The Riverside Group Limited (202227117)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202227117
The Riverside Group Limited
31 May 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:
- Construction works near to the property and the impact these had on the resident.
- Reports of damp and mould in the property.
- The resident’s request for rehousing.
- The resident’s concerns about communal cleaning services.
- Complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block (the block). The property was situated in the block above an under croft. She lives with her husband, son and stepson. The resident has mental health issues, all family members had physical health issues. The landlord was aware of the health issues in the household. She lived at the property between July 2021 and December 2023. Before moving to the property, the resident lived in another property in the same block from 2008.
- The landlord notified residents in the block in 2020 that it planned to construct additional properties on the grounds around the block. It sent updates to residents about its plans in June 2020, September 2020 and July 2021. On 7 December 2021 the landlord sent notice to residents that it had appointed a contractor to complete the works.
- The landlord held an all resident consultation meeting on 7 February 2022. Its contractor gave a presentation on its plans for the estate.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 20 February 2022. There were several issues raised relating to the impact of the construction works on her and her family. They included:
- A reduction in parking provision for residents. She wanted the landlord to confirm that there would be parking available on completion of the works.
- The noise would stop her husband from sleeping during the day when he worked nights.
- The property was damp. This was made worse by the loss of communal drying facilities.
- She would be unable to keep windows open due to the dust in the air and the impact this would have on her stepson’s asthma.
- The landlord provided a copy of the presentation from 7 February 2022 to the resident on 22 February 2022. It included a series of questions and answers and dates for consultation and resident surgeries.
- The landlord invited all residents to a consultation meeting regarding the construction works on 28 March 2022. On 29 March 2022 it wrote to residents to say construction would begin on 4 April 2022.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 May 2022. This was around 64 days after the complaint was made. The response was detailed and addressed the different issues raised by the resident. Overall, the landlord said:
- Information about the parking suspension had been shared with residents. There would be 5 parking spaces allocated based on need. Upon completion of the works there would be 15 spaces allocated to existing residents.
- Its decision to offer £550 disturbance payment accounted for the impact on residents because of the construction works.
- It was unable to offer additional space for washing lines at the front or rear of the block. This would be reviewed throughout construction works.
- It would arrange for a surveyor to contact the resident regarding the issues with damp and mould in the property.
- It would refund charges for services not provided during construction works.
- If would meet with the resident to discuss her request for rehousing.
- The contractor had disputed the claim that it entered the site before 8.00am. It believed that the disturbance may have been connected to highway works nearby. No vehicles linked to construction works would arrive onsite outside of construction hours.
- It noted that the resident reported an incident where operatives verbally abused her. It apologised that she had experienced this conduct and it was not acceptable. Its contractor was investigating the report. It provided contact details for the site manager.
- It had communicated with residents prior to and throughout the works. This included surgeries, letters, newsletters and surveys. It had invited residents to join a steering group. It had a resident liaison officer to discuss residents’ concerns.
- It would provide a deep clean before construction work took place and after all works were finished. It apologised that the deep clean had not already taken place. It was scheduled for 31 May 2022. It would audit the routine cleaning on 30 May 2022. It would escalate any issues arising from this to its cleaning contractor.
- On 11 June 2022 the landlord offered the resident a 2 bedroom flat on a permanent move. The property was in a block which had a no pet policy in place. The resident refused the offer of accommodation and said that the landlord could expand its search area for a permanent move. She was only restricted to the local area for temporary accommodation, due to her family’s healthcare requirements.
- The landlord completed a deep clean of the block on 11 June 2022.
- The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 20 June 2022. She wrote that she had difficulty setting out her complaint at that time due to her caring arrangements.
- There was an exchange of emails between the parties on 16 June 2022 regarding alternative accommodation. The landlord sought to place the family in temporary accommodation as the resident’s son was due to undergo an operation. It offered a 2 week stay at a nearby hotel, but the resident said it was unsuitable because it lacked space for her family. She was encouraged to help it find suitable accommodation. Both parties were unsuccessful in finding suitable temporary accommodation.
- On 28 June 2022 the landlord attempted to survey the damp and mould in the property. The resident was unavailable for the appointment.
