Town and Country Housing (202330045)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202330045
Town and Country Housing
17 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 resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of:
- Repairs and the subsequent damp and mould in the former property, including the amount of compensation offered.
- The associated complaints.
Background
- The residents are a married couple who held a joint assured tenancy with the landlord in their former property. The property was a 2-bedroom ground-flat within a block. The couple lived in the property with their 3 children, 1 boy and 2 girls. They said their children had missed lessons at school due to illness caused by their housing conditions.
- The resident said he is disabled and receives enhanced welfare benefits. He said his medical conditions include bipolar disorder and arthritis. The couple said their housing conditions had affected their physical and mental health.
- This Service has seen evidence from both residents, who are husband and wife. It is noted that the husband was the lead complainant to the landlord. For ease of reference in this report, the resident will be referred to as ‘he’.
- It is noted that the resident first reported problems with leaks in his property in 2017. This report focuses on events from 31 October 2022, when on this date, the resident reported a leak from his toilet waste pipe. The landlord repaired the leak, and later replaced the toilet. However the toilet leaked again in February 2023 and the landlord returned to fix the leak.
- In April 2023 the landlord said the resident reported severe moisture levels in his living room. He said the plaster was badly damaged and the radiator had fallen off the living room wall. The landlord said it assessed this and replaced the plaster in June 2023. The next month, the landlord said it went to the property to try and source a leak that was causing severe damp and mould in the living room and bathroom.
- The resident reported a leak coming from his bathroom in August 2023. The landlord attended, but could not source the problem. Whilst at the property, it accidentally broke the toilet seat. On 25 September, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the repairs. He said the leak had caused damp and mould, which had damaged his sofa and flooring.
- The landlord revisited the property on 25 September 2023. It resealed the bath, refitted the toilet connections and the seat. In its first complaint response, it apologised for the problems. It agreed to post-inspect works more carefully. It offered £322 towards the resident’s increased electricity bill, for the cost of dehumidifiers. It did not offer to compensate the resident for the damaged belongings.
- On 8 November 2023 the landlord attended the residents property to repair the plaster in the living room. It said it would instruct a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould. On 15 November the toilet leaked again and the landlord fixed this on the same day. The resident contacted this Service for advice. He said the landlord had not sent a surveyor, and the damp and mould was affecting his family’s health. Following advice from this Service, he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 24 December. He said that his living room was cold so he was using oil heaters to heat it because the radiator had fallen off due to the moisture.
- The landlord carried out an inspection of the property in February 2024. From this, it produced a report which identified actions it said it would take to remedy the “severe rising damp problem”. It said that both internal and external works were necessary. It also found that the main soil vent pipe was shared with the neighbouring property and it would need inspecting for defects that could contribute to water entering the property.
- In its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024, the landlord apologised for its poor service. It offered total compensation of £3,600.50. A week later, the resident said that he wanted to move out of the property. He said repairs were still not done and the damp and mould was affecting the health of all of his family. He said that his situation was worsened by having to sleep in the living room which was badly affected by mould. He said this was because his 3 children were sleeping in the 2 bedrooms as they were too old to share 1 bedroom.
- In April 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. This outlined actions it would take to resolve the issues. The works included replacing the whole bathroom suite and flooring. It also included carrying out remedial works to the living room, such as stripping the plaster off the walls and replacing it after it had dried out. In May it provided compensation of £322 to cover the resident’s increased electricity costs.
- After chasing the landlord several times for a response to the repairs, the resident complained again for a second time to the landlord on 1 May 2024. A surveyor had attended the property that day. They listed actions similar to those outlined in the previous survey. The landlord apologised to the resident for the overall handling of his case. It agreed to decant the resident on a temporary basis whilst the necessary works were taking place. However the resident said this was unacceptable and he wanted a permanent move.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint verbally on 2 May 2024. It said it had would permanently decant the resident into another property. It offered a property to the resident which the resident accepted. The landlord gave its second stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2024. It said that one of the reasons the repairs had not been done since 2017 was due to a system error. It said that an operative had incorrectly recorded that the bathroom had been installed by the resident so it had not done repairs for this reason. It offered £2,000 in compensation.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint outcome. He said that his furnishings had been damaged by mould and he did not want to take them into his new property. On 27 June 2024 he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he wanted more compensation to replace the soiled items. The landlord gave its final complaint response on 19 July 2024. It offered a further £1,370, which meant its total compensation offered in the second complaint was £3,370. The landlord said the resident had accepted this.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said he had made a complaint to the landlord as far back as 2017 about leaks coming from his bathroom. Under paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) we may not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of this Service within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints process. This investigation therefore focusses on events from 31 October 2022, which is when the landlord’s repair log shows the resident first reported a leak from his toilet waste pipe.
