Two Rivers Housing (202219820)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219820

Two Rivers Housing

17 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. Decision not to decant the resident and her family during associated investigations.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. At the time of the events complained of she lived in the property, a 3-bed semi-detached house, with her husband and children. Her tenancy commenced in 2015. She has since been moved to another property owned by the landlord.
The landlord has advised this Service that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. Nor has the resident disclosed any to this Service.
The resident first reported damp in the property in September 2015. At this time the damp was confined to the chimney breast in the living room. Repairs were carried out but in February 2016 she reported that the issue had reoccurred.
In September 2016 the resident reported “damp issues around the property” including the smallest bedroom and living room.
On 12 October 2018 the resident made a formal complaint (Complaint 1) as the damp issue remained unresolved after 4 years. She also cited poor communication by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 October 2018.
On 23 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord whether Complaint 1 remained open as she had not received a response. The landlord replied the following day and said that “due to the timeframe and major changes to the complaints process” she should raise a new complaint. The resident said:
1. She wanted to know what had happened to her previous complaint.
2. Her complaint remained the same and she did not see why she should have to log a new one.
3. The damp issues had not been resolved and affected both external and internal walls.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord replied and asked if the resident wanted a new complaint to be logged. It is unclear whether the resident replied at this time. However, she contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 and asked it to escalate her complaint as she had not received a response. The landlord subsequently raised a new complaint (Complaint 2).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 24 August 2023. It said:
1. It had been unable to find a formal response to Complaint 1.
2. During a visit to the property in December 2022 it had been agreed that the complaint response would be sent “following the completion of all the works identified”. The resident had since asked that a response be provided.
3. It acknowledged that its communication and earlier investigations into the issue had been “poor”.
4. Works were still ongoing for the external drainage and internal plastering.
5. The complaint was fully upheld due to:
  1. The length of time taken to complete damp works.
  2. The lack of communication and updates – it was updating its processes and providing training to staff to ensure this did not happen again.
  3. Issues with contractor management – the issues raised in relation to operative conduct had all been raised with its contractors.
6. It offered the resident a “compensation package” of £21,087.64 comprising:
  1. Discretionary payment – £12,000.
  2. Loss of earnings – £2,800.
  3. Garden works (to be completed after the drainage works) – £1,740.
  4. Decoration works (to be completed following the drainage works and drying time) – £2,571.24.
  5. Flooring (already installed) – £1,976.40.
7. This was the equivalent of 47% of the rent paid by the resident since 2015.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its process on 28 August 2023. She said:
1. The garden works, flooring and decoration costs should not have been included in the compensation package.
2. The loss of earnings should not be included in the calculation of the equivalent proportion of the rent paid.
3. £12,000 did not equate to 47% of the rent paid.
4. It should therefore pay £21,102 plus £2,800 loss of earnings.
5. The compensation figure would continue to increase until the works were complete.

The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the following day.

On 25 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2. It said:
1. Its compensation offer at stage 1 had included the remedial works which was the approach the Housing Ombudsman would take. This had determined the 47% calculation which was communicated.
2. It upheld the discretionary payment of £12,000 awarded at stage 1. This was approximately 27% of the rent paid to the date of the stage 1 response.
3. It also awarded a further £3,000:
  1. £1,000 for not responding to Complaint 1.
  2. £1,000 for not actioning the resident’s reports of damp and “poor” diagnosis and follow up.
  3. £500 for record keeping. While it had visited the property “on multiple occasions”, it had “very few” records of this.
  4. £500 for contractor performance.
4. The total compensation awarded was £15,000 plus £2,800 for loss of earnings. This equated to 40% of the rent paid at the point the complaint was raised.
In November 2023 the landlord agreed to move the resident to another property. The move took place in February 2024. It provided ‘disturbance payments’ to help with the costs of moving. Following the move it increased its compensation offer from £15,000 to £15,575 plus £265.26 rent in advance for the new property. It said that the additional £575 was equivalent to 25% of the rent paid from the stage 2 complaint response to when the transfer was offered.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remains dissatisfied that the landlord did not consider decanting the family sooner. She also said that the landlord had failed to follow its own policies and procedures in handling her complaint and that its compensation awards were inconsistent and confusing.