- The landlord’s records show that it consulted internally regarding the resident’s circumstances in July 2022. It had encouraged the resident to help by searching for suitable accommodation too, on the basis that it would cover the costs for temporary accommodation. The locations it had found were unsuitable because they did not accommodate pets or were not large enough for the family.
- On 11 July 2022, the landlord offered a permanent move to a 2 bedroom flat. The offer was refused because the property had restrictions on pets in the block. It gave updates to the resident on 15 July 2022 regarding its search for alternative accommodation.
- There was correspondence between the parties on 21 and 22 July 2022. The landlord provided details of alternative accommodation. The resident was concerned that the available temporary accommodation was unsuitable. She also raised concerns about the impact that the construction works had on her son. He was using a medical helmet which impacted his ability to cool down and she could not open the windows. The landlord said it would look for accommodation accessed by a lift or on the ground floor.
- The resident set out the reasons to escalate her complaint to stage 2 by email on 25 July 2022. She provided a detailed account of the impact on her and her family and raised concerns about the landlord’s communication. Amongst other things, she said:
- She did not believe the landlord had appropriately assessed the impact on her before works started, or since works began. She needed temporary accommodation or a permanent move urgently. She was unable to receive support from her family. She felt the landlord’s offers of hotel accommodation would isolate her from her husband and other family support.
- She was unhappy about calls made to her after she told it she would be unavailable. She was attending multiple hospital appointments and the calls included personal questions that made her uncomfortable.
- She was unavailable for the damp and mould survey on 28 June 2022. She asked for this to be rearranged once she had recovered.
- She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding the works.
- There was no parking or amenity space available. She struggled to access her property alone and had no space to clear her head when she had panic attacks.
- She asked for an additional washing line and some communal green space to sit outside.
- Building equipment and machinery were being transported through the under croft. She felt unsafe as a result.
- She felt the disturbance payment was not comprehensive. It did not consider the additional impacts on her/her family.
- She asked for a breakdown of the service charges for the property. She wanted to know if there were to be any rent reductions.
- She felt the landlord did not consider her concerns about the working hours on the site seriously and no comprehensive investigation took place.
- She was unhappy with the cleanliness of the block and the quality of the deep clean.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2022. This was around 16 working days after it received the detailed escalation request. It set out its understanding of the complaint and provided a detailed response to each of the resident’s questions. This included the following:
- It tried to provide some respite accommodation based on the resident’s needs. It had been unsuccessful and decided to look at a permanent move instead. This was dependent on suitable properties becoming vacant in the area.
- It would arrange a survey to determine which remedial works were required to address damp and mould.
- It disagreed that its communications had been misleading. It set out details on how parking would be allocated on completion of the works. It said parking would continue to be restricted while works were ongoing.
- It was unsafe to provide temporary amenity space or additional drying facilities for residents. It would consider alternative options for clothes drying once the construction works were complete.
- A review of the disturbance payments was ongoing. The outcome would be communicated to all residents in the block.
- There would be no reduction in rent during the period. The impact of the works on residents was compensated through the disturbance payment. The service charge was going to be adjusted. It apologised for the delays in processing the adjustment.
- It apologised that the resident felt it had not conducted a full investigation about construction hours. Its contractor was monitoring arrival and departure times. Operatives were disciplined when site rules were not followed. The contractor concluded its investigation regarding the incident of verbal abuse. The operative believed to have been involved was no longer working at the site.
- It was “sorry to hear” that the resident felt the communication was insufficient. It discussed this issue with its contractor, who changed its communication to cover 3 weeks of planned work in each newsletter rather than 2.
- There were some issues with the communal cleaning in the block. Routine cleaning was scheduled for each Monday. The construction works had impacted on the cleaning, maintenance, and upkeep of the communal areas. It apologised for the issues and committed to conducting a deep clean every three months, or sooner if required.
- It apologised for the delay in its response at stage 1. This was caused by staff absence and a reliance on third-party information for a full response. It accepted that the resident could have been told this at that time and apologised. It had learned from the issues in its complaint handling. When responding to stage 2, it recognised there would be a delay and wrote to the resident on 8 August 2022.
