Vivid Housing Limited (202119844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119844

Vivid Housing Limited

19 July 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the building and the damp and mould within her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process.
The Ombudsman also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a shared ownership tenant of the landlord since December 2012 and lives in a ground floor flat.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with its communal repairs logs, which did not include a log of the initial report of a leak in 2019. The landlord did not provide information about the leaks by way of visits from it and/or its contractor prior to the ordering of scaffolding. However, from the resident’s subsequent complaint, it appears that she had reported a leak affecting her home before February 2019.
On 5 February 2019 the landlord processed the resident’s formal complaint, which stated that she was constantly chasing it for updates about a substantial leak coming from an area in the communal lobby that was affecting her flat and she had not received a reply from the landlord.
In mid-February 2019, the landlord advised the resident by email that that the leak from the roof, which it established was going to be a significant repair, was being managed by the asset team and that scaffolding would be installed on 20 February 2019, then it would complete a thorough investigation into the leak. It then informed the resident that her complaint would be closed.
The resident responded and said that the landlord’s contractor advised her that the leak was not coming from the roof as the leak was going upwards rather than downwards and asked the landlord to look into it further as she believed that there was a bigger problem. She also asked the landlord what would happen to the damage to her property once the leak was dealt with and stated that she was not happy with the complaint being closed as the issue had not been resolved.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 19 February 2019 which said that it had inspected the building on 19 February 2019 and found that the leak was coming from the ground floor slab or basement areas and was tracking up the resident’s wall. It was arranging for a further inspection and potential works to find the source of the dampness. It explained that it would contact the resident when it had further information and agreed that it could have communicated better with the resident and would do so in the future.
The landlord’s records show that, in April 2019, the resident called for an update on the outstanding issues with the leak. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it called the resident back to update her.
On 13 June 2019, the resident made another formal complaint stating that mould that was growing in the communal corridor was growing into her flat, which was caused by an ongoing leak that had not been resolved. She was concerned that she did not hear back from the landlord when it said it would keep her updated.
On the same day the landlord’s internal communications showed that it identified 11 leaks. The communal hallways were dry and repairs to the damaged plasterboard was done. The roof leaks were nearly completed, however there was a delay because there was a system failure that needed to be repaired and re-tested first. It is unclear from the information provided as to the cause / source of these leaks.
On 10 July 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a response to her June 2019 complaint as she had not received one. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and said it would visit her the following day to review the issues again, which it did. It informed the resident that there were potential leaks from neighbouring flat(s).
On 2 August 2019, the landlord records show that it was due to inspect the resident’s property, (the resident was in hospital) but it is not clear from its records if the visit was rescheduled.
On 28 November 2019, the landlord records show that it had completed all the relevant work, however it stated that there was a new leak that had caused damage and that there was a possible build/design issue.
On 5 December 2019, the landlord’s contractor investigated the potential new leak and concluded that there were no further leaks beyond the plasterboard, and the accumulated water in the communal area was a result of the cleaners using their mop too heavily.
On 31 December 2019, the landlord’s records state that when it contacted the resident to close the case, the resident refused because she was awaiting works for the leak to stop.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records as when all of the leaks were fixed and the damage to the resident’s property rectified. However the records show that, amongst other issues, all work including the leak repairs was completed by 9 January 2020. The resident asked for compensation regarding time she had taken off to allow access to her property.
On 13 January 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response, which confirmed that it had completed the works to rectify the leak and apologised for the length of time it had taken. In recognition of that delay it offered the resident £100 in decorating vouchers as a goodwill gesture.
There was no further correspondence between the resident and the landlord until 21 December 2020, when the resident reported another leak that was coming from the communal area into her flat. She added that she had tried to contact her neighbourhood officer and the maintenance team, but did not receive a response from them. She provided pictures of her wall inside her flat and explained that every time it rained, the communal area became wet. On 23 December 2020, the landlord asked for its contractor to investigate the new leak.
The resident made another complaint on 11 January 2021 stating that:
1. She was frustrated, but felt that she had to put in another complaint because it was the only way she was able to get the landlord to resolve the issues.