Policies, procedures and legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that appointments will be made for all non-emergency repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete urgent repairs (including “non-serious water penetration”) within 5 working days. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s direct lets and management moves guidance states it will award priority status to residents requiring a transfer due to a temporary or permanent decant.
The landlord’s decant policy defines a decant as when a household is required to move for reasons including major repair or planned improvement works.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The compensation policy states that disturbance payments will be made in line with its decant policy to “cover the actual costs and reasonable expenses incurred as a direct consequence of a decant”. The policy states it will pay compensation for quantifiable loss (eg increased heating bills) and discretionary payments for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Record Keeping.

It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s reports of damp.
During our investigation we have found that several records key to assessing the landlord’s handling of damp in the property have not been provided. These records include:
1. Contemporaneous reports from the resident.
2. Survey and inspection reports.
3. Details of works completed.
4. Communications.
Our knowledge and information management (KIM) Spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlord, which assists it in fulfilling its repair and other obligations. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations. Complete and correct records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property. This enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed effectively.
Internal landlord emails of September 2023 show that it had become aware of “systemic issues surrounding [its]…record keeping”. The communications indicated that the issue would be escalated to senior leaders. We have not seen evidence of what actions were taken to resolve this serious issue. It is noted however that the landlord’s record keeping appears to have improved from August 2023 onwards with a record kept of specialist reports. This is encouraging and this Service hopes that this is indicative of wider record keeping improvements.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has affected our investigation into its handling of the substantive issue of complaint. While the landlord has acknowledged and offered compensation for record keeping failings within its complaint responses this has not satisfactorily resolved the substantive issue. We have also identified record keeping issues beyond those which were acknowledged by the landlord. The impact of these therefore remains unremedied and we cannot therefore consider that it has provided reasonable redress for its record keeping failings. We have found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on KIM. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.

The landlord says it considers that reports of damp in the property prior to 2022 relate to the chimney breast in the living room. It says that this was a “separate issue” to the damp throughout the rest of the property. It suggests that its handling of the damp in the rest of the property should therefore be considered from 2022 onwards.
We acknowledge the landlord’s comments. The evidence, however, shows that the resident has been reporting issues of damp in areas other than the living room chimney breast since September 2016. It is also noted that when responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord considered events dating back to the start of the tenancy. Its compensation calculation also included consideration of rent paid between April 2015 and January 2024.
This Service therefore considers it fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case to consider events from the resident’s first reports of damp in 2015.
The resident first raised issues with damp on the chimney breast in the living room in September 2015. Repair records show that a repair was raised and that this was completed in October 2015. It is unclear from the records what the repair entailed.
In February 2016 the resident reported that the damp to the chimney breast had returned. A repair was completed in June 2016 to repair a bathroom tile which was identified as the source of the leak. It is unclear why the repair was completed outside the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe but that it was is unreasonable.
In September 2016 the resident reported that there were damp issues “around the property” in the smallest bedroom and the living room. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised an inspection following the resident’s reports of damp. This was reasonable. It is however unclear whether an inspection was carried out and at what time as the landlord has failed to maintain an accurate record. The repair records contain duplications with differing completion dates between October 2016 and February 2017.
In May 2017 the resident advised the landlord she was still experiencing damp in the property and it now affected the kitchen, living room, dining room, bathroom, and middle bedroom. The landlord carried out an inspection on 13 June 2017 with an external contractor. This Service has not been provided with records relating to the inspection.
In August 2017 the resident asked the landlord for an update following the inspection. Following her email the landlord contacted its contractor. It asked it to extract the cavity wall insulation which had failed and then to inspect the property’s damp proof course (DPC). It was reasonable that the landlord arranged these works. It was however unreasonable that the resident had to chase to prompt action.
The resident contacted the landlord again in September 2017 and said that the damp issue was worsening. The landlord responded and said it was “under the impression the works had commenced”. It asked whether she had been given any timescales for completion of the work. The resident replied and said that the contractors had removed the cavity insulation. She was waiting for a further inspection to be completed before insulation could be re-installed.
That the landlord was unaware of the status of the works is evidence of poor repairs management. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to actively monitor the works. It should have also ensure that it could access accurate information about the works from within its own records.