- In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that her son was unwell because of damp and mould. It offered the resident temporary accommodation. The temporary accommodation was in a block undergoing similar regeneration works and the offer was declined as unsuitable by the resident.
- In December 2022 the landlord completed a mould wash at the property. It offered a permanent move to a 2 bedroom house. The offer was refused by the resident. Both parties agreed the property unsuitable for the resident.
- The landlord conducted a damp survey at the property on 16 January 2023. It found that the gutters were blocked and overflowing. There was damp staining on the exterior of the building under the blocked drains. It recommended that the gutters were cleaned and repaired. The bathroom extractor fan required replacement.
- The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She contacted the Housing Ombudsman on 20 February 2023 to escalate her complaint.
- A further damp survey was conducted on 10 March 2023. The survey found high moisture levels in the property. The following recommendations were made to resolve the damp and mould:
- Replace downpipe and clear off moss to return wall externally to assess any damage to pointing.
- Replace bathroom fan to humidistat controlled
- Replace kitchen fan to humidistat controlled
- Hack off and allow to dry plaster in main bedroom and advise resident this may be like this for a couple of weeks
- Once dry reinstate and decorate bedroom complete.
- Mould wash landing cupboards as a 2 stage treatment.
- Increase vent holes in the landing cupboard doors.
- The landlord began works set out in the survey to resolve the damp and mould in March 2023. This included a mould wash and removal of plaster in the main bedroom.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2023 asking for an update regarding the damp and mould repairs to the property.
- The construction works were complete at the end of April 2023.
- In April 2023, there were delays completing external works to the guttering and downpipe caused by restricted access on site. As the external issues caused the water ingress to the property, this delayed the internal works too. The landlord was able to access the necessary areas and repair the downpipe on 1 May 2023.
- On 9 May 2023 the resident emailed the Ombudsman to say that she had taken her son to hospital with respiratory problems caused by damp. She notified the landlord and it provided temporary accommodation for the resident between 10 May 2023 and 5 July 2023. While in the hotel the landlord paid £616.50 in expenses to the resident for meals and parking.
- While the resident was in temporary accommodation the landlord conducted internal works to treat damp and mould in the property. This included specialist equipment to dry the affected areas in the property and replastering affected areas in the main bedroom.
- On 2 June 2023 the landlord offered the resident a permanent move to a 2 bedroom flat. The resident accepted the offer. The property was vacant, but works were required to bring it to a lettable standard.
- On the resident’s return from temporary accommodation on 5 July 2023 she found mice inside the property. She reported the pest issue to the landlord, who arranged for pest control services in the communal areas. The resident and her family stayed with a family member temporarily while pest control services cleared the mice from the area. Her husband remained at the property for the duration.
- On 13 July 2023 the landlord was scheduled to paint the bedroom. The appointment was cancelled by the resident as she had been offered permanent accommodation.
- On 22 September 2023 the landlord refunded £59.96 of service charges. This included charges for cleaning, gardening and landscaping. The landlord also offered a further £200 as a disturbance payment.
- The resident moved on 25 December 2023. She said that she was unable to move immediately due to the time of year and took 2 additional weeks to move in. She paid the rent on both properties in the interim period.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said that she was unhappy that she had to pay rent on both her former and new properties for 2 weeks from 25 December 2023. She felt that the landlord treated her unfairly by starting the new tenancy on Christmas day. She was unable to access to removals at the time, which delayed her ability to move. As this issue has been raised outside of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it has not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to discuss her concerns with the landlord separately.
Policy and procedures
- The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales to conduct repairs dependent on the type and severity. It states that it will conduct:
- Urgent repairs 3 days.
- Routine repairs within 28 days.
- Low priority routine repairs within 56 days.
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will undertake effective investigations into damp and mould. It will respond to reports dependent on the severity and urgency of the problem in line with its repairs policy. It will make reasonable attempts to access the property to inspect and conduct works. It will make 3 attempts to contact residents once a report has been made to arrange the inspection. The works will be risk assessed and comprehensive advice will be given to residents to manage the issue. It will follow up any completed repairs within 6 months.
- The landlord’s pest control procedures show it will visit promptly to assess the problem and provide support. If the issue has been caused by a problem with the design or fabric of the building it will deal with the issue as quickly as possible. Otherwise, it will be the resident’s responsibility to resolve. It will provide advice and direct residents to their local council or private pest control services for help.