2. She wanted a detailed report about the cause of the damp/leak/mould issues that were coming from the communal corridor and into her flat, which was damaging her property.
3. She had contacted the maintenance team many times in different ways throughout the early weeks of December and did not receive a response. When she did speak to someone on 21 December 2020, the landlord was unhelpful and stated that another member of staff would be dealing with it.
4. She spoke to the maintenance officer on 22 December 2020 who said that he would ask a contractor to investigate the leak issues. The officer had explained that his phone was broken. As she did not hear from him, and black mould had spread to her cupboard, she contacted the officer again on 29 December 2020 and her call was sent to voicemail.
5. On 30December 2020, an engineer attended and took photos of the damp and mould in the communal hallways and inside her flat. He stated that it smelt of damp.
6. On 4 January 2021, she called the maintenance officer again, and left another voicemail.
7. On 6 January 2021, a contractor attended again and took pictures of the walls and the communal area and inside her flat. She had to leave but when she returned home she noticed that the damp and mould was treated in the communal area but she did not hear from the landlord about the works inside her home.
8. On 10 January 2021, she called the maintenance officer again as the damp and mould were becoming worse and spreading which was affecting her daughter who suffered from asthma. She also explained that in December 2020 she had taken antibiotics for sinusitis which did not clear up and believed that the damp and mould may have contributed to this.
9. She detailed information around what happened in 2019, and although she believed the leak was not resolved at the time, the landlord stated that it was due to the cleaners using too much water.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord’s internal emails show that its contractor visited the building and did not find any leaks although it found mould in different locations of the building. It checked for obvious signs but could not find anything that was causing the issue.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord explained in its internal communication that it had requested for its contractor to complete a thorough CCTV survey of the drains as it seemed the issues were seasonal. Its repair logs indicate that it stated that there was rising damp affecting the resident’s property at the time.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response which stated it had “really let down” the resident over the years. The new complaints team would monitor the situation, keep her updated, and understood the resident’s “desire” to keep the complaint open until the issues were resolved. It also explained that its contractor would be carrying out a survey on the drains to locate the source of the leak, and it would call the resident on the same day with an update. It said that it would call her the following week to update her and discuss next steps.
The landlord explained to the resident the following day that it was unable to get into her neighbours’ flats, so was unable to locate the source of the leak. However, it was returning the following day and confirmed that it would call the resident back on 26 January 2021 to give her an update.
On 21 January 2021, the resident sent the landlord pictures of the leak and mould in the communal areas of the building and stated that the leak was getting worse.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord called the resident to advise that there were no updates and agreed to call her again on 12 February 2021. The landlord called on that day and the resident explained that the leak was getting worse.
The landlord appointed a different contractor to look into the leak and on 22 February 2021,thecontractoremailed the landlord and explained that there was a major escape of water affecting a number of flats, but it needed access to all properties to identify where the leak was coming from.
The following day the landlord explained to the resident that it needed access to her neighbours’ flats and noted on its records that she explained that she was “struggling with everything” and she would send a video of her flat. The landlord explained that it had received the video, but was having system issues, and would update the resident about the situation when it “knew more”.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection and reported that there were several leaks coming from different flats within the building and recommended that the landlord rectify them as soon as possible. It also recommended that it should carry out a leak survey on five additional flats within the building.
On 25 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received any updates. The landlord explained that there was “no real update” and that the leak could have been coming from different flats. The resident asked if the landlord would buy her flat as her daughter was having health issues relating to the damp in the flat, the landlord noted that it would look into it.
The landlord records show that it was due to call the resident on 31 March 2021, but had to reschedule the call.
The landlord records show that on 12 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to call her as she had not had received a call back and was concerned that her flat was a health and safety risk because there was white “stuff” and black mould.
The landlord responded to the resident and apologised for the lack of communication and explained that it had system issues, and it was still trying to identify the source of the leaks. It went on to say that the resident seemed to be dissatisfied by its stage one response and asked if the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
The resident confirmed that she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage two because:
1. She felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously, the black mould and white stuff was affecting her and her daughter’s mental and physical health, her daughter’s asthma was getting worse and there was a lot of damp and mouldy air in the flat.
