The Riverside Group Limited (202330396)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330396

The Riverside Group Limited

31 October 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property on letting.
2. Response to requests for a range of repairs.
3. Handling of no heating or hot water and the boiler repair.
4. Response to reports of damp and mould.
5. Understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The property is a 2 bedroom house owned by a Housing Association. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy having started on 2 October 2023. She lives at the property with her daughter.
The landlord has provided a copy of the pre tenancy form completed by the resident on 4 September 2023. On this she set out that she was receiving support for her mental health and wellbeing. She attached a document which she noted was supporting medical evidence. The landlord has not shared this document with the Service and the content is unknown. The resident has told the Service that she is dyslexic. She has also said that she is allergic to mould. The landlord has said that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord completed a void inspection of the property on 14 August 2023. This listed the works it would carry out ahead of the property being let. This included for the property to be cleaned throughout, electrical and gas safety checks and a test of the hot water. The inspection report notes that it had requested information about the replacement of the windows and doors. An internal email confirmed the completion of the works and that the property was ready to be let on 14 September 2023.
The resident has said that there were several issues outstanding when she signed the tenancy agreement. She said that she was told to report repairs directly to the landlord’s day to day maintenance service. The landlord has not provided the Service with any record of the information given to the resident when she signed the tenancy agreement or when it handed her the keys. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property on 30 October 2023. As a follow up, the officer passed a list of repairs to the maintenance manager. This included the following items:
1. 2 windows and the back door required replacement.
2. Silicone around the bath to be completed. A new bath panel and toilet seat were to be fitted as these were broken.
3. The ceilings needed to be “over boarded and skimmed”. It noted that an asbestos check would need to be done as the ceilings were artexed.
4. 2 sheds in the garden and rubbish at the side of them should be removed as these were “leaning and dangerous”.
5. A water butt was to be removed and the downpipe repaired.
6. The outside light near the front door was broken and needed to be replaced.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 November 2023. She said that:
1. the landlord had told her that repairs to the property and the removal of a stairlift had to be completed before she could move in. It had shown her an extensive list of repairs but none of these had been done. Only the stairlift and a gas fire had been removed. She felt that the property was uninhabitable and that it required major works.
2. there had been confusion when she called to report repairs. She was told that new windows and doors, a new kitchen and bathroom had previously been fitted to the property. However, she was later told that the previous tenant had declined these works.
3. the property had not been cleaned. There was carpet residue, screws and a layer of dirt and old mail left for her to clear.
4. she had been unable to move in and was travelling back and forth to give access to workman. She said that the workmen had expressed surprise at the condition of the property. She had been told that a manager needed to approve the list of repairs. She did not understand why these had not been done prior to the start of her tenancy.
5. she said that her housing officer had not provided their contact number and had not attended appointments when arranged. As she was not living in the property, she had missed their unannounced visits and was unable to contact them directly.
The landlord’s complaints officer replied to the resident on 3 November 2023. They said that they could not deal with the repair element of her complaint. This would be dealt with elsewhere. The officer explained that they would follow up on her complaint about staff behaviour. They wrote that they “completely agreed that the works should have been carried out before you moved into the property, as this is unacceptable”. In reply, the resident said that she had been told that the repair issues did sit with the housing service as “it had pushed to get the property signed off and let”. Further she said that the property was currently awaiting an asbestos check.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 November 2023. She was concerned that it expected her to pay rent when she was not able to live at the property. She said she was only going there to allow access for the workmen. She was finding this difficult as she did not feel that the property was safe for her daughter, particularly as there was no heating. On 9 November 2023 the landlord arranged for the resident to leave her keys in a key safe at the property. This would allow contractors to continue with the repairs to the property, without the need for her to be present. It further advised that it had placed a ‘stop code’ onto her rent account. This would prevent her receiving automatic arrears letters.