- The resident raised concerns about the impact the mould issues may have had on his and his family’s health and wellbeing. He said his children’s education had been affected due to missing school when they were ill. He also raised issues about the damage to his belongings. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, or damaged belongings. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury and damaged belongings aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury or insurance claim.
- The resident contacted the Ombudsman for help with escalating his complaint in November 2023. The landlord gave its responses to this complaint but the resident’s issues remained unresolved. He therefore made a second complaint shortly after. The landlord gave its final responses to the second complaint on 19 July 2024. In the interests of fairness and in order to bring the case to a resolution, both complaints have been considered in this investigation.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould in the former property, including the amount of compensation offered
- The landlord has a legal obligation to carry out repairs under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord also has a statutory obligation to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout the term. It must ensure the property is free from hazards such as damp and mould. In this case the landlord’s policy confirms these legal obligations. The policy says that it expects to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. It explains that “Emergency is where there is a high risk to people or property, or vulnerability”.
- The landlord’s records say that it repaired the resident’s leaking toilet on 31 October 2022, the same date that it was reported. It said the toilet pan would need replacing as there was a suspected crack. The records show that the landlord replaced the toilet in early February 2023.
- On 12 February 2023 the new toilet leaked (including the soil waste pipe) and flooded the bathroom. The landlord’s records say the toilet, including its flush pipe, had not been installed correctly. It was not properly fixed to the floor. The landlord’s notes say it fixed the leak 10 days later (on22 February).In this case, it is evident that the toilet had been poorly installed. The leak had also not been fixed within its policy timeframe, which says emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours.
- The landlord carried out a self-assessment against the recommendations outlined in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) in March 2023. Within this assessment, the landlord said “Our new approach to damp and mould involves an assessment of the likely root cause of the damp and mould”. It says that it will carry out visual checks and where the issue cannot be easily ascertained it will refer the case to its surveying team.
- On 17 April 2023 the landlord said the resident had reported high moisture levels in the living room. He said that the radiator had fallen off the wall and the plaster needed to be repaired as it was damaged because of the dampness. As per the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) this Service expects landlords to carry out an extensive survey of its property where a resident has reported severe damp and mould issues. It should try to fully establish the root cause of the problem.
- In this case, instead of conducting a survey, the landlord attended the property in June 2023 and plastered over the cracks in the wall. The landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s reports of severe dampness were not proportionate in this case. It did not adhere to its damp and mould self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, in that it failed to consider the root cause of the problem and as a consequence it did not go away.
- The landlord’s records say that it inspected under the bath but was unable to source the leak the resident reported in July 2023. It booked in a mould wash and passed the case onto a plumber. In August 2023 it could not find any leaks, but it said there were gaps in the sealant around the bath. The landlord sealed around the bath. However a month later the sealant came away from the wall. In his complaint, the resident said that the operative had failed to remove the old sealant.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 25 September 2023. He said there was a leak from the waste pipe in the toilet which was causing damp and mould in his living room. He said the mould had damaged his sofa, flooring and wallpaper. He said in one of its attempts to fix the toilet, the landlord had broken the toilet seat and had not replaced it. Following this complaint, the landlord returned to the property the same day. It said it removed the old sealant in the bathroom and replaced it. It also refitted the toilet pan, connections and replaced the toilet seat.
- The landlord apologised for its service failure in its first complaint response on 27 September 2023. It acknowledged it had failed to carry out the repairs within the initial appointments and had not arranged further necessary works. It said it had booked in the works. It said it would ensure the post-inspection of work was carried out “with more due care and attention”. It offered the resident £322 which it said was towards the extra costs of electricity (due to living in the damp conditions).
- The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported cracks in the plaster on the living room wall on 8 November 2023. It was noted on this date that a surveyor needed to check the damp course. The resident reported the toilet waste pipe leaking again on 15 November, which the landlord attended the same day. Despite the resident’s frequent reports of dampness, the records show that the landlord did not attempt to book a surveyor until 6 December.