2. The landlord was taking too long to resolve the issues, she had to chase for updates and the landlord did not answer her questions in its stage one response.
3. She wanted the landlord to stop the leak, all the damage to her property repaired and the landlord to take ownership of her complaint.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord discussed internally what it had done so far to detect and solve the leaks, it had done the following:
1. Checked hatches for any leaks in the pipework, but discovered there were no pipes.
2. Checked the repair history for any heating issues and ruled out any heating leak.
3. Surveyed the drains, and found no faults.
4. Mains and waste water were checked and no faults were found.
5. Instructed its contractors to carry out leak surveys in some of the flats within the building.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord’s contractor carried out another inspection to detect the source of the leaks and reported there were no significant water leaks from the flats that it surveyed this time, but was unable to gain access to two flats. However it noticed that there was water in the gas service riser and lift shaft and recommended leak surveys on another set of flats within the building.
The landlord scheduled a review meeting for 29 April 2021, as part of its stage two complaint process in line with its policy which stated complaints would be reviewed by a panel of managers, consisting of at least one senior manager and one subject matter expert who had not previously been involved in the complaint. The landlord told the Ombudsman that the review meeting went ahead, but it was unable to provide the outcome of the meeting by way of minutes/notes of the meeting.
On 11 May 2021, in the landlord’s internal communication, a customer feedback adviser advised that the resident’s complaint was due on 13 May 2021 and asked the lead on the review to contact the resident if the response was going to be issued past the deadline. They also asked whether the resident was contacted on 29 April 2021 to discuss the review as planned. There was no response to the specific question, but the lead on the stage two response stated that he had contacted the resident twice and had promised the resident regular calls with updates. However, the landlord’s call logs provided for this investigation did not include these calls, and there is no evidence to support that the landlord called the resident on 29 April 2021 as planned.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that it discussed that its stage two response was overdue because it did not have any updates for the resident as a member of staff was recently ill. It explained that once it completed the visits to the building it would feed back to the resident.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord confirmed in its internal communication that it had found another leak which brought the total to three. However, it had stopped the other two leaks the previous week, which meant that water had stopped running into the basement.
Whilst there is a record that the landlord called the resident on 16 June 2021, there are no notes detailing the outcome of the call or whether it was able to speak to the resident on the day. The resident asked for an update on 18 June 2021, and said that when it rained her walls became wet. She could see that there was work going on in the communal area, and asked when the review lead would be calling her to give her an update.
The landlord attended the resident’s property a few days later, noticed that the paint was peeling off the wall in the hallway and suggested that it should look into whether water was coming down the cavity of the wall.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2021, and stated that she was frustrated as it had been seven months since she had put in her original complaint and she was in a worse position. There was no ownership of the complaint and she had not heard from the landlord in weeks and was constantly chasing for updates and answers. Her and her daughter’s health was getting worse due to the damp and mould, she was promised she would be kept updated but the landlord had not done so.
On the same day the landlord’s records noted that it had “called the customer”.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor issued its report which stated it attended on 7/8 June and 12 July to report on the current moisture conditions within the building and make recommendations with regard to restorative drying and stated that various leaks had been identified and repaired. It detailed the outcome of its moisture surveys and recommended different drying systems to dry out the impacted areas.
On 10 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that there had been an unseen leak in a neighbouring flat, and although it could not identify the exact date, the leak could have started around March 2019, based on its repair history. The leak subsequently built up and affected all of the ground flats.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response stating:
1. It had taken some time to investigate and find the source of the leak as it had to employ specialist contractors and had experienced some delays in gaining access to some flats. Nonetheless it had identified the root cause, which was water from a leak travelled under the floor, which subsequently made the slab wet and was soaked up through the walls in the properties on that floor.
2. It had contacted its insurance company to progress a claim on the buildings insurance for the remedial and reinstatement work, which included drying out the slab as the leak had been resolved.