In October 2017 the landlord raised an inspection of the chimney for damp. It then raised a repair to demolish the chimney stack to below the roof level and cap the flue. The records show this repair was raised 3 times and each log has a different completion date. It is therefore unclear if the repair was completed.
The resident’s communications with the landlord show that it had carried out an inspection with a damp specialist on 10 November 2017. This inspection is not recorded in the repair logs, nor are any findings.
In December 2017 the landlord raised an order to complete a DPC and install vents and air bricks. The repair records show these works were completed in February 2018. Considering the works involved this timeframe was not unreasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord again in April 2018 chasing an update on the damp works. She said:
1. The property had been without cavity wall insulation throughout the winter making it cold and expensive to heat.
2. No one had been to the property in months.
3. Recent heavy rain had made the damp worse.
4. It had failed to keep her informed and she kept having to ask for updates.
5. The service fell “very short of the standards [she] rightfully expect[ed] as paying tenants”.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It is unclear whether it failed to do so or failed to keep or provide a record of its response.
In October 2018 the resident made Complaint 1. Within the complaint she said that the surveyor had attended in September 2018 “unannounced” and had said he would return within 7 to 10 days. The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, there is no record of this visit within the information provided to this Service by the landlord. As such, it is not possible to consider this incident further.
On 9 November 2018 the resident emailed the landlord following an inspection carried out earlier that day. She asked for an update on what action it intended to take. As she had not received a response she requested a further update on 26 November 2018. The landlord should reasonably have responded to the resident’s first email without her having to invest further time and trouble in chasing for a response. This is a communication failing. It is also noted that this Service has not been provided with records relating to this inspection.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 November 2018 and arranged a further inspection of the property on 3 December 2018. Following the inspection it emailed the resident and said:
1. It found moderate and high levels of damp throughout the ground floor and one bedroom.
2. A recent inspection had found the loft space to be dry with no signs of water ingress.
3. The plan to resolve the issues was to:
  1. Allow a further 2 to 3 months for the property to dry out.
  2. Provide a dehumidifier to speed up the drying time.
  3. Install vents to the tumble dryer cupboard and chimney breast in the bedroom.
  4. Carry out DPC works to the chimney breast.
  5. Assess the age and condition of the radiators in the property.
That the landlord proactively updated the resident following this inspection was an improvement in its communication. By providing its plan it tried to manage her expectations, this was positive.
The landlord raised the agreed works the day after the inspection. This was prompt and appropriate. On 13 December 2018 the contractor attended to provide a dehumidifier and install the vents. Following contact by the resident the landlord asked the contractor to return as it had failed to correctly complete the vent installation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 January 2019 and said she had not received any further updates. This is another example of poor communication by the landlord.
The landlord replied on 7 January 2019 and said its contractor had attended that day and found that the chimney breast required further time to dry out. It said it was still working to the previously agreed timescale of 2 to 3 months.
In February 2019 evidence shows that it was identified that there was no damp-proof membrane where the hearth had been removed in the living room. The records indicate this was completed 9 days later. It was a missed opportunity that this had not been found sooner as the resident had been reporting damp in this area since 2015. It was however positive that the work was completed quickly.
We have not seen evidence of any communications or relevant works taking place at the property between February 2019 and July 2021. It is unclear whether this is because no such communications or works took place, or because records of such events have not been kept or provided to this Service. Considering the issues that the landlord had been made aware of, we would reasonably expect it to be proactive in monitoring the issue. That we have not been provided with evidence of such is inappropriate.
In July 2021 the resident again reported damp in the living room. The records show that a repair was raised and completed in January 2022. It is however unclear from the records what the repair consisted of. The landlord should reasonably have recorded what was found on inspection, what repairs were required, what action was taken and whether any follow up works were required.
There is a further gap in the records between July 2021 and August 2022. It is unclear whether this was because no events occurred or because they were not recorded. Given the longstanding nature of the problems that had been reported, the landlord should have ensured that it had maintained a clear audit trail of actions taken and interactions with the resident in relation to the matter.