- After contacting this Service for advice, the resident escalated his complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process on 23rd December 2023. The landlord did not formally acknowledge this until 17 January 2024. The resident sent emails prior to this, chasing a response. He said that his health had been suffering due to the damp and mould, and the cold temperature. He said that he had purchased oil heaters because there was no radiator in his living room. He said because of this he was “suffering financially”. He said the landlord had arranged for a plasterer to come 3 weeks ago. He said it had also promised to send a surveyor within a week but this had not happened.
- It was not until the landlord was looking into the resident’s escalated complaint on 17 January 2024 that it realised it had erred. It said it had not requested a surveyor as planned in early December. The landlord subsequently arranged for a surveyor to attend on 18 January 2024, but when it did so, the resident was not in. On 22 January the landlord contacted the resident to find out why. The resident said he had not been told about the appointment. The landlord did not demonstrate it had confirmed the appointment with the resident on this date.
- The surveyor revisited the resident’s property on 5 February 2024. This was 10 months after the resident had reported high moisture levels in his living room. This delay went against one of the recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould. This says “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
- It is positive to note that the landlord demonstrated it appreciated the resident’s situation within its email exchanges in January and February 2024. It is noted however that this was following the resident’s escalation of his complaint. Nonetheless, it provided the resident with 2 electricity top-up vouchers, with a total value of £98.00. It also asked for the resident to provide a receipt as proof of the cost of the sofa which the resident said had been damaged by mould.
- When the landlord’s internal surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 5 February 2024, it said that there was a “severe rising damp problem”. The survey identified that further investigative work was needed to find the cause of the excess moisture within the property. This included checking the soil vent pipe (which also served the neighbouring property) for defects. It also outlined remedial work which was required, such as replacing the end of the guttering.
- It is positive to note that in its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024 the landlord admitted it had failed to properly investigate the resident’s issues. It apologised for its “poor service”, including its “poor communication” throughout the complaint. It offered total compensation of £3600.50, some of which it credited towards the resident’s rent arrears. It said that the award was broken down as follows:
- £640.50 to cover the cost of running the electric heater from October 2023 to March 2024 (£3.50 per day x 183 days).
- £210 to cover the cost of running the dehumidifier (£3.50 per day x 60 days).
- £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience. It said it calculated this at £100 per month from February 2023 to February 2024 (100 x 12 = £1200). It said this included consideration of its poor complaint handling, including its delays and failure to resolve the issue.
- £1,350 to cover the cost of the damaged sofa (minus 10% depreciation), and £200 for redecoration.
- It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation the landlord offered at this stage was both reasonable and proportionate to the level of service failure and detriment experienced by the resident. Its offer was in line with its policy and also had regard for our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). This suggests that we may award compensation in access of £1,000 where there have been “significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. It was positive to note that the landlord reflected this in its award. However, it is also noted that, at the point that the complaints process completed, issues persisted within the property, with identified works still outstanding.
- Following the complaint response, the resident and his wife requested that the landlord move them. They said they were having to sleep in the damp and mouldy living room due to their 3 children being too old to share a bedroom. The resident’s wife said that the Environmental Health Department (EHD) had inspected the property and deemed it unacceptable. Although this Service has not seen evidence of this. The resident said that the housing conditions were having a severe impact on his mental health. He said because of this, he had been in hospital for over a week.
- In its initial response to the resident’s request to move, the landlord said he would need to submit a housing application to the local authority (LA). The resident said that he had already done this. It is noted that on 22 February 2024 the resident contacted the LA to explain his situation (he copied the landlord into the email). He explained that he was sleeping in the living room due to 1 of his 3 children being too old to share a bedroom with his younger children. He said the property, in particular the living room, was severely affected by damp and mould.
- The resident’s wife asked if the landlord could support a move to another property. She said that all of the family’s physical and mental health were being seriously affected by the damp and mould. She reported that the family were experiencing chest issues. She also said that it was not acceptable for her and her husband to sleep on the sofa, as she worked 13 hour shifts at a hospital and her husband had arthritis. She said she was planning to raise their issues with the media.
- It is positive to note that a member of staff was particularly responsive to the resident’s emails and had communicated reasonably well with the resident. The resident acknowledged this and thanked the staff member on 26 February 2024. The landlord’s records say that he would accept the compensation offer, on conditions. The records say these conditions were that the landlord would chase the repairs, provide dehumidifiers and help the resident to move.