The landlord confirmed on 15 November 2023 that the asbestos report had come back negative. It said that it would now carry out the works to the ceilings on 4 December 2023. On 27 November 2023 the resident reported that the boiler was leaking, causing a flood.
On 3 December 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord asking how she could escalate her complaint further. She said that she was no closer to moving into the property. She had received no updates on the issues raised from the inspection on 30 October 2023 and she felt that no one was communicating with her. She reported that the property was so cold that there was ice on the inside of the windows. She did not feel that the landlord could expect her to live there. She said that the situation was affecting her mental health, leaving her depressed and anxious. In reply, the landlord’s complaints officer offered to raise another complaint with its repairs team.
The landlord placed the resident in hotel accommodation on 4 December 2023. This was for a total of 7 nights to 11 December 2023 while it installed a new boiler in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 December 2023. It said that:
1. the resident had complained about the condition of the property when her tenancy started. She was unhappy with this and it had caused her stress.
2. she had not moved in and had been travelling to the property to give access to workman. As this had been inconvenient to the resident the landlord had fitted a key safe. It apologised for the delay in starting the works.
3. it confirmed that it had carried out an asbestos check at the property and that this was negative.
4. it had started the works to the ceilings, patching up the areas that were crumbling. It would complete these works over the weekend of the 16 to 17 December 2023.
5. it had installed a new boiler. It confirmed that it had decanted her to a hotel while it completed these works.
6. in response to her reports that the windows were drafty, it had carried out an inspection which found them to be working correctly. It had included these for replacement within its planned works programme for the 2024 financial year.
7. it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she had requested.
The resident responded to the landlord on 11 December 2023 expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said that she believed that the landlord did not value its “promises and core ethics”. She said that it had let her a property that was not of a lettable standard. She did not believe that she should be liable for the rent. She had raised this with the housing officer but had not received a clear response. She said that while the landlord had completed some of the repairs, others remained outstanding. None of these had been done in a timely manner. She did not understand why the landlord said that it would repair only 4 ceilings rather than all of them. She further expressed frustration that the inspection carried out on 30 October 2023 had not led to the works identified being carried out. She said that there had been further damage caused in the property by the leaking boiler. She concluded that she had not been able to move in due to there being no gas supply, a faulty boiler and the property not being ready to let.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 13 December 2023.
In internal correspondence between 18 and 20 December 2023 the landlord noted that the officer who attended on 30 October 2023 had “misspoken and raised expectations”. It had agreed to and completed works to 4 of the ceilings. It had completed these on 12 December 2023. It had now raised orders for works to clear the guttering, repair the external light and reseal around the bath. Further it confirmed that it had completed a survey of the windows and doors and it had included these into its planned works programme for 2024. It had told the resident about this. The housing officer noted that the resident had accepted the sheds and the water butt when she viewed the property. Further, it said that it had provided the resident with a £200 decorating voucher.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 December 2023 to say that it was still investigating her complaint. It said that it would be in touch with her on 9 January 2024 if it could not resolve the complaint before the Christmas break.
The resident contacted the Service on 17 January 2024. She said that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. She was still unable to move into her property. The windows were mouldy and she was allergic to this. She had no solid base and had been living out of her car. She believed that the windows, doors, bathroom, and kitchen were all due for replacement as they were over 25 years old. She was concerned about increasing debt on her rent account, but the landlord would not address this until it had resolved her complaint. She said that the landlord had passed her between teams, rather than respond to her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 February 2024 to offer reassurance that it was still dealing with her complaint. It apologised for the delay and said that it was awaiting a final update from its contractors and housing team. It would contact her again on 9 February 2024. It arranged for its housing officer and maintenance manager to visit the property on 13 February 2024.