Construction works near to the property and the impact these had on the resident.
- Overall, the communication provided by the landlord regarding the construction works was reasonable. It notified residents that it planned to construct additional properties from 2020. It provided updates about the plans in 2021 and gave details about the project and contractor in December 2021. It held resident consultation meetings in February 2022 where it provided detailed question and answers to all residents.
- In February 2022 it provided a copy of its contractors presentation to all residents. It provided one to one consultation to residents and additional surgeries. There was a further consultation meeting for all residents on 17 March 2022. The landlord provided detailed communication to residents before works began.
- Once works started, the contactor provided fortnightly updates to residents in a newsletter. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns about the amount of notice received from the contractor about planned works. The landlord improved its contractor’s newsletter schedule to ensure residents were given more advanced notice. The response was fair and demonstrated learning from outcomes.
- The landlord was clear with the resident throughout that there would be a reduction in parking and other communal facilities during the works. It set out its plans to manage parking once the works were complete and how the resident would be able to access a parking permit. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations and was clear in its decision making.
- The resident told the landlord that there would be specific impacts on her and her husband in February 2022. She explained that there would be a considerable detriment on her family caused by the increased noise from machinery passing under her property. The landlord did reflect on this additional noise in its complaint responses in May and August 2022. It also considered other impacts caused by the construction works.
- Throughout the complaint journey the resident stated that she was unhappy with the disturbance payments offered. The landlord set out that it would review the disturbance payment in its stage 2 response on 16 August 2022. It did eventually review the initial offer of £550. Following the completion of the works in April 2023, the landlord reviewed its offer and provided the resident an additional £200 disturbance payment and £59.96 refunds for service charges. This decision to review the payment was fair, and it was reasonable to make the new offer.
- The landlord responded to the reports made by the resident about the conduct of contractors on site. It provided a detailed response regarding the discussions it had with the contractor and the measures taken to ensure compliance with the site working restrictions. It also set out how it had managed the reports made about verbal abuse she received from a contractor. It explained how the operative involved would no longer return to the site. It reflected on the complaint made by the resident, it was fair in its response and set out its key learning from her reports.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of construction works near the property and the impact these had on the resident. It communicated effectively with residents regarding the works. It set reasonable expectations on the impact these would have and it responded to concerns raised by the resident. It was reasonable to seek alternative accommodation for the resident once it was informed of her circumstances. Its combined offer of £809.96 for disturbance payments and refunded service charges was reasonable.
Reports of damp and mould in the property.
- Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
- Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
- The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised issues with damp and mould in her complaint on 20 February 2022. It did not respond to this report within the 28 days set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. There was no record that any action was taken by the landlord until it issued its stage 1 response on 24 May 2022. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the potential risks to the resident because of damp and mould in the property.
- In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that a survey was required to assess the damp and mould. It scheduled the first appointment for 28 June 2022. This was arranged within the 28 days set out in its policy. It demonstrated an intention to resolve the substantive issue but did not acknowledge the delays to conduct the survey prior to the stage 1 response.
- The resident was unavailable on 28 June 2022. Once the appointment was missed the landlord should have made further efforts to conduct the survey. Its policy states that it will evidence 3 attempts to conduct inspections before closing a repair for damp and mould. The records show that the landlord was in regular contact with the resident during this period. It was aware that she was attending hospital appointments for her and her son. It should still have made efforts to reschedule the survey. Instead, the resident took additional time and trouble seeking a new appointment in her request to escalate her complaint on 25 July 2022.
- The landlord should have responded with a new appointment date, but it did not reply until it issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2022. The response did not include a new date for the survey. The landlord should have set out a date for the survey to take place and follow up with its plan to resolve.