- It is noted in the landlord’s internal emails in late February 2024 that it would not consider permanently decanting the resident, despite the reported impact the dampness was having on the family’s health. It also delayed in providing dehumidifiers. The landlord’s records say these were not provided until 1 March. This took too long, as it was over 12 months after the resident had first reported the leaks and dampness.
- On 5 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that his bathroom ceiling was now leaking. He said that his children were unwell; they had coughs, colds and headaches. It is noted in the landlord’s records that the children had been missing school and that the school had said this was because of the mould. The resident said that he had already involved the EHD, this Service, and the LA’s allocations department. He said he had spoken with local newspapers and news stations.
- On 27 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord because he had not had a response from the LA about his housing application. This Service found that the landlord was proactive in its response to this and it asked the LA for an update on the resident’s application the same day. The LA replied to say that it had a backlog of applications. The landlord passed this message on to the resident the same day.
- This Service has found that the landlord failed to take steps to proactively investigate and remedy the severe damp and mould despite the resident exhausting the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord’s repairs log showed that it inspected the drains on 9 March 2024. However it did not demonstrate that it completed any of the remedial works the surveyors inspection had identified in February 2024. The resident had reported the severe moisture in April 2023, yet the landlord did not carry out a damp and mould survey to determine the root cause of the problem until 1 April 2024. This took too long, as it was almost 12 months after the resident had first reported the damp problem.
- The landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey on 1 April 2024. This said immediate works were required. They included:
- Replacing the whole bathroom suite, including floor coverings.
- Stripping the walls back to bare brickwork and replastering the bathroom, adjoining cupboard and living room.
- Providing dehumidifiers to dry out all surfaces and structures.
- The resident complained again to the landlord on 12 April 2024. He copied this Service into the email. In its reply, the landlord said that it was considering decanting the resident on a temporary basis. On 24 April the resident said the landlord had not contacted him about the necessary repairs since 1 March. He said he did not want to be decanted on a temporary basis and wanted a permanent move. He copied this Service and his local MP into the email.
- In response to the resident’s email, the landlord said it would arrange for another surveyor to come out. The resident said there was little point in the landlord doing another survey, as this had been done before. He said that the landlord had not done the required works since the last survey; which included replacing the ceiling, floor and skirting. He said the landlord’s communication was poor and the property conditions were affecting his family’s health. He asked the landlord to help with rehousing.
- On 1 May 2024 the landlord carried out another survey of the property. This said that immediate works were required, as found in the last survey. The works identified also repeated those identified in its previous damp and mould survey on 1 April, as outlined earlier in this report. The works included; replacing the whole bathroom, including the flooring and stripping the walls back to bare brickwork and replastering the bathroom, adjoining cupboard and living room.
- The resident sent an email to the landlord on 1 May 2024, following the surveyor’s visit. He said he was “absolutely disgusted and angry”. He said a supervisor had identified that work needed doing 2 years ago, but it was not done. He said he had received no explanation why. He said the bathroom had been observed by the landlord as being “poorly fitted” years ago. He said it was likely that dampness had built up over several years when the bathroom had been installed and had spread into 2 cupboards and the living room wall.
- The landlord apologised to the resident. It said that it had incorrectly recorded on its computer database that the bathroom had been “installed by the tenant”. It said this was the reason it had not done the works over the years, as it did not think it was responsible for the repairs. It agreed to permanently decant the resident and to provide temporary accommodation until it could find somewhere permanent for the family to live. The landlord logged a new complaint on the resident’s behalf on 2 May 2024.
- The resident asked the landlord to compensate him for the mistake. He said that he had incurred further electricity costs due to using dehumidifiers and electric heaters. On 2 May 2024 the landlord arranged to pay the resident £322 which it said was to cover the additional electricity costs from March to May 2024. It positive to note that it awarded a further payment to recognise the impact the increased costs were having on the resident.
- It is noted that the landlord offered the resident a new property on 2 May 2024. The evidence suggests that the resident accepted this first offer, as on the same day the landlord cancelled the scheduled works to refit the bathroom. Then on 9 May the resident asked the landlord for compensation for the damaged belongings. He said he was moving in 5 weeks and needed the money so he could order new furniture to replace what was damaged.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 16 May 2024. It said that it treated the compensation claim separate from the complaint. It said “that needs to be paid first and foremost”. Yet this Service found that this response was confusing as the landlord did not make any formal compensation offer until its second stage 1 response on 24 May.