The landlord updated the Service on 21 February 2024. It said that it had visited the property and further repairs had been identified, including an issue with the boiler. Its contractors had attended to the boiler and its maintenance manager was following up on the other repairs. It also confirmed that it was arranging to remove the garden sheds. It said that it had spoken with the resident about her responsibility for the rent.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 February 2024. It acknowledged that it had received her escalation request on 11 December 2023. It said that this had covered issues not included in her original complaint. It said that it had spoken with the resident on 18 December 2023. It understood that she wanted the repairs identified on 30 October 2023 to be completed. This included works to all the ceilings in the property. She also wanted it to replace the windows. In responding to the elements of her complaint it said that:
1. its officer had told her at the start of her tenancy to contact it to arrange for a ‘turn on and test’ for the gas supply. This she was to do at a time that was convenient to her. She had not done so until 23 November 2023. This had found a fault on the boiler. It had then decanted her for 5 days while a new boiler was installed.
2. it noted her wish for all the ceilings in the property to be replastered but a visit carried out on 13 December 2023 said that this was not necessary.
3. she had accepted the sheds in the garden when she signed for the property. As a gesture of goodwill it had now agreed to remove these.
4. it would replace the windows and doors as part of its planned works programme for the financial year 2024-2025. It would contact her in April 2024 to carry out a validation survey.
5. she had told it that the works to the ceilings had caused damage to her paintwork and she had requested further decorating vouchers. It said that it would not provide additional vouchers. A credit remained on the original vouchers provided and its recent inspection had not found any damage to the décor. It understood that this was not the outcome she was looking for.
6. the works needed had not prevented her from moving into the property and that when the boiler failed it had decanted her temporarily.
7. it had identified general repairs during the course of her complaint and that these were now being addressed outside of the complaint.
8. it upheld her complaint. It would be providing feedback to its housing and repairs services about providing clarity to residents following property inspection visits about the repairs identified, what works it would carry out and when these would be done.
9. it understood the upset and inconvenience caused to her and offered 4 weeks credit to her rent account of £407.08. Having spoken with her it understood that she was seeking a refund from the start of her tenancy due to the outstanding repairs and lack of heating and hot water. It had reviewed calls she had made to it and said that she had only asked that the gas be uncapped during her call on 23 November 2023. Based on this the landlord would not increase its offer of compensation.
10. it would ensure that the housing officer made a record of her dyslexia on its systems.
11. it was sorry for the inconvenience caused to her and that “moving into your new home with your young daughter should have been a more pleasant experience without having to chase day to day repairs”. It said that its offer of 4 weeks rent credit was a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience she had experienced around repairs.
The resident contacted the Service on 26 February 2024 to ask it to investigate her complaint. She expressed the difficulties she had experienced in pursuing her complaint with the landlord as different departments had picked up elements of her complaint. She said that she felt that she had been passed from “pillar to post”. She highlighted the specific elements of her complaint. These covered her reports of mould, the condition of the property, specifically the ceilings and that the landlord had not correctly advised her around the gas supply. She was unhappy with the landlord’s offer to credit her account with 4 weeks rent. She said that this did not reflect the issues that had been ongoing since her tenancy started. Further, there was a period when she no longer had the keys to the property. As an outcome to her complaint, she wanted her arrears to be cleared and for her tenancy start date to be amended. She had only moved into the property on 21 January 2024.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 13 March 2024. This was the second survey it had completed. The surveyor said that they expected this to be a recurring issue until it replaced the windows and doors as these were the main cause of the damp and mould. The landlord noted that the resident had told it that she was allergic to mould and that her child kept being ill.
The landlord has told the Service that it will complete the window and door replacement in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained to the Service that her experiences in moving to her new home had a negative impact on her and her family in terms of their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands this situation may have had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
As an outcome to her complaint the resident has expressed a wish that the landlord amend her tenancy start date to reflect when she moved into the property. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to order such an outcome. The tenancy agreement is a legal contract between the resident and the landlord. The same applies to any change to the rent charged as the resident’s liability to pay the weekly rent forms part of her obligations under the tenancy agreement. In investigating the resident’s complaint the Service has considered the landlords actions in undertaking repairs to her home, the impact of the range of repairs highlighted and why she felt unable to move into her new home.

