Town and Country Housing (202316355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316355

Town and Country Housing

15 August 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:
1. Repairs to a leak in the communal roof and associated damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Communication with the resident during the formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the top floor of a low-rise block. She has lived at the property alone since July 2020. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities.
On 18 November 2022, the resident reported a leak to the communal roof, which had caused mould to appear on the ceilings of her flat. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 8 December 2022, which confirmed the presence of mould. The landlord recorded that the resident was going to stay in alternative accommodation until the repairs were carried out, due to the potential impact on her health conditions. It did not record the nature of her health conditions.
The landlord carried out the repair to the roof on 16 January 2023. The following day an order was raised to carry out repairs within the property that had been caused by the leaking roof. The landlord carried out these repairs between 24 February and 3 March 2023.
On 6 March 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that she had been unable to live in her property for 4 months while the repairs were carried out, as she was worried that the damp and mould would affect her health due to her asthma and a hole in the heart. The resident stated that she was unhappy that no alternative accommodation had been offered by the landlord, and instead, she had been informed that she could give up her tenancy. The resident explained that she had been staying with friends and family out of the area and wanted compensation for the inconvenience and travel expenses. The resident confirmed that all repairs had been completed except a replacement light fitting.
The following day the landlord raised a job to refit the living room light, and this was completed on 9 March 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint by phone on 14 March 2023.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord was informed that another resident in the block had experienced a leak from the roof following heavy rain fall.
The resident contacted the landlord to follow up her complaint on 15 May 2023. She stated that she had received no compensation form and the work that had originally been carried out was cracking and the paint within her property felt “cold and damp”. The landlord carried out a further repair to the roof on 16 June 2023.
The landlord issued its formal stage 1 response on 21 June 2023. It apologised for its handling of the repairs to her property and stated, “our service has fallen short”. The landlord set out the reasons for each delay and said that it had been unable to move her out of her property as it did not have another suitable property for her to move into. The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for the delays to the repairs and stated that while she had incurred extra costs due to staying somewhere else, “there is an obligation on our residents side to be present for appointments.”
On 26 June 2023, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She stated she did not accept the compensation offer as she had incurred expenses for having to stay out of her home and also for possessions that needed to be replaced due to the damp and mould.
On 4 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould was returning. On 1 August 2023, she called the landlord again and stated the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord attended the property in person on 7 August 2023 and noted that parts of the ceiling were now sagging, and a hole had formed.
The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2023. It stated there was a clear failure to address the damp and mould issue within the property from the first report, a thorough investigation as to the cause of the leak was not undertaken and there was evidence of poor communication throughout. The landlord stated that it would takes steps to investigate the root cause of the water ingress and would respond further when this had been completed. It increased the offer of compensation to the resident to £1,200 for the time taken and stress and inconvenience caused. In addition, it offered a back dated food allowance of £200 in total.
The resident remained dissatisfied as the cause of the leak had not been established and her home was again uninhabitable. She brought the complaint to the Ombudsman and stated that as a resolution she would like the repairs to be completed to her property properly, to enable her to live at home.
Since submitting her complaint to this Service, the resident has instructed a solicitor to begin a disrepair claim, namely the repairs to the communal roof and the damp and mould in the resident’s property. No legal proceedings have been issued at the point of writing this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. It was noted that occasionally there was some disparity with dates of events recorded on the spreadsheets provided. Where a disparity occurred, this investigation has relied upon the date provided on system screen prints rather than the spreadsheet itself.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the communal roof and associated damp and mould in the resident’s property

On 18 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that there was a leak coming from the roof area, which was causing mould to appear in her property. Internal landlord emails of the same day stated that the job needed to be treated as a priority and an order was raised to inspect the roof with its contractor. A further order was raised internally to inspect the living room and bedroom of the property on 23 November 2022.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will investigate all damp and mould reports and carry out improvement works. At this stage, the landlord was acting in line with its own policies.
However, due to the contractor order being raised under the communal address, the evidence shows the roofing contractor did not have a contact phone number for the resident and was unable to book an appointment to attend. The contractor informed the landlord of this on 30 November 2022. The landlord failed to supply the contractor with the resident’s phone number until 22 December 2022. This failure caused a delay to the roof inspection being arranged, which was eventually scheduled for 16 January 2023.
The landlord carried out an internal inspection of the property on 8 December 2022 and confirmed the presence of damp and mould. It noted that the roof would need to be repaired before internal works could be started due to the water ingress. The repair log noted that the resident was moving out of the property while the repairs took place due to health conditions.