- In its complaint response on 24 May 2024 the landlord apologised for its service failure. It said that it could see that the resident had been reporting issues since 2017. It confirmed it had not carried the repairs out as it wrongly thought the resident was responsible. As a remedy it said it was decanting the resident into a 3-bedroom property. It also offered the resident £2,000 as compensation for its error in its record keeping and the impact that this had on the resident over the years. It agreed to provide the resident with a skip to assist him with disposing his damaged items.
- It is positive to see that the landlord said in its complaint response that it had taken learning from the complaint. It said it was reviewing the data it held against individual properties and was changing its approach to tenant installed bathrooms by undertaking essential repairs, such as leaks, rather than not undertaking any maintenance responsibilities for these. This is in line with its legal obligations.
- Landlords have a legal duty to ensure their homes are fit for human habitation under Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. Under this duty, landlords must ensure their properties are safe and free from hazards. They are required to look at the condition of their properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, it involves an assessment to avoid, or minimising potential hazards.
- Leaks are a potential hazard as they will often result in damp and mould forming in a property. In cases where tenants have carried out their own improvements, they may be contractually responsible for carrying out the repairs. In situations where tenants are responsible for repairs but they are not doing them, landlords must still ensure its properties are fit to live in. They are therefore expected to carry out works. If necessary they may be able to recharge residents in such cases where tenants are responsible for maintaining or repairing their own improvements but are not doing so.
- The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation of £2,000. However he said that he wanted more compensation to replace damaged belongings. He said the offer in the second stage 1 response did not go far enough to compensate him. He said that since he reported the issues in 2017 he had needed to replace 3 ottoman beds, 5 mattresses, 2 sets of drawers, 3 wardrobes, sentimental items, a hallway carpet and electrical items. The resident also asked for an update on his eligibility for a home loss payment. He said the landlord had promised to update him on this a month ago.
- Home loss payments are a legal provision and are governed by s.29 Land Compensation Act 1973. A person may be eligible for a payment where they are permanently displaced from their property due to it being redeveloped, improved or demolished. In this case the landlord’s decant policy covers this provision. It says that it will only make the payment “where displacement is compulsory and there is no intention or ability for the resident to return to their original home on completion of the works”.
- On 27 June 2024 the landlord said the resident was not eligible for a statutory home loss payment. This Service has found that the landlord applied its policy correctly in this case, as it would have been possible for the resident to return to the property on completion of the works. The resident also asked if he was entitled to a disturbance payment. However the landlord said the resident had not incurred the usual costs that would entitle him to this payment. Nonetheless it gave the resident a right to appeal this decision, which this Service found was an appropriate response.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 25 July 2024. It clarified that its stage 1 offer of £2,000 was for “the extensive distress and inconvenience you have experienced”. It said the resident had provided estimated costs of replacing damaged items and as such it had reached a “final settlement agreement” of £1,370 to replace these. The landlord said it would normally expect residents to complete forms and provide evidence of the costs of replacing items. However it decided this would have been unreasonable in this case, in light of its admitted failures.
- The landlord said that it had paid for a skip so the resident could dispose of soiled items. It said that the new property had flooring provided, which it had gifted to the resident, so he would not incur further expense for this. Overall the landlord’s compensation payments totalled £7,712.50 which comprised of:
- 2 payments of £322, plus 2 vouchers at £49 each, totalling £742 towards increased electricity costs (awarded outside of its complaint responses).
- £3,600.50 awarded in the first final complaint response.
- £3,370 awarded in the second final complaint response.
- It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the failures identified within this case would normally amount to a finding of severe maladministration. The issues include; severe delays in investigating and remedying the root cause of the damp and mould, errors in record keeping, and communication problems. In cases where we have identified severe maladministration, our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards of compensation in access of £1,000.
- In this case, the landlord did not make it clear what portion of its awards were offered due to its failures in the handling of the repairs and damp and mould, and what portion were due to its admitted “complaint handling failures”. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s overall total offer of compensation to be proportionate in this case. The award was appropriate in recognising the severity of its service failures. It was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.
- It is evident that the most important remedial action in this case was for the resident and his family to be housed in safe and suitable property. Following its final inspection of the property on 1 May 2024 the landlord appreciated this. It offered an immediate temporary decant. It was positive to note that following the resident’s second complaint, the landlord agreed to facilitate a permanent move for the resident, which was an appropriate remedy given the circumstances.