- The landlord conducted a mould wash treatment on 1 December 2022. This was more than 3 months after it issued its stage 2 response. It then surveyed the damp and mould on 16 January 2023. The Ombudsman considered that the landlord was in the process of seeking alternative accommodation for the resident during this period. However, these combined delays of around 6 months were outside of the 28 days in its policy. The delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The survey identified issues with the gutters on the block causing the damp. It made recommendations to repair the gutters and install a new fan in the property. The were no records to show that the works were scheduled until after the landlord revisited on 10 March 2023. This second survey showed high levels of moisture in the property. It made recommendations to conduct plaster works and replace fans in the property. These surveys suggested that there was a considerable damp and mould problem in the property. The evidence shows that there were combined delays of around 12 months without action by the landlord.
- The landlord’s records show that the first works to remedy the cause of damp and mould were conducted in March 2023. On 23 March 2023 it hacked off plaster in the bedroom. There were no further works internally until June 2023 at the request of the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to pause any additional internal repairs in the circumstances.
- There were delays completing the external works recommended in the second survey. The landlord was unable to access parts of the building with scaffolding because construction works were ongoing. There was no update provided to the resident and she chased the landlord on 13 April 2023. The landlord completed the external works on 1 May 2023. This was around 4 months after it identified issues with gutters that may have caused the damp and mould. Although there were some reasons for the delays to complete these repairs, the resident took further time and trouble chasing repairs.
- The landlord’s records show that the internal works were delayed by the resident in April 2023. She asked that work be suspended in the property until June 2023 because of the impact the issues had on her at the time. The landlord agreed to pause any works. It was fair and recognised the impact caused to the resident in its response.
- When the landlord was told that the resident’s son had been hospitalised in May 2023 it found temporary accommodation within a day. It was able to make a quick decision that would have reduced the impact on the resident and her family. It was reasonable to decant her and to complete the internal repairs while she was in temporary accommodation.
- The remaining works, other than painting, were done while the resident was in temporary accommodation. It took the landlord around 2 months to complete the internal repairs. The works would have caused a lot of plaster dust to be present. It was fair to continue to do major works while the resident was out of the property.
- The landlord’s records show that it paid the resident £616.50 for the additional costs she incurred while in temporary accommodation. It set out a breakdown of the costs covered that were reasonable in the circumstances.
- The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. Although its decision to decant the resident and cover her additional expenses was reasonable, there were delays conducting surveys and repairs throughout the timeline. The delays, combined with the calls and emails sent by the resident for updates caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. There was a lack of oversight from the landlord to pursue the repairs. It should pay the resident compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident’s request for rehousing.
- The landlord has limited control over the availability of properties, which is broadly based on the rate at which current occupants vacate them. The landlord’s lettings policy does not specify any timescales for management transfers. It did not operate a separate waiting list for internal transfers. It did consider moving the resident as a management let.
- The landlord’s records show that there was a concerted effort to source alternative accommodation for the resident between May 2022 and June 2023. The landlord was open and honest with the resident in its communication. It was clear with the details of each offer of alternative accommodation. It did not place any additional restrictions on the number of offers it would make, or areas that it would consider suitable.
- The delay to respond to the resident’s initial enquiry in February 2022 exacerbated her distress and inconvenience. However, the landlord recognised that there was an urgent need for alternative accommodation in its response on 24 May 2022. Its offer to meet with the resident to discuss her rehousing was fair and put things right in the circumstances.
- Once the landlord was aware of the impact the works had on the resident and her family it sought to provide alternative accommodation. The records show that it made 3 offers of temporary accommodation and 2 offers of a permanent move between June and December 2022. Although the offers made were unsuccessful, it communicated them effectively and demonstrated an intention to support the resident and resolve the substantive issues.
- The records show that it made its first offer of a permanent move on 11 June 2022. This was within 12 working days of the stage 1 response. Although the resident refused the offer as unsuitable, the landlord had followed through with the promises it made in its complaint response. It continued to support the resident and was actively seeking alternative accommodation. Its decision to allow the resident further offers of alternative accommodation was fair.
- There was an exchange of emails between the parties on 16 June 2022 regarding alternative accommodation. The landlord sought to place the family in temporary accommodation as the resident’s son was due to undergo an operation. It offered a 2 week stay at a nearby hotel, but the resident said it was unsuitable because it lacked space for her family. Again, the landlord continued to demonstrate an intention to support the resident. There were restrictions on the type of accommodation suitable to the resident that were difficult for the landlord to provide. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 July 2022 to provide an update regarding its searches for alternative accommodation. It set out the details of properties it had considered and gave assurances that it was trying to resolve the rehousing urgently. Its communication was clear with the resident. It reflected on its earlier decision making and demonstrated learning when it recognised that it could have given more consideration earlier in the timeline.