3. As the resident was a leaseholder, any damage within her home would usually be her responsibility to address, but it was looking to deal with the remedial work and reinstatement of all damage as a result of this problem as a single project and the works would begin shortly.
4. However, as the resident was a leaseholder, the works would be charged back to her and it asked the resident to contact the relevant insurance company.
5. It would not buy the resident’s property for the following reasons:
  1. It did not buy back homes unless there was a legal requirement to do so. It received numerous requests each week asking for it to buy back homes for different reasons, some financial and some health related.
  2. Buying back homes would set a precedent which meant that it would not be able to be fair all its residents and stated “if [it] bought back one, why not another one?” and went on to say that the situation would become unrealistic and not financially viable.
  3. Residents do not have any right or entitlement to ‘buy back’ their property, which is stated in its sales policy.
6. It could have done better regarding its communication and identifying the root cause of the property defects and apologised.
7. Advised since the resident’s complaint, it had created a new aftercare team, to support resolving its residents’ defect and snag enquiries to ensure that communication was maintained which would improve the communication between it and its residents. It offered £150 for the delay in providing the resident with its complaint response.
In November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as she was dissatisfied with the complaint responses, she was concerned that the landlord did not investigate or review her complaint properly and that it failed to take ownership of the complaint and the lack of communication was terrible. She expressed her concerns that she believed that the leak(s) were not fixed and she would have to move out of her home for a year whilst the works were completed and that the move would unsettle her and her daughter. She had to pay for repairs through her service charge therefore the £150 compensation did not cover her loss, as she also had to pay £100 excess on her insurance claim.
The landlord responded, reiterated that it would not buy back her property, and advised that it would look into increasing the compensation amount.
The resident was moved into temporary accommodation, whilst the landlord carried out the repairs to the building and her home. The resident raised her concerns in January 2022, that there may be another leak, the landlord discussed this in its internal communication and stated that all leaks were resolved.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord offered the resident £1,600 compensation which comprised of:
1. £1,500 in recognition of its failure to communicate proactively throughout its investigations, which had been calculated at £500 per year.
2. £100in recognition of its failures in its complaint handling, as the resident had three stage one complaints about the same issue.
On 7 June 2022 the resident replied that she was thankful that the landlord had recognised its failures and explained how the situation affected her and her daughter’s physical and mental health. She was now living in a decanted property, and although the landlord advised her that the insurance company would take over and she would not be in any financial loss, she found that living at the temporary accommodation was a lot more expensive.
Records show that the resident was due to return to her home at the end of 2022, however the landlord found another leak, and postponed the resident’s return home. This had been extended to June 2023 at the time of this report and the Ombudsman understands that the resident has had difficulty contacting the landlord at times to discuss her situation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy stated it was responsible for the following:
1. Maintaining the structure and exterior of its dwellings in good repair, together with supplies and fixtures for the main services provided.
2. Keeping customers informed of the progress of their service request.
3. The health, safety and welfare of its customers and our staff.
The landlord’s complaint policy stated:
1. It would carry out a full investigation at stage one and respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. Where that was not possible, it would contact the resident within those 10 working days to advise them when it expected to issue its response.
2. Its written response would include the outcome of the investigation and an explanation of any decisions or actions that had been or would be taken to resolve the issues raised. Where a response included promises of future actions, such as repair works, the landlord would agree a date for the actions to be completed.
3. At stage two, the matters raised as part of the original complaint would be reviewed. The complaint would be reviewed by a panel of managers, consisting of at least one senior manager and one subject matter expert (SME) who have not previously been involved in the complaint and a response will be provided in writing.
4. It aimed to provide the outcome of the review to its resident within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated to Stage two. If that was not possible, it would advise the resident it expected issue its response.
5. During the formal review, the review managers will liaise with its residents to further understand the unresolved issues and desired resolution.