In June 2023 the landlord raised a repair order for:
1. The water tank in the garden to be cleared and new drainage to the tank installed.
2. All external walls of the property to be repaired, all external wall vents removed, and the walls rendered.
3. A land drain to be installed across the garden.
The evidence does not show what prompted the landlord to raise these works. The records show however that they were related to the ongoing damp at the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2023 and said flooring works at the property had been left incomplete. The contractor had arranged to attend several times to complete the work but, on each occasion, had cancelled. The landlord should have been ensuring that it was monitoring its contractors and the completion of job raised. That the resident had to inform it that the works were outstanding was unreasonable.
In mid-August 2023 the resident contacted this Service. She said:
1. Works to resolve the damp had been ongoing for 8 weeks and the impact on their living conditions was “vexing and…significant”.
2. There were no signs of improvement.
3. A damp specialist had attended on 2 August 2023 and had suggested the drainage system may be the cause of the damp.
4. The lack of communication from the landlord was “compound[ing] [their] stress and anxiety”.
5. The impact was worse as their children were at home for the school holidays.
On 14 August 2023 the resident issued the landlord a ‘letter before claim’ saying she intended to take legal action about its handling of the damp issues. She stressed that:
1. Their living conditions had been affected by damp since the start of the tenancy. This had reduced their enjoyment of the home and lead to “significant emotional and psychological distress”.
2. Its communication had been “inconsistent and inadequate”.
3. Operatives on site had failed to adhere to health and safety regulations and the landlord’s code of conduct. The failures included smoking on site, “unprofessional behaviour”, and leaving the property in an untidy condition after works.

The landlord acknowledged the letter 3 days later.

In August 2023 the landlord raised an order for a CCTV drain survey of a drainage tank in the garden of the property. The purpose was to identify how the tank worked and where any surplus water drained to. On 22 August 2023 it advised the resident that the survey had identified broken pipework leading from the water tank in the garden. It said it would replace the pipework at the end of the month. It is noted that this Service has not been provided with a copy of the report from the drainage survey.
On 7 September 2023 the resident said she had received a call from the landlord. She said the call handler advised it was in relation to damp issues she had raised “some time ago” and asked if the issue was resolved. She raised concerns about the call and that different departments of the landlord were not communicating with each other. The resident’s concerns in relation to this are understood.
The KIM Spotlight report states that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. Had the landlord’s records been more robust and its departments communicated more effectively, the distress caused to the resident could have been reduced.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord visited the property and agreed a schedule of works with the resident. Internal landlord emails of September 2023 show that throughout the month its contractors did not adhere to the agreed schedule of works. The emails also establish it was aware of “systemic issues surrounding [its] management of contractors and [its] record keeping”. Evidence shows it addressed the poor performance with its contractors and regularly chased them for progress reports – this was positive. Considering the systemic issues it had identified, we would reasonably have expected to see evidence of more formal monitoring of contractor performance.
In October 2023 the evidence shows that damp readings in the property increased. The resident also reported that salts were coming out of the walls in the kitchen and there was mould on the living room wall. A mould clean was carried out on 30 October 2023 but the salts were not cleaned from the kitchen walls. An operative returned the following day to clean the kitchen walls without making an appointment. The resident said that she had been baking with her daughter. She said this was a further example of the landlord overlooking that the property was their home. The landlord apologised for this issue.
It was reasonable and correct that the landlord apologised for its contractor’s performance. It would also have been reasonable for it to show that it had addressed these issues with its contractor. While it may have done so, it has not provided records to evidence this.
In November 2023 a further damp survey was carried out. This found that some cavity insulation remained and was preventing the property from drying fully and the source of the excess moisture being identified. The landlord provided the resident with a summary of the survey’s findings and an action plan for resolving the issue. This was a marked improvement in communication by the landlord.
The resident replied to the landlord and asked whether they could help with the added costs of heating the property since the insulation had been removed. The evidence shows that it offered her £200 to “cover the increased heating cost for the period”. This was based on meter readings provided by the resident.
In response to an information request from this Service the landlord has advised that the damp issue at the property remains unresolved and under investigation.
This Service appreciates that in some cases, it may take more than one inspection to establish the cause of a problem and effect a remedy. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out several visits to resolve matters where the issue is complex and the root cause of the damp is unknown.