Landlord obligations, policy and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its repair responsibilities. It says that it will attend all routine repairs within 28 working days. It will treat the total loss of heating and hot water as an emergency and it will respond within 4 hours. If it is unable to provide a full repair, it will complete these as an urgent repair within 5 working days. The landlord has provided a copy of its empty homes’ standard. This sets out the range of works that it will carry out to an empty property, to meet its building safety standard, prior to it being relet.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an absolute and non-excludable obligation upon landlords to carry out basic repairs. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. When a property is void or empty, a landlord is obliged, in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and section 1(3) of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that, when a tenancy commences, the property is “fit for human habitation”. The landlord is required to put the premises into repair if it was not in good repair at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, it has a responsibility to ensure that its homes meet the government’s decent homes standard.
Under its asbestos policy the landlord says that “it will take proactive steps to share information with its residents about asbestos containing material (ACM) within their home”. Further it will take reasonable steps to locate ACM and will maintain a register of its location within its homes. This is to ensure that the appropriate safety measures are in place when carrying out works which may disturb asbestos.
Its damp and mould policy sets out its approach to the prompt diagnosis and prevention of issues that may arise from damp and mould. It says that it will undertake inspections where a resident reports an issue. Where the cause is identified, it will aim to fix this first time, recommending effective solutions and undertaking all necessary remedial works.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth, together with excess cold are potential hazards. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties, or reports of poor insulation amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. This is ‘service led’. The procedure says that its “frontline colleagues have the specialist knowledge needed to resolve complaints quickly”. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and then provide a full response within 10 working days. A further extension of 10 working days may be agreed with the resident where required. It says that it will not unreasonably delay providing a written response. At stage 2 it will again acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days. Its complaints officer will carry out an independent investigation of the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. At this stage any extension should not exceed 20 working days “without good reason”. It says that it aims to be consistent in its approach and “resolve complaints quickly and fairly, focusing on the cause of the resident’s dissatisfaction”.
Its compensation policy sets out its commitment to providing high quality services. It says that it will resolve complaints in a consistent, fair, impartial, and transparent way. It will consider financial redress, ensuring that the resident is not out of pocket due to a service failure. It says that “if part, or all of a home is uninhabitable due to delays to repairs which [it is] responsible for carrying out, financial redress may be payable”. It would calculate this as a reduction in the rent payable, based on a set formula. Further it says that where it accepts that there has been a service failure it will consider a gesture of goodwill. It provides guidance around this and confirms that this is in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.