- The records show that there were further efforts to find alternative accommodation in July 2022. The landlord reflected on the concerns raised by the resident about the impact on her son’s health. It also considered the resident and her husband’s vulnerabilities when it determined that a ground floor property or one serviced by a lift was required. Its decision making was reasonable.
- However, there were no additional offers of alternative accommodation between December 2022 and the completion of the construction works in April 2023. It is unclear if the landlord continued to search for alternative accommodation during this period.
- The landlord offered permanent alternative accommodation on 2 June 2023. The resident said that between 5 July 2023 and 25 December 2023 she stayed with family and friends because of mice in the property. She was pregnant at the time and concerned about the impact this may have had on her. There are very few records available to the Ombudsman about the reports of mice in the property. Those that are show that once the landlord was aware of issues with pests at the block it passed works to its contractor to complete pest control services. Its policy states that if it is responsible for pests entering a property through some structural issues then it will provide a treatment. The records do not show if there was any assessment of the property or the block to show where the mice came from or how they entered the property.
- It took around 6 months for the landlord to complete the void works on the new property as it was not ready to let until December 2023. It is unclear from the records when the landlord told the resident the new property was ready to let, however the tenancy commenced on 25 December 2023 (Christmas day). While the Ombudsman considers this issue to be outside the scope of this investigation, we have made a recommendation to the landlord at the end of this report. This is to support effective dispute resolution between the parties.
- The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. Overall, the duration of the resident’s wait time for rehousing does not, in itself, evidence a failure by the landlord. Once the landlord was notified of the resident’s particular vulnerabilities it did make considerable effort to seek alternative accommodation suited to the resident’s needs. It made reasonable attempts to decant the resident during the construction works. It was able to decant the resident to conduct planned works to the property. It offered the resident alternative accommodation in areas when they became available. It recognised the impact on the resident and followed through with the promises made in its complaint responses. It was not restrictive in the areas it would consider and did not place pressure on the resident to accept unsuitable properties.
The resident’s concerns about communal cleaning services.
- It is unclear when the resident first reported concerns about the quality of cleaning services in the block. However, the landlord does set out in its stage 1 response that there had been a service failure to complete a deep clean in the block before construction works began. The records showed that the landlord conducted the deep clean promised in its stage 1 response in May 2022. It also arranged to inspect the quality of cleaning in the block in May 2022.
- The resident raised the condition of the cleanliness of the block as part of her escalation request on 25 July 2022. In its stage 2 response on 16 August 2022, the landlord recognised that the construction works had impacted the quality of cleaning in the block. It agreed to increase the frequency of inspections and to provide additional deep cleans while the construction was ongoing. Its decision to increase the frequency of inspections was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord recognised the impact this issue had on the resident.
- The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning services. It recognised that there had been a service failure to provide a deep clean prior to construction works beginning on site. Its offer to increase the number of inspections and provide additional deep cleans during the works was reasonable and put things right in the circumstances.
Complaint handling
- The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
- The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response at stage one was outside those timeframes.
- The landlord took around 64 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay above the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord apologised for the delay but did not put things right in the circumstances.
- The landlord reflected on its complaint handling in its stage 2 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused at stage 1 and set out lessons learned from its failings. However, there was no offer of redress for its failings. The resident had taken time and trouble making her complaint and if the landlord had responded sooner, it could have recognised earlier in the timeline the impact the situation would have on the resident.
- The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord recognised that there had been failings in its stage 2 response. It did set out learning from the failures and apologise to the resident. However, its offer of redress did not reflect the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing her complaint. It should pay the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of construction works near to the property and the impact these had on the resident.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- An offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the resident’s complaint about the communal cleaning services.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident compensation of £450. The compensation is comprised of:
- £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
- £50 for complaint handling failures.
- Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.
- Pay the resident compensation of £450. The compensation is comprised of:
Recommendations
- The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns raised about the tenancy commencement date in December 2023.