It is not clear from the records whether the resident disclosed the nature of her health conditions at this stage. However, the resident has told this Service that she requested temporary accommodation from the landlord while the repairs were completed.
Under the landlord’s decant policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident about her health conditions in order to determine whether temporary accommodation was required. The landlord failed to request this information but did offer the resident another property that was unsuitable for her needs due to the presence of damp and mould at that property. It is not clear when this offer was made or whether any alternatives were considered, as the information provided to this Service by the landlord is silent on the matter.
The decant policy states that suitable accommodation may include staying with friends and family, a bed and breakfast or a holiday let, if the landlord has no suitable properties to offer. It also states that the landlord will pay for storage of possessions or removals in order to facilitate the temporary move. The resident did not have a fixed place to stay for any given length of time and was sofa-surfing 20 miles away from her home. By failing to demonstrate that it either arranged suitable temporary accommodation or provide financial assistance or storage that was available under its policy, the landlord failed to meaningfully apply its decant policy.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will carry out investigations of all damp and mould reports and correctly diagnose the cause of the damp, and if internal investigations are unclear, it will instruct an independent surveyor. It further states it will write to the resident to explain what needs to be done and it will use the Damp and Mould Procedure to determine the category of damp in each case. During its handling of the case, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any written report of the works or determine the category of damp following its inspection.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord carried out a mould wash at the property, but remedial repairs remained on hold. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that relevant repairs will be completed within 20 working days. However, while it was reasonable for the landlord to delay the remedial works until the source of the water ingress had been established, it should have had sufficient safeguards in place to avoid damage to the resident’s belongs, caused by the worsening damp and mould, while the root cause was being fixed.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord raised a second works order to repair the roof, which was marked as “urgent high priority”. It is not clear why a second order was raised on the day the contractor was due to carry out the repairs. This order was not allocated to a contractor and was resourced internally, to carry out the same work. This suggests that the landlord could have attended the roof repair at a much earlier stage, rather than waiting for a contractor. The swapping of the contractor for an internal operative suggests the extent of the works required and the personnel to complete them was not managed efficiently and indicative of sub optimal handling of the works, which led to delays, and was a further failing.
When the landlord attended the resident’s property on the same day, they were unable to gain access. The landlord had previously incorrectly informed the resident that she did not have to be present for the repairs and was staying with friends, a fact the landlord had been made aware of in December 2022. This caused the repair to be further delayed until 17 January 2023 and was a further failing as the damp and mould repairs could not be completed until the water ingress had been resolved.
The repair to the roof was originally recorded as a “priority”. The landlord’s repair policy does not define a “priority” repair, it only classifies repairs as “emergency” or “next available”. A “next available” repair is described as a non-urgent repair and work is to be allocated to the next available resource. The policy also states that repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days, with an average target time of 10 days. The landlord failed to complete the repair within this timescale.
Following the repair to the roof, the landlord recorded a number of remedial repairs that needed to be completed. These included:
1. Removing and reinstalling the water tank.
2. Replacing parts of the ceiling.
3. Light fittings to be refitted.
4. A further mould wash.
5. Painting

While orders had been raised for all of the outstanding work, the landlord put these on hold on 31 January 2023, as the property had not been checked for asbestos. This was a further failure by the landlord, and the asbestos-containing materials (ACM) report should have been requested when the works were initially scoped to negate any further delays. This point was later accepted by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response.

The ACM was completed on 6 February 2023. While some repairs were completed on 24 February 2023, the remedial works were not fully completed until 9 March 2023. This was 37 working days after the roof repairs had been completed and not within the 20 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy. While this Service accepts that the repairs could not be completed until after the ACM had been carried out, the ACM should have been requested earlier. These failings prolonged the delays for the resident and caused her stress and inconvenience and were further evidence of sub optimal project management of complicated and multistage repairs.
When the resident submitted her formal complaint to the landlord on 6 March 2023, she was no longer experiencing issues with the roof, but wanted to complain about the time it had taken to complete the repairs. She explained she was worried about the effect of mould on her medical conditions and specifically stated what these were. The resident stated she had asked the landlord on multiple occasions to provide her with alternative accommodation, which was refused. The resident stated she had no choice but to stay with friends and had incurred travelling expenses when she was required to attend her property for repairs to be carried out. She stated she was “appalled” by the way she had been treated and requested compensation for the extra expenses she had incurred by staying elsewhere, including her travel.