Handling of the resident’s reports on the condition of the property on letting

The resident has said that she raised several concerns about outstanding repairs with the housing officer when she collected the keys to the property. She said that the housing officer told her that as the tenant she should raise these as routine repairs. The landlord has not provided the Service with any record of the information given to the resident as part of the letting process, aside from her signed tenancy agreement. It is not known if the housing officer inspected the property with the resident and recorded her concerns. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. This would have enabled it to ensure that it had completed all the identified repair works and to arrange for the follow up of any outstanding repairs. This was an opportunity to ensure that follow on works were raised and completed in a timely manner. It could also reasonably have provided clarity to the resident about what works it would do. That it did not do so was a failure. It left the resident having to raise a series of individual repairs at a time when she could reasonably have expected to be moving into her new home.
The landlord arranged an inspection of the resident’s home on 30 October 2023 in response to the volume of repairs that she had raised. The officer who attended produced a list of repair works. He then referred this to the maintenance manager. The list included items that would reasonably have formed part of the void works, including the need to silicone around the bath, replace the bath panel and repair an external light. It is unclear what steps the maintenance manager took to action these items. It has been noted that some of the items identified remained outstanding over 2 months later, with a repair to the external light being planned for 8 January 2024. That these repairs were not actioned when first identified is a failure by the landlord to adhered to its own repairs policy.
The inspection noted the need for an asbestos check to the property. This was to be completed before works could be carried out to the artexed ceilings. This was a cause of some concern for the resident and led to her feeling that the property was unsafe for her and her daughter. It is unclear what discussions were had with the resident about the likely presence of ACM and the level of risk this presented. The asbestos check was completed and the landlord noted on 15 November 2023 that no evidence of ACM had been found within the property. This enabled it to go ahead with the proposed works to the ceilings. These were completed on 12 December 2023.
It is not clear why an asbestos check had not been completed as part of the landlord’s voids process for this particular property. It is accepted that this would not be required in all circumstances, but it is noted that works to replace the pendant lights were carried out as part of the voids work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed an asbestos survey ahead of these works. This would have enabled it to reassure the resident around the safety of the property and to ensure the safety of its own workers who undertook works to replace ceiling pendants. The resident’s concerns around moving into the property, particularly when the landlord had raised the issue of possible asbestos is understandable.
Individually the repairs that were listed following the inspection on 30 October 2023 would not have prevented the resident moving into her new home. It was not however an unrealistic expectation that these repairs would have been carried out prior to the property being let to her. Indeed, its complaints officer acknowledged that these should have been done. She told the landlord that she was having to travel a distance back and forth to the property while the works remained ongoing to provide access to its workmen. The landlord acknowledged this and to ease the burden it provided a key safe to the property on 9 November 2023. While this step was taken to reduce the inconvenience to the resident, it meant that she was then unable to move into her home until the repairs were completed. The landlord’s contractors said that they could not work in the property if there were any of the resident’s belongings there.
The record of communication with the resident shared with the service has been entirely through email communication. The landlord has provided no record of telephone conversations with either its housing or repairs services, or its complaints officers. It has also not provided copies of its inspection reports beyond its void survey. There was lack of ownership and clarity around who within the landlord’s staff was addressing the resident’s concerns. Its internal communications highlighted an inaccuracy in the information given to the resident. It said that this had falsely raised her expectations. There is no evidence that it took steps to rectify this position, reviewing the outstanding repairs with the resident, her wishes and establishing what it would do. There was also significant delay in it progressing the repairs and no evidence of clear communication with the resident as why these were delayed.
The landlord’s actions in not addressing the resident’s concerns contributed to the delay in her moving into her new home. This was a failure by the landlord which amounted to maladministration.
The landlord should ensure that it clearly communicates its empty homes standard to all its staff and that it has a process in place for feedback and follow up on outstanding repairs. It should ensure that it keeps clear records of the information provided to new tenants at the point of letting, alongside the detail of any further repair works required. The Service would further encourage the landlord to maintain regular contact with its new residents. It would be considered good practice for it to arrange a follow up visit to a new tenant within the first month of the tenancy. This would be an opportunity for it to ensure that they have moved in, have the gas supply connected and that any outstanding issues have been dealt with.

The landlord’s response to requests for a range of repairs

The Ombudsman expects a landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion. The landlord is under an obligation to ensure that its properties meet a lettable standard and are fit for habitation.
As outlined above a number of repairs to the resident’s home were requested. There were significant delays in these being completed. In addition to the windows and doors, the resident requested that her kitchen and bathroom be replaced, as she believed that these were all over 25 years old. The need to replace the windows and doors was identified by the landlord’s void inspection and later through the inspection it carried out on 30 October 2023. It confirmed that these had been included within its cyclical programme for the 2024 financial year.
It is unclear whether the landlord considered the resident’s request for it to replace the kitchen and bathroom. It is known that the previous tenant had declined replacement works, so it was reasonable for her to expect that these were due in the near future. Having not carried out these works while the property was empty, it would have been appropriate for it to inform the new tenant when they could expect these works to be done. This would have appropriately managed her expectations. That it did not do so was a failing. It is recommended that the landlord review its records for the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom to the resident’s home and tell her when she can reasonably expect these to be replaced.
The landlord highlighted the need for works to the ceilings in the property at the inspection on 30 October 2023. There is a lack of clarity about the extent of the works it proposed and this was a source of frustration to the resident. It had recorded that works were required to the ceilings in both bedrooms, the hallway and the landing. An additional note says that all ceilings needed to be done. The resident expressed her frustration about this issue within her escalated complaint. She said that she did not understand why the landlord was not doing all the ceilings as she had been told it would. Through an inspection in December 2023 the landlord confirmed that repairs would only be carried out to the 4 ceilings first identified. It confirmed that it had competed all these works on 12 December 2023. It is reasonable for the landlord to consider the necessity of undertaking works and to limit the scope where more extensive works are not required. However, the communication around the ceilings and the works that the landlord would be carrying out lacked clarity. There was also a significant delay in the landlord completing these works.
Repairs identified at the end of October 2023 were still outstanding in late December 2023 and the landlord has confirmed that further repairs were identified when it carried out an inspection in early February 2024. Overall, there was a failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home that amounted to maladministration. Moving into a new home should be a positive experience but for the resident this had been a difficult and stressful time. There was a failure both in the landlord’s communication with the resident and the level of support it provided to ensure that everything was in place to enable her to move in.
An award of compensation totalling £1,119.47 has been made in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. This has been calculated considering the resident’s total loss amenity, in being unable to take up occupation of her new home as a result of the significantly delayed repairs. This calculation is based on 11 weeks at 100% of her weekly rent.