It is clear in this case the landlord was finding it difficult to identify the root cause of the damp. We appreciate that resolving water ingress is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is needed, we would expect to see a clear action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is found at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord has not showed that it took appropriate and prompt action to find the cause of the ingress and to then complete a repair. This was a failing.
Overall the evidence shows that the landlord failed to:
1. Keep adequate records to show that it had reasonably responded to the resident’s reports of damp.
2. Proactively monitor the damp issue.
3. Communicate effectively with the resident and provided reasonable updates.
4. Effectively manage its contractor’s performance.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has paid the resident compensation in recognition of its failings in this case. This was resolution focused and went some way to put matters right for the resident.
It is however noted that, following the final complaint response the resident continued to experience issues related to damp. It is acknowledged that the cause of the damp in this case was complex and not simple to identify. Nevertheless, the substantive issue was unresolved and we therefore cannot find that reasonable redress was offered in this case. We have found that there was maladministration by the landlord and have ordered it to pay the resident further compensation reflecting loss of amenity. The covers the period from the stage 2 response until it agreed to move her to another property at the end of November 2023. This equates to £641, which is 40% of the rent paid during the relevant period.
We consider that within the period of November 2023 and February 2024 the landlord was actively taking steps to secure the resident a suitable property to move to. During this period the resident declined several properties as she did not deem them to be suitable. Her reasons for not accepting these properties are acknowledged however the landlord acted reasonably within this period and made offers which it considered to be suitable.

Decision not to decant the resident and her family during investigations.

The resident requested a decant on several occasions, the landlord declined her requests. While the resident did not raise a complaint about this she had expressed dissatisfaction about residing at the property. As such, the landlord should reasonably have considered her concerns through its internal complaints process.
The landlord therefore had the opportunity to address her concerns within its complaint response and that it did not do so was a complaint handling failure. Consequently we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a decant within this report.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will provide a decant if it “requires” a household to move for the purpose of major repair or planned improvement works. The policy does not go into further details about what major repairs entail or why it may “require” a decant.
It is important for a landlord’s policies to provide sufficient flexibility to allow staff to fairly apply the policy is a variety of circumstances. In this case however the wording is vague and does not support effective application of the policy.
At the end of November 2017 the resident asked the landlord to move the family. We have not seen evidence that it formally responded to this request but the resident has said that it advised her at the time she could apply for a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s advice to apply for a mutual exchange was inappropriate considering it was aware that the resident’s request related to the fact that there was damp within the property and repairs were outstanding. The resident was not saying she wanted a new home, but rather that she did not wish to remain in the property while the damp conditions remained unresolved.
In April 2018 the resident again asked the landlord to move the family to another property due to the damp conditions. She said that the landlord had previously advised her to apply for a mutual exchange. She pointed out that no one would want to exchange with her due to the damp in the property. The resident’s reasoning was understandable we have not however seen evidence that the landlord addressed this concern. This was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2023. She said:
1. Operatives had attended that morning at 8am despite it being agreed work would not start until after 9am. The agreement was due to her needing to get the children ready for school.
2. There had been many operatives working in different areas of the property at once.
3. Operatives had left plaster all over the kitchen despite being aware the family was having to live in the property while work was completed. She provided photographs of the kitchen which show plaster splattered on the work surfaces, cooker and pairs of shoes belonging to the family.
4. She felt the family should have been decanted while the work was completed. She requested a copy of the decant policy.
The resident’s communications clearly showed that the works were impacting the family’s ability to enjoy the property. She also stressed the disruption the works were having on her children. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have formally assessed whether a decant was needed. It is unclear why it did not do so. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and to ensure that it had taken steps to satisfy itself as to whether a decant was required.
The landlord provided the resident with its decant policy. She responded and asked it to clarify its definition of ‘major works’. She said that works were being carried out throughout the property “simultaneously” and this was affecting their use of the property.
The landlord replied 2 weeks later. It said:
1. Major repairs were works that had “prevented the re-letting of the property because of their scale and extent” and “could not reasonably be carried out with a tenant in occupation”. They included “structural repairs, site works and service installations”.
2. It would class such works as major works “if a tenant has been permanently decanted in order for works to be carried out”.