The resident told this Service that she had repeatedly asked the landlord to move her while the repairs were being carried out, but she kept getting “fobbed off”. She stated that she was offered one alternative flat that had the same damp and mould problems, which was unacceptable. As a result, the resident stayed at friends’ houses, approximately 20 miles away, from 10 November 2022 to 10 March 2023.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, including breathing difficulties and asthma. It is understandable that the resident felt that she could not live in her home, given her pre-existing medical conditions. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities as part of the management of the repair and her need to be housed away from damp and mould while the repairs were carried out. The lack of documentary evidence provided by the landlord around the resident’s initial request for a decant makes it difficult to establish what further steps, if any, the landlord took to support the resident. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly in regard to considering her specific needs and concerns due to the presence of damp and mould.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord received reports of a stain appearing on the ceiling of another resident’s flat following heavy rain. While there is no evidence to suggest that this issue directly affected the resident’s property, it made the landlord aware that there were still potential problems with the communal roof.
On 15 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to chase up her complaint. She stated that the repair completed to the living room ceiling was cracking again and coming away. The resident also said that the paint felt cold and damp. The landlord failed to respond to the resident until 14 June 2023. Given the problems already experienced by the resident and the distress and inconvenience those problems had caused, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to respond sooner. Furthermore, the landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will respond to damp and mould enquiries within 10 working days and staff will be empathetic and solution focused. The delay to respond meant this did not happen and was a further failing.
The landlord also failed to act as would have been reasonably expected by its policy on the problems reported by the resident, even when it knew the roof required further repair. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that if internal investigations are unclear as to the cause of the damp, it would instruct an independent surveyor to carry out the diagnosis. In such circumstances, the recurrence of damp within the resident’s property should have prompted the landlord to instruct an independent surveyor as its own efforts had failed to correctly diagnose the cause, and the problem was persisting. The landlord did not do this, and this was a significant failing.
The landlord’s policy also states that the landlord will monitor open and closed damp and mould cases, to ensure that problems don’t persist, and interventions are concluded. The one-month delay in replying to the resident’s concerns that the damp was reappearing implies that this aspect of the policy was not complied with and as such was a further failing.
The landlord carried out further repairs to the roof on 16 June 2023, in response to problems experienced by the other resident. Prior to these repairs, the landlord did not carry out an inspection to assess whether the issues being repaired were directly linked to the continued problems beings experienced by the resident.
In its stage 1 response dated 21 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the delays experienced to the roof repairs and stated, “our service has fallen short”. It apologised for not providing the resident’s phone number to the contractor at an early stage and for the resident wrongly being informed that she did not have to be at the property for the repairs to be carried out. The landlord also apologised for the delays caused by the ACM report and acknowledged that the report should have been requested when the work was scoped.
The landlord confirmed it had booked an appointment for work to be carried out following the problems the resident disclosed over the phone on 14 June 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that these problems were initially reported by email on 15 May 2023 and the interim delay in responding was not explained. Both the additional delay and the failure to account for it were unreasonable.
Regarding the resident’s request for temporary rehousing, the landlord explained that it did not have another suitable property to move her to while the repairs were carried out. It offered the resident a total of £100 compensation. This offer was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The offer did not reflect the prolonged delays to the repairs, which the landlord had taken responsibility for, or the inconvenience of having to sofa-surf for 4 months while making 40-mile round trips whenever access to her property was needed. This had caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s response also confirmed it was aware of the resident’s specific health conditions and quoted from her formal complaint to demonstrate this. However, this information does not appear to have been update on the resident’s file as the landlord told this Service it was not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord raised a work order the same day to complete the repairs to the resident’s living room ceiling. The order stated that the operative should ensure the area was dry, and if not, they must report back as there may be further problems in the roof. The landlord attended the property on 30 June 2023 and informed the resident there was still damp and mould within the loft space that needed attention. This information does not appear to have been recorded on the landlord’s systems and is a significant failing against the obligations the landlord has committed to in its damp and mould policy to monitor ongoing and closed cases.
On 29 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the offer of compensation. The resident stated the offer did not cover the damage to her belongings and the expenses she had incurred due to the delay in carrying out the repairs. The landlord contacted her on 4 July 2023, to discuss her escalation request. The resident informed it that damp and mould had returned around the light fittings in the kitchen and living room. She also repeated the information given to her by the landlord’s operative on 30 June 2023, regarding the outstanding damp and mould issues in the loft.