Handling of no heating or hot water and the boiler repair.

As there is no record of the information provided to the resident when she accepted the tenancy, the Service cannot confirm if the resident was told that the gas supply to the property was capped off and that she needed to arrange with it to ‘turn on and test’ the gas supply. The resident has said that this was not made clear to her. There is also no evidence that it gave her a copy of the gas safety record for the property. The landlord has provided the Service with a copy of the gas safety record dated 8 December 2023, completed following the installation of the new boiler.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that it had no record of her requesting the ‘turn on and test’ until 23 November 2023, 8 weeks after her tenancy began. It noted in this that she had made several calls to it regarding repairs and that she had in a call on the 9 November said that she had no gas. It had not taken further action at that time as she had said that she was not living at the property. The landlord completed the ‘turn on and test’ on 24 November 2023. This identified follow on works required. The boiler then failed on 27 November 2023. A new boiler was installed on 8 December 2023.
Following the failure of the boiler the landlord took the step to temporarily decant the resident into a hotel. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It is however unclear why this was not offered immediately on the boiler failing.
There is a lack of clarity about the level of information given to the tenant about getting the gas supply connected and the boiler working. Despite its many contacts with the resident around repairs to her home, the landlord did not proactively seek to ensure that she had requested the ‘turn on and test’. In the circumstances, considering the range of issues that the resident was dealing with it would have been appropriate for it to have done so. Considering the landlord’s actions the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure.

Response to reports of damp and mould.

The resident raised concerns around the condition of the windows and doors from the beginning of her tenancy, reporting that these were drafty and in poor condition. The landlord was also aware of these issues as they had been identified through its own inspections. The resident later highlighted mould growth on the window frames. The landlord has confirmed that these are included for replacement within its cyclical programme for 2024.
The government’s Decent Homes Standard lists windows and doors as ‘key building components’. It says that if key components “are old and need replacing, or require immediate major repair, then the dwelling is not in a reasonable state of repair and remedial action is required”. This further notes that where an individual tenant does not want work carried out on their home to bring it up to the Decent Homes standard, then the home can remain below the standard until the property is vacated, at which point the necessary work can be undertaken. While it has appropriately included the replacement windows and doors into it cyclical works programme, it is not clear why it did not consider replacing these while the property was empty. This would have been appropriate given the previous tenant’s refusal to allow major repairs to be carried out.
The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection in January 2024 which recommended that it upgrade the windows. The landlord has acknowledged that the poor condition of these is the main cause of damp and mould within the resident’s home. It completed a further damp and mould inspection in March 2024. The landlord has advised that it has undertaken works to install additional ventilation into the property, carried out mould washes to the windows and to renew the sealant. It captured at this time the resident’s reported allergies to the mould.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.” The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
The landlord has highlighted that the current condition of the windows and doors is a significant factor in the occurrence of damp and mould. It is noted that the landlord was aware from its void inspection that the windows and doors required attention. The Service would expect that all properties meet the Decent Homes Standard on letting. The Service is aware that the landlord has said that it will replace the windows and doors in January 2025. It should seek to bring these works forward.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. A related order for compensation has been made in acknowledging the distress and inconvenience that this issue has caused to the resident.

Understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The landlord has failed to capture a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. She provided supporting medical evidence with the pre tenancy assessment form and later informed the complaints officer of her dyslexia. In its response at stage 2 the landlord said that it would inform her housing officer who would make a record of this. In its evidence submission to the Service the landlord has said that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerability. This is a failure by the landlord to ensure that it has an accurate record of information that its residents have shared with it. Such information would enable it to ensure that it has the right methods of communication in place and to offer appropriate support. As outlined above the majority of the landlord’s communication with the resident was via email. Once it became aware of the resident’s dyslexia it would have been appropriate for it to confirm with her that this method of communication was acceptable. If not, it could have offered an alternative communication methods.
Additionally, the resident told the landlord that she suffers with allergies and is allergic to mould. Its damp and mould surveyor noted this but it has not been captured separately within the landlord’s system. It is important that it is aware of this detail in supporting the resident in managing the issues of damp and mould within her home. It would also support the prioritisation of remedial works to her home. The landlord failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems. This amounts to a service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to review its systems and engage with the resident to ensure that it has accurate records relating to her and her family.

Complaint handling

When investigating a case, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.
In considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, there was a lack of ownership around the issues that the resident had raised. In acknowledging her complaint it advised that its complaints officer could only deal with those issues that directly related to its housing service and could not respond to the repair issues. There is no evidence that the landlord’s repairs service responded to her complaint. In the stage 1 response from by its complaints officer it focused on the repairs issues and did not address her complaint about the housing officer and the lack of a direct contact number for them. This was a failure to address all elements of the resident’s complaint.
There was also a significant delay in the landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaint process. At stage 1 it took 25 working days to reply and at stage 2 it took 52 working days, both significantly outside of its published response times. The landlord’s complaint policy is aligned with this Service’s complaint handling code (the Code). This is statutory guidance on how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s extended response times in this case are not in line with the Code.
Its complaint responses did not acknowledge the level of inconvenience caused to the resident by the significant delays in progressing the necessary repairs to her home. It further it failed to identify failures in its voids process and in its communication with the resident. It did not consider an offer of compensation as an outcome at stage 1, despite upholding the resident’s complaint. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for it to do so. At stage 2 it offered compensation based on a refund of 4 weeks rent. It did not consider the wider impact of its service failure or consider additional compensation in line with its own policy. This was an opportunity for it to put things right for the resident and rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship damaged by her poor experiences in moving into her new home. This amounts to maladministration in its handling of the complaint. An order for further compensation has been made to recognise the time and trouble taken by the resident in raising her complaint and the impact of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports on the condition of the property on letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to requests for a range of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of no heating or hot water and the boiler repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified within this report. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,419.47 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £1,119.47 for the loss of amenity for a period 11 weeks.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the significant delays in undertaking repairs within her new home and the lack of clarity about the works that the landlord would do.
  3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues associated with damp and mould within her home.
  4. £200 for the time and trouble the resident went to in bringing her complaint to the landlord and the delays in its response.
  5. This replaces the offer of £407.08 made by the landlord in its stage 2 reply.
3. Arrange with the resident a further inspection of the property to confirm that there are no outstanding repairs. A record of this inspection and its outcome should be provided to the Service. Further, the landlord should provide both the resident and the Service a time specific action plan regarding the completion of any identified repairs.
4. Review the timeframe for the renewal of the windows and doors to the resident’s home. It should provide the resident with a confirmed date of when these works will start.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should carry out a review of its empty homes process. This should cover the scope of works it will carry out and how it might factor in any major works required. It should also review how it undertakes the letting and sign up, capturing the level of information it provides to a new resident and ensuring that it maintains a clear record of this. The landlord is to provide the Service with details as to the outcome of the review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should put on place a process for new tenancy visits to be conducted within the first month of the tenancy.
The landlord should confirm to the resident when it will replace the kitchen and bathroom to her home.