3. Structural repairs were works to “maintain stability and weather resistance” in floors, walls and roofs. It would only consider the works ‘major’ if they included the replacement or “substantial reconstruction” of the structural elements.
This Service considers that the resident’s circumstances may have met the requirements outlined in the landlord’s response. This is because:
1. Had the property been empty the landlord would not have been able to let it immediately due to the nature of the ongoing works.
2. While the household had remained in occupation during the works, the landlord had not assessed whether it was reasonable to expect them to do so.
3. The works were structural in nature as they related to water ingress through the walls.
It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider the damp works to be ‘major’ in July 2023. At a minimum it should reasonably have formally assessed the decant request and explained its decision. That it did not do so was a failing.
It is noted that the works undertaken in the summer of 2023 caused a significant impact to the family. This is because the children were off school for the summer holidays and the works were ongoing for over 8 weeks. It is also noted that the resident has reported that there were large numbers of operatives working in different areas of the property at the same time. This would have caused further disruption to the family’s enjoyment of their home.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered how it could minimise the impact of the works on the family. This was a further failing.
The resident again asked to be decanted in November 2023. This time the landlord agreed that it would move the family permanently to another property. The resident asked why the landlord had not agreed to decant the family when they first asked to be moved. She said that the length of time they had “endured” the issues was “disgraceful”.
Between November 2023 and January 2024 the evidence shows that the landlord was actively looking for suitable properties to transfer the resident to. This was reasonable.
In February 2024 the resident and her family were moved to a new property. The landlord said:
1. The move was not a decant.
2. It considered however that a temporary decant may have been required pending the recommendations of the damp specialist.
3. It therefore agreed to pay the resident ‘disturbance payments’ to support with the move. These included:
  1. Removal costs.
  2. Disconnection and reconnection of white goods.
  3. New carpets and curtains.
In response to an information request from this Service the landlord has said in relation to the resident’s request for a decant:
1. At the point that the resident initially requested a decant the works that were planned “would not cause significant disruption”.
2. There was “no health and safety risk to the residents” as the issue was “water ingress with no mould”.
3. The criteria for a decant was therefore not met.
The landlord has now provided comment on why it declined to approve a decant in November 2017. Its comments seem reasonable. However, the damp persisted and the situation changed between 2017 and 2023 and it failed to reconsider its decision. Therefore while the landlord has explained why it did not approve a decant in 2017, it still failed to consider whether one was necessary in the intervening 6 years. Its overall handling was therefore inappropriate, amounting to maladministration.
The landlord has also stated that it offered the family a “management move, rather than a decant”. It is not clear why the landlord has persisted in saying that the move was a management move and not a decant. Its own management moves guidance states that priority will be given to those requiring a transfer due to a temporary or permanent decant. It therefore follows that the move could be a managed move for the purposes of a permanent decant.
Overall, the landlord did not reasonably consider the resident’s request for a decant until November 2023. This was unreasonable. The damp issue itself and the later investigative and remedial works clearly impacted the family’s ability to enjoy the property. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered moving them to reduce this impact. The landlord’s decant policy lacks formal definitions and sufficient detail to assist staff in fair and consistent application. While a decant may not have been required in 2017, the landlord should have reasonably demonstrated that it considered the request at the time. The landlord should also have, reasonably, reconsidered its decision as matters progressed especially given the concerns expressed by the resident. That it repeatedly failed to do so was unreasonable. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant request.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The resident made Complaint 1 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp in 2018. The landlord has accepted that it did not provide a formal response to Complaint 1.
The landlord did however acknowledge Complaint 1 and on 26 October 2018 emailed the resident and said:
1. It had been “completing work to the property based on industry expert advice” but that the works had been unsuccessful.
2. Further works needed to be completed.
3. It would therefore keep the complaint open until the works were completed.
4. Once the works were complete it would “send a full response” to the complaint.
It is accepted that this was prior to the introduction of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in 2020. We would however have reasonably expected the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaint policy, and within a reasonable timeframe. That it did not was a failing.