The landlord failed to act upon this information or raise any inspection to be carried out. This was a further significant failing given the presence of damp around electrical lighting and posed a hazard to the resident’s safety. It is apparent from internal notes of the landlord that the operative who spoke to the resident fell ill, and the information was not acted upon or recorded. It is unclear how long the operative was away, but the information relevant to the hazard was only recorded a month later after being prompted by a further phone call from the resident, which was taken by the same operative who took the initial call.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if damage occurs to a tenant’s personal property, and if the tenant believes the landlord is responsible for the damage, this may be referred to the landlord’s insurance for compensation. It further states that personal injury claims will always be dealt with under the landlord’s public liability insurance policy. This was relevant given the resident’s inferred damage to her health and personal belongings.
Where a resident feels a landlord is responsible for damage to their personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process or to effectively deal with the damage through its internal complaints process. In this case, the was no evidence the landlord told the resident how to raise a claim with its insurers, or that it considered the damage to property a substantive complaint point. This was a serious procedural failure on the landlord’s part. The situation was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord has not addressed the matter to date.
The resident reported further damp patches around the kitchen light on 17 July 2023, and said the plaster felt wet. Again, this should have prompted the landlord to carry out an investigation into the source of the moisture given the similar problems experienced in 2022 and it was a requirement through its damp and mould policy. The landlord failed to do so.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 2 August 2023, following a voicemail she had left the day before. Internal notes of the phone call recorded the information which was previously passed from the resident a month early (during the phone call on 4 July 2023). At this point, the landlord was aware the situation had worsened and there was moisture around the light fittings.
The landlord’s decant policy states that a temporary decant may be needed where a home has become inhabitable or where here are health and safety risks if the resident remains in the property. The presence of moisture around the light fittings, the fact the damp and mould was worsening despite the repairs the landlord had carried out should have prompted immediate action. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a decant in these circumstances, in line with its own policy, and it was a failure that this did not happen.
No action was taken by the landlord until 7 August 2023, when it visited the property and noted that parts of the ceiling were sagging, and holes had appeared. Given the previous leaks from the roof had caused similar problems, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to investigate the roof area of the property, as per its damp and mould policy. However, the landlord did not request an inspection into the cause of the water ingress until 13 November 2023. This was a further significant failing and greatly prolonged the period in which an effective remedy remained outstanding.
On 9 August 2023, the resident reported that new holes had formed in the ceiling. Internal landlord communications noted that a decant had been agreed. However, as outlined previously, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for a decant to have been considered at a much earlier stage. It is unclear what steps the landlord took in order to facilitate the decant but internal notes suggest that the resident was advised to ring around the local councils in the area she wanted to be housed. Given the culpability of the landlord in creating the situation through various failures in its management of the repairs, it was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to expect the resident to do this, and it should have considered alternative accommodation types as set out in its decant policy or been proactive in assisting the resident to be temporarily rehomed.
On 16 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to chase up her complaint and express her dissatisfaction with the poor communication she had received. She stated she had not been able to find a property and did not have the means of paying a deposit to access any further social housing. She said she was being passed from one person to the next and she was finding the whole situation stressful. The landlord replied by phone the same day and informed her that she needed to contact the local council in order to register before she could start bidding on properties. It was inappropriate for the landlord to give this advice, given its decant policy states, “Tenants who need to move on a temporary basis will not be eligible to bid for alternative accommodation”. This was a further failing and evidence of poor customer service which is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s motivation to support her in a time of difficulty (caused by its poor handling of repairs) and will have damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord carried out internal work to the property during September and October 2023. However, the roof situation had still not been investigated. This resulted in the resident reporting further problems with damp on 13 November 2023. The landlord responded the same day and stated it was going to arrange an appointment to investigate the situation and had asked for a report on the water ingress.
In its stage 2 complaint response, of the same day, the landlord admitted there had been a “clear failure” to address the damp and mould issue in the first instance and that a thorough investigation had not been undertaken on the roof and loft space to identify the source of the water ingress. It further stated that it was taking steps to rectify the issue.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,200 for the time it had taken her to pursue the matter and for the distress and inconvenience caused. While this offer had greatly increased from stage 1, it did not reflect the scale of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a 12-month period.