- Furthermore, this Service did not find any evidence of the landlord giving the resident the option to make a claim from its insurers. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may refer its tenants to its insurers where it receives claims for personal belongings, or personal injury. This Service has found that the landlord did not make this offer to the resident at any point during its complaint handling. It is appreciated however, that as stated in its final complaint response, the landlord said the resident would need to have completed forms and this would have further inconvenienced the resident.
- The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s remedial actions (its compensation offer and rehousing of the resident) were largely appropriate and proportionate in this case. This means that the Ombudsman has not made a finding of severe maladministration, which would likely have been the result had the landlord not taken the significant resolution actions that it did. Instead we have determined Service failure in the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs and damp and mould. This is because it failed to carry out a survey of the resident’s property to establish the root cause of the problem in a timely way. It erred in its record keeping and this caused extensive delays and may have had an impact on other residents. While no further compensation has been ordered here, a written apology from a senior member of staff is considered appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
- In addition, paragraph 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) allows for the Ombudsman to make wider orders with effect from 1 October 2023. This Service will make such orders where an investigation establishes that more than one resident may be affected by a matter and/or that matter may affect other properties, if the related policy or practice may give rise to further complaints.
- In its final complaint response the landlord said that it would review its procedures in regards to its record keeping to ensure that all its newly installed bathrooms and kitchens were correctly recorded as being installed by its contractors where this is the case. It said that where a bathroom or kitchen has been installed by a resident, it would respond promptly to reports of issues like leaks. It is noted that it will carry out repairs and recharge residents in future (if appropriate) after repairs are completed.
- Under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review into the failures in this case, focusing on ensuring its properties are safe and free from hazards, including those where residents have carried out their own improvements. This should involve reviewing its policy, procedures and staff training. In conducting this review, the landlord should consider whether it will amend its policy to include ensuring it carries out repairs within its timescales on those properties where residents have made their own improvements.
- The landlord’s records said that the waste pipe in the resident’s former property also served the neighbouring property. As such, the landlord should ensure the pipe has been thoroughly checked to ensure the neighbour and the new resident do not experience problems.
- The landlord said that it had wrongly recorded the resident as him having done his own improvements. As such the landlord is also ordered to check the resident’s rent account to make sure he has not been mistakenly charged for doing repairs. If the landlord finds this to be the case it should reimburse the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints
- Landlords must have an effective complaint handling process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can resolve problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord failed to fully investigate and resolve matters within the handling of the first complaint. This led to the resident having to make a second complaint for his issues to be solved.
- The landlord had a complaints policy in 2022which applied to the resident’s first complaint. The policy said that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, then provide a response within 10 working days. It said it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 4 working days and respond within 20 working days.
- It is positive to see that according to its website, the landlord updated its policy by 1 April 2024 to align with its legal requirement to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This policy applied to the resident’s second complaint. The minor difference between this and the previous policy (in 2022) is that, as per the Code, the landlord should acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
- In this case, the resident first complained to the landlord on 25 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and it gave the resident £322 towards his electricity costs. It provided its first response on 27 September. It had said it would carry out the repairs on 5 October. Whilst its response was timely, it failed to fully investigate the extent of the issues at this stage. It is our opinion that as the issues had been an ongoing for some time, the landlord should have fully assessed the extent of the repair before providing its first response.
- Due to a lack of response to his complaint, the resident sought advice from this Service. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 24 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this request within its policy timeframe. Instead the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on 10 January 2024. On 11 and 17 January the landlord said it called the resident. It said it apologised for the delay and promised it would respond by 8 February. It formally acknowledged the request on 22 January, which was outside of its policy timeframe.
- It is positive to note that the landlord called the resident on 8 February 2024 to apologise for the issues and missed opportunities. It did not demonstrate that it agreed to extend its response time, but it is reasonable to assume this is why it called the resident on this date. On 19 February, it contacted the resident to say it was considering offering compensation for the damaged sofa and asked the resident to provide receipts.
- The landlord provided its first stage 2 response on 18 February 2024. It apologised for its overall poor service. It awarded the resident compensation of £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience. It said it calculated this at £100 per month from February 2023 to February 2024 (100 x 12 = £1200). It said this included consideration of its poor complaint handling, including its delays and failure to resolve the issue.
