaint and did not understand the details of her complaint or what she wanted as a resolution. This meant it failed to manage her expectations and reduced its chances of providing an effective complaint response.
The landlord’s response on 28 October 2023 was ineffective and inaccurate. It told the resident it could not consider the resident’s concerns about the floorboards, mould, and her assistance dog. It inaccurately said she had “made these” points to the local authority. Up to July 2023, the landlord was in a “joint venture” with the local authority. Therefore, any reports made up to this point were attributable to the landlord and the local authority. All of the resident’s points of complaint were made before July 2023. It is of concern that at this point the landlord did not have records of its shared correspondence prior to the joint venture ending. Furthermore, there is no evidence of it attempting to obtain this information from the local authority. Its statement it “could not access the information” was inaccurate and misleading. It was able to obtain this information as part of its further complaint response on 12 June 2024. The landlord advised her to contact the local authority about these issues. The local authority had no responsibility to respond as it was not the resident’s landlord. Overall, the landlord’s stance on the matter caused much uncertainty and confusion on how she could have the matters resolved.
The landlord did address the resident’s concerns with the toilet repairs and recharge in its response on 28 October 2023. However, this was negated by it stating it was “not upholding the complaint” and “not processing” the complaint to stage 1. It offered no means of disputing its findings and this left the resident confused about what steps she could take next if she disagreed.
The landlord’s response of 28 October 2023 was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) for the following reasons:
1. It failed to understand the complaint and what the resident was seeking. It failed to acknowledge the complaint and did not respond within 10 working days.
2. It failed to address all points in the complaint definition and did not provide clear reasons for its decision. It did not have a “valid reason” for failing to accept and progress the complaint and should not have used a “blanket approach” to exclude it.
3. The landlord failed to provide any option to dispute its findings and did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman.
As the landlord failed to comply with the Code the Ombudsman asked it on 24 October 2023 to provide a formal response to the resident. Despite agreeing to do this several times it ultimately failed to do so. As such the Ombudsman issued a CHFO to the landlord on 19 December 2023. This was for failing to provide the resident with a formal complaint response. Its failure to provide this response was unreasonable. It caused much distress to the resident who was seeking resolution to her legitimate points of complaint. The Ombudsman deemed the landlord’s complaint procedure to be exhausted on 3 January 2024 due to the above failures.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 10 June 2024 and notified the landlord of this. The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint to the resident on 12 June. It is of concern that the landlord did not provide a formal complaint response to the resident until notified that the Ombudsman was investigating the matter. In total, the landlord took 194 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response. This exceeded the timescale in its response by 184 days. Its failure to provide this for a prolonged period caused much uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response did address most of the matters raised by the resident. This included the issues around the assistance dog, mould and repairs including the toilet. However, it failed to acknowledge its response to reports of mould, the toilet blockage and lack of heating and hot water were delayed and inefficient. It also failed to respond to the residents’ concerns about her floorboards and floor coverings. Furthermore, the response failed to acknowledge any issues with its approach to complaint handling. It did not recognise the delays and uncertainty in its approach and did not apologise or consider compensation. This caused the resident to believe the landlord was still not taking the issues seriously and was not an attempt to resolve her concerns. As such it failed to use the complaint “as an opportunity to learn” as its policy suggests.
The landlord failed to consider or offer any compensation to the resident for its complaint handling. It should have done so for the detriment caused to the resident and for the following reasons:
1. Its “informal” response of 20 October 2023 was delayed for over a month and its formal response of 12 June 2024 by over 6 months. It failed to appropriately speak to the resident at any point to discuss her complaint and did not understand her concerns or what she wanted in resolution.
2. The landlord’s response of 20 October 2023 was confusing, causing uncertainty to the resident. She was left uncertain where to turn next and she was not helped by its failure to signpost her to the Ombudsman.
3. The landlord had further opportunity to provide a formal response between 24 October and 19 December 2023. It did not provide this causing further concern to the resident that it was not taking her concerns seriously or looking to provide a formal resolution. This led to the Ombudsman issuing a CHFO to the resident for its persistent failure to provide a response.
4. The response of 12 June 2024 failed to acknowledge any issues with its complaint handling. This is a clear failure in the landlord appropriately reviewing of its approach and it failing to learn from complaints. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about her flooring or failings in its response to her reports of mould.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to identify trends and issues so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy or the Code in failing to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and not providing a formal response until the Ombudsman had been investigating the matter. Its approach throughout was inconsistent with its policy and the Code confusing the resident. The resident was left uncertain if it was taking her concerns seriously and it did not adequately support her in how to dispute its findings. A determination of severe maladministration has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £500 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred with a significant impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to keep an assistance dog at her property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1600 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of a leak damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of disrepair and subsequent repairs.
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This review must include, as a minimum:
  1. An explanation as to how the landlord will improve its communication with the MC, and whether improved processes and procedures would reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
  2. Complete refresher training with its staff on complaint handling, with specific regard to the Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The findings of the review should be shared with this Service within eight weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, considering the completion of a self-assessment against the report.
The landlord should review the September 2023 government guidance – ‘understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home’ to help it address its approach to damp and mould.