On 11 December 2023, a fire safety officer advised the resident to switch off all her electricity due to a “high risk” of electrocution. The resident informed the landlord that as a result, she would have no electric or heating and would need to find alternative accommodation again. The landlord attended the property on 13 December 2023 to “make safe” the living room light. The landlord again failed to provide the resident support in finding alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as one where there is “high risk to people or property” and states repairs are to be attended to within 2 hours. The landlord failed to treat the repair as an emergency and did not attend the property for 2 days. This was a further significant failing.
The landlord finally raised a works order on 13 December 2023 for repairs to the roof, 5 months after the resident reported the damp and mould had returned. This was a significant failing and did not give the resident confidence that it had taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord attended the property on 20 December 2023 and noted that there were no signs of a new or current leak within the loft space. The following day, an internal landlord email stated that it was satisfied there was no leak, and an urgent job should be booked to get the power switched on. A further internal email then noted the resident had been informed that the power was not to go back on until all the work had been completed and that the resident would need to be decanted for any work to take place. This suggests there was confusion and miscommunication on the landlord’s part as to what the cause of the problem was and what the resident had been informed.
Despite the landlord reporting there were no signs of a leak in the roof, the resident had moisture gathering to the ceiling area and the cause had not been determined. The suggestion to turn the power back on was inappropriate given the advice the resident had received and potentially dangerous if it had been acted upon. This was a near miss with potentially serious consequences.
The resident asked the landlord for help finding accommodation again on 20 December 2023. Despite the repeated mention of decanting the resident in its internal communications, the landlord took no action to do so until 7 February 2024 when it informed her it would speak to its decant manager. However, subsequent to this, there is no evidence provided by the landlord which demonstrates it made an attempt to decant the resident, and if it did, there is no evidence to support what these steps were. The evidence shows only constant emphasis placed upon the resident by the landlord to resolve the matter herself.
A drone survey carried out on 6 January 2024, revealed that there was a gap in the tiles immediately above the resident’s property and concluded that this was the cause of the problems experienced by the resident. The report stated it was “crucial to address these findings promptly to prevent further damage”.
The landlord attended the property on 16 February 2024 to carry out the repairs to the roof. It noted that the scaffolding had been placed in the wrong position for two of the repairs and a further visit took place on 22 March 2024 to complete the repairs. The repairs to the roof had taken over 3 months to complete. This was outside of its 28-day timescale for completing repairs and also not the prompt response recommended by the drone survey. This delay was a further significant failing by the landlord, and further evidence of continued poor project management and an inability by the landlord to put things right in an acceptable timescale for the resident.
The resident did not move back into the property as the condition of the property was not suitable due to the further damage caused by delayed repairs. She continued to provide evidence to the landlord of the declining condition of the property, such as images of damaged belongings, a bin under the light fitting collecting water and new holes forming in the ceiling of the bedroom. The landlord failed to carry out any repairs. The resident chased the landlord on 9 and 17 April 2024 but received no reply until 1 May 2024 when the landlord acknowledged her disrepair claim.
On 9 May 2024, a surveyor was instructed to attend the property in connection with a disrepair claim. In the surveyor’s report, of the same date, it noted the following problems in relation to the roof:
1. The source of the water ingress still needed to be resolved.
2. Felt had been repaired incorrectly and had been a cause of water ingress. There were also further tears found in the felt that needed to be repaired.
3. The roofing felt was in generally poor condition and was saturated with water.
4. The lead collar around the soil pipe needed to be checked using a drone.
This Service has not been provided with evidence to suggest that these repairs have been carried out to date and the resident remains sofa-surfing with friends and family while still paying full rent.
It was important for the landlord to locate and repair the source of the water ingress, to prevent further problems arising within her property. A catalogue of poor communications, misdiagnosis, failed repairs, and delays have resulted in the repair not being completed, some 20 months after it was first reported.
It was essential for the roof to be repaired prior to any remedial works taking place within the resident’s property following her initial report of damp and mould. The delays to the roof repairs significantly impacted on other work being completed and have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience of having to live with friends until this work had been completed.
When the resident reported the damp and mould had returned in May 2023, it should have been obvious to the landlord that the cause of the problem had been incorrectly diagnosed and it needed further investigation. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the report for one month and its subsequent failures to identify the cause of the problem, left the resident in a property which developed hazardous conditions over the course of 6 months. The presence of damp and mould increased, and the condition of her property declined. Had an effective investigation into the source of the water ingress been completed sooner, it may have minimised the length of time taken to repair the issue, reduced the damaged sustained to the resident’s property and reduced the distress and inconvenience she suffered.