- In terms of the compensation award, the landlord did not make it clear which portion of the award was specifically related to its complaint handling. Nonetheless, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation the landlord offered at this stage was appropriate. Its offer was in line with its policy and also had regard for our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). This suggests that we may award compensation in access of £1,000 where there have been “significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. It was positive to note that the landlord reflected this in its award.
- Within its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had “not met the standard we set for resolving repairs and we missed a number of opportunities to widen our investigation of the damp and mould to help us understand what was happening and why”. However this Service found that the landlord did not demonstrate that it took appropriate learning from this complaint. It failed to set an appropriate action plan to ensure the resident’s damp and mould problem was remedied within a reasonable timeframe.
- On 12 April 2024 the resident said no action had been taken to resolve the repairs, despite him chasing the matter several times. This Service found that the resident had chased the repairs team and escalated the matter to an MP. He said he also involved the media. The resident complained again to the landlord on 1 May 2024 about its failure to carry out the repairs since his last complaint, and about its record keeping.
- The landlord’s records show it acknowledged the residents second complaint on 2 May 2024 and said he would receive a response “next week”. The resident chased the landlord for a response to the complaint on 6 and 9 May. The landlord responded on 16 May, which was outside of its promised timescale but within its policy framework. It said it would need to extend its timescale for responding and promised to respond by 28 May.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint on 24 May 2024. It gave an explanation as to why the failures had happened and it said that it would permanently decant the resident as a resolution to his complaint. It also offered a further £2,000 in compensation. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 27 June. He said the payment did not go far enough to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience he had experienced since 2017.
- On 27 June 2024 the landlord accepted the resident’s request to escalate his second complaint to stage 2. It gave its final complaint response on 19 July. This response was within its policy timeframe. It offered a further £1,370 in compensation, which it is understood the resident accepted. It said that this was to cover the costs to replaced damaged items and the resident had accepted this amount.
- Overall the landlord’s compensation award totalled £7,712.50 which comprised of:
- 2 payments of £322, plus 2 vouchers at £49 each, totalling £742 towards increased electricity costs (awarded outside of its complaint responses).
- £3,600.50 awarded during the first final complaint response.
- £3,370 awarded during the second final complaint response.
- In this case, the landlord did not make it clear what portion of its awards were offered due to its failures in the handling of the repairs and damp and mould, and what portion was due to its complaint handling failures. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s overall total offer of compensation to be proportionate in this case. The award was appropriate in recognising the severity of its service failures. It was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.
- It was positive to note that the landlord said in its final complaint response that it had taken learning from the complaint in regards to its handling of the repairs. However it was disappointing to note that it did not address the learning that it would take from its handling of both of the resident’s complaints, which were both linked to the same issue.
- The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the handling of the complaint as it failed to outline a clear action plan within its first final complaint response. This subsequently led to the resident making a further complaint which may have been prevented had the landlord’s intended actions been clearer within its first complaint response. Furthermore, it failed to address its learning from its admittedly poor complaint handling and the actions it would take from this, within its final response to the complaint.
- Paragraph 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) allows for the Ombudsman to make wider orders with effect from 1 October 2023. This Service will make such orders where an investigation establishes that more than one resident may be affected by a matter and/or that matter may affect other properties, if the related policy or practice may give rise to further complaints.
- Under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review into the failures in this case, focusing on the issues identified within this report in relation to its handling of the complaint. This includes reviewing its policy, procedures and staff training.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould in the former property, including the amount of compensation offered.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders and recommendations
- Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology, from a senior member of staff, for the failures identified in this report.
- Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to check the resident’s rent former account to ensure it has not re-charged the resident for any works as a result of its record keeping error. Reimbursement of any sums identified to be arranged in a reasonable timeframe.
- In accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report in relation to the handling of the repairs, damp and mould and complaint handling. Topics for inclusion include:
- Confirming that it has checked its records for data accuracy, particularly in relation to those with known improvements and/or ongoing repair problems.
- Confirming that it has checked that works are now complete on the resident’s former property, including the soil vent pipe which was shared with the neighbouring property.
- Reviewing its policy, procedures and staff training in relation to reports of repairs and damp and mould. Ensuring staff are aware of landlords legal obligations to ensure residents properties are safe and free from hazards.
- Considering revision of its procedure on complaint handling for cases involving outstanding repairs, such that a clear plan of action is detailed for resolving these outstanding issues.
- Outlining the learning it has taken from this complaint.
- Within 8 weeks the landlord should present the findings of this review to its senior leadership team and share with the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to relevant staff and the resident.