In October 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on Complaint 1 as she had not received a formal response. The landlord recommended that the resident raise a new complaint. As the landlord had failed to provide a response to Complaint 1 it would have been reasonable for it to raise a new complaint on her behalf. Instead it expected her to invest unnecessary time and trouble in making a new complaint via its website. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did, within its handling of Complaint 2, acknowledge its failure to respond to Complaint 1. It provided an apology and a proportionate amount of compensation. This was fair and reasonable.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord offered the resident £6,000 compensation for the “ongoing repair issue” in the property. It also offered to install new flooring throughout the ground floor and decorate the ground floor, stairs and landing. It said it could not offer reimbursement for loss of earnings.
The landlord has said that it had agreed with the resident in December 2022 that it would not provide a response until all works were completed. We have not seen any contemporaneous notes relating to this agreement. The Code states that the landlord must keep a full record of the complaint including all correspondence with the resident. That it did not do so here was a failing.
The Code also states that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known. It should not wait until outstanding actions needed to address the issue are completed. The landlord should therefore have responded to the complaint in line with the timescales outlined in the Code and its own policy. It should then have tracked any outstanding works and provided regular updates to the resident.
It took the landlord 10 months to provide its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. This far exceeds the timescale outlined in the Code and its own policy and was therefore unacceptable.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that:
  1. Its communication and earlier investigations had been “poor”.
  2. It had taken too long to resolve the issues.
  3. There had been issues with its management of contractors.
2. Offered a “compensation package” which included:
  1. £12,000 discretionary compensation.
  2. £2,800 for loss of earnings.
3. It also included within its compensation calculations works to the property including to the garden, flooring and decoration.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord had included remedial works within its compensation package. She said this was misleading and had made it look like the landlord was paying her more than it was.
During a visit to the property in September 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had “followed the approach that the…Ombudsman would take” when it included the remedial works in its compensation calculations. This is not the case. This Service would expect the landlord to outline the details of any remedy offered to put things right including any remedial works and compensation payments. We would also expect it to detail any outstanding actions. The landlord appears to have conflated these requirements.
This Service considers that the landlord’s inclusion of the cost of the outstanding works within the compensation section of its response was misleading. It had an obligation to complete these works to make good issues caused by the damp remedial repairs. Including it within the compensation calculation gave the impression that these works were done as a ‘goodwill gesture’.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 within the timescales outlined in its policy and by the Code. It increased the compensation offered by £3,000 and detailed what the increase was for. This was positive and provided greater transparency to the resident.
The resident has raised with the landlord and with this Service that its use of varying equivalent rental percentages in its compensation offers has caused her confusion. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it had awarded the equivalent of 47% of the rent paid by the resident since 2015. In its stage 2 response with the cost of the remedial works was removed (even with the increase of £3,000) this percentage fell to 40%. It is understandable therefore that the resident believed that the landlord had reduced the compensation it offered when compared to the rent she had paid.
This Service often uses rent paid by a resident to calculate a payment for loss of amenity or ‘use and enjoyment’ of the property as rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity. In this case, relaying different rental proportions to the resident caused unnecessary confusion. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
The landlord did not provide a response to Complaint 1. While the landlord did appropriately put things right in respect of the failure to investigate and respond to Complaint 1, we have identified the following issues:
1. The landlord unreasonably decided to wait for the repairs to be completed before responding to the complaint.
2. The landlord’s application and explanation of its compensation calculations were unclear and caused the resident further distress.
Given these cumulative failings, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident and her family during investigations.
3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord at director level or above to apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,141 which comprises:
  1. £641 in relation to reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to its response to the resident’s reports of damp.
  2. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its decision not to decant the resident and her family during investigations.
  3. £250 in relation to distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
  4. This is in addition to the compensation already paid by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. The review should:
1. Consider whether the existing decant policy is fit for purpose. This includes:
  1. Whether the definitions it uses in determining whether a decant is required are fair and whether they should be included in its formal guidance.
  2. Whether guidance should be introduced for assessing requests for a decant.
2. Ensure complaints are managed in line with its own procedures and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This should ensure that:
  1. Where complaints are managed by a senior manager due to the severity of the issue, this does not impinge on the rights of the resident or timescales for response.
  2. Staff understand the requirements within the Code.
  3. Staff understand the importance of having empathy and compassion for residents.
  4. Its calculations for compensation are explained clearly and consistently.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its compensation guidance and ensure that it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.