It is fortunate that a fire safety advisor reviewed the situation within the property and the resident moved out before the situation became more hazardous. It should not have taken a call from the resident, regarding the fire safety advisors visit, for the landlord to take action around the electrics in the property. The fact the repair logs state the light fitting was “made safe” suggests it was unsafe prior to the visit. This was a significant failing given the resident had report damp and moisture around the light fitting for 6 months previously.
At this point, the resident’s home became unhabitable, and the landlord should have taken more robust and meaningful action to provide her with alternative accommodation or have helped alleviate the financial burden she was experiencing trying to find accommodation herself. This was particularly important given the repairs remain unresolved 8 months after she needed to move out from her property.
Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the communal roof and associated damp and mould in the resident’s property. An order has been made that the landlord pay £8,685 compensation to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This has been broken down as follows:
1. £1,800 – Compensation to reflect the equivalent full cost of rent from December 2022 to March 2023 (4 x £450).
2. £1,155 – Compensation to reflect the equivalent partial cost of rent (35%) from May 2023 to November 2023 for damp and mould issues experienced in living room (10%) and kitchen (25%) (7 x (35% of £470) = £165).
3. £4,230 – Compensation to reflect the equivalent full cost of rent from December 2023 to August 2024 (9 x £470).
4. £1,500 – For the distress, inconvenience and additional travel expenses incurred.

The landlord’s communication with the resident during the formal complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 6 March 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord sending a written acknowledgement to the resident upon receiving her complaint. However, internal emails suggest that the landlord emailed the resident on 13 March 2023 to inform her a mould wash had been booked in and contacted her by phone the following day to clarify the details of her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. The complaint was logged on the day it was made and was acknowledgement by email 5 working days later, in line with its policy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2023 to chase up her complaint. The landlord failed to provide any response to the resident until 16 June 2023, when it contacted her by phone to discuss the contents of her email. It was not reasonable to keep the resident waiting over a month for a response and was a further failing.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2023, 73 working days after the complaint had been made. The landlord’s policy states that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days and if a response could not be provided within that time, it would agree a further extension of no more than 10 working days. The landlord failed to meet the time scales set out in its own policy. Furthermore, it failed to advise the resident of the delay or provide any interim updates on the progress of her complaint. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience by having to chase the complaint herself.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the request the same day. This was a prompt response and in line with its own policy that allowed 2 working days for an escalation acknowledgement to be sent.
The resident chased her complaint by email on 16 August 2023. She specifically stated she was not happy with the poor communications from the landlord and the lack of updates. The landlord contacted the resident the same day by phone to discuss her email. While this was a quick response from the landlord, the resident’s email should have prompted the landlord to be more proactive with updates given that nearly 2 months had passed since the escalation and the resident was still waiting for a response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2023, 99 working days after the escalation had been requested. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request, and if a response could not be provided within that time, it would agree a further extension of no more than 10 working days. The landlord failed to comply with the timescales set out in its own policy and failed to advise the resident of the delay. This caused the resident further inconvenience in having to chase it for updates. While the landlord responded swiftly when the resident made contact, it did not take any proactive measures to provide the resident with a revised time scale and manage her expectations. This was a significant failing that exacerbated the resident’s frustration.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in the timeliness of its responses and the lack of communication with the resident regarding the prolonged delays. An order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident for the frustration and inconvenience encountered in progressing her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the communal roof and associated damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from the Chief Executive, for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £8,985 compensation made up of:
  1. £8,685 for its failures in the handling of repairs to a leak in the communal roof and associated damp and mould in the resident’s property, the loss of property use and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £300 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its failures in complaint handling.
3. Liaise with the resident regarding her belongings that were damaged as a result these failures, with a view to refunding her according. The landlord should avoid placing onerous evidence requirements on the resident if it failed to follow its correct procedure in the first instance.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete the repairs identified in the surveyor’s report dated 9 May 2024, and ensure the property is suitable for reoccupation by the resident.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. The landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
  1. The approach taken to damp and mould repairs to ensure the operatives that attend have the required skills and training for the repair/investigation required.
  2. How it will ensure compliance with its own damp and mould policy, in particular the monitoring of cases.
  3. The approach taken to recording repairs that have been carried out, ensuring vital information on further work needed is captured.
  4. Improving project management on complex repairs, which have dependencies.
  5. The continuity of information and case handling during periods of staff absence.
  6. The recording of new information when it comes to light, such as resident vulnerabilities.
  7. The approach taken to decanting residents whose properties are unsuitable for their needs.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.