The landlord’s sales policy stated that it may agree to buy back part or all of a property originally sold on a shared ownership basis, at current market value. Residents do not have any right or entitlement to ‘buy back’. Eligibility will be determined on a case by case basis and is subject to detailed affordability checks.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the building and damp and mould in her property

In January, March, April and July of 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould in her flat was negatively affecting her daughter’s health and stated at one point in July 2021 that her daughter’s health was getting worse because of it. The landlord failed on all occasions to acknowledge, assess and respond to the resident’s concerns. It failed to recognise the potential health and safety risk of the situation and the detrimental impact it may have on the resident and her household. This is a serious failure. Landlords must promptly assess any potential health and safety risks that are brought to its attention, including around the health of children when damp and mould are present in its residents’ homes, which it failed to do.
As the resident was concerned about the effect the damp and mould was having on her daughter’s health, in March 2021, she asked the landlord to buy back her property. Given that, by this point, the leaks had been an issue since 2019, the resident’s request was understandable and the landlord should have carefully considered it. Although the landlord discussed this internally at the time, it did not discuss its decision with the resident.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take this as a service request, with the relevant department managing it in line with its sales policy which stated that ‘Eligibility will be determined on a case by case basis and is subject to detailed affordability checks.’ As it failed to do so, the resident did not receive the landlord’s decision on her request until October 2021, furthermore, there is no evidence to support that the resident was contacted by the relevant department to discuss her circumstances in full, so that it could give a thorough response in relation to her individual circumstances. More on this point is discussed later in the report.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property was significantly inadequate. It is troubling that the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould in her property affecting her daughter’s health went unanswered by the landlord and were never addressed throughout the whole process.
The Ombudsman notes that in 2019 and in 2021 there were various leaks from different locations, including leaks in neighbouring flats, which would go beyond the standard routine repair timescales and as a result may take longer to resolve.
Whilst the landlord provided some information regarding the leaks that occurred in 2019 to this service, it primarily provided information that was in its internal communication such as emails, which are detailed in the summary of this report. The repair logs provided had little to no information about the specific dates and outcomes of the contractor visits. Therefore the landlord was unable to provide evidence that it reasonably handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the building in 2019.
In 2020/2021, the landlord instructed its contractor(s) to investigate the leaks in a reasonable time and email communication provided by the landlord for this investigation demonstrates that it reasonably took steps to investigate and try to resolve the leaks.
The landlord took a reasonably broad approach to identifying the issues. It looked into different potential causes of the problem, instructed a specialist contractor in a reasonable time and reasonably relied on its contractors’ reports to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman acknowledges, as stated above, repairs such as this case, may take longer to identify and resolve as it involved many different flats and areas of the building. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord prolonged the situation.
However, there is no dispute that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated and its lack of communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience in both 2019 and in 2021.
When the first set of leaks occurred in 2019, the landlord stated in February that it would keep the resident updated. However, it failed to do so, and the resident had to contact the landlord several times throughout the year, namely, April, June and July 2019 for an update.
At the end of 2020, when the resident reported another leak, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated. The Ombudsman notes that a member of staff may have had issues with his mobile phone, which may have contributed to the lack of contact. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a date and time to contact the resident to keep her updated. This would not only offer the resident assurances that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously and go some way to restore her confidence back in it. It would have also reduced the resident’s time and trouble spent chasing the landlord for updates.
In January and February 2021, the landlord’s contact with the resident was good, it kept the resident updated, however it missed opportunities to explore the resident’s concerns as she stated in her complaint about how the mould was affecting her daughter, and that she was “struggling”.
However, in March 2021, the resident had to contact the landlord again, as she had not received any updates. The landlord stated that it did not have a “real update”. As stated in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, it is important for a landlord to follow through with its promise to update the resident, even when it does not have any new substantive information to provide. Not doing so, can undermine the resident/landlord relationship. Especially, as with this case, where the landlord had already acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident updated and promised it would do so.
The landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated continued and although the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had IT issues, it does not offer a satisfactory reason that it failed to proactively contact the resident without having her contact it. Again, the resident had to ask for an update in June and July 2021 as she was not being kept updated. The Ombudsman notes that in some internal communication the landlord referred to calling the resident at times, however it failed to provide the call logs and notes to support those statements.
The landlord recognised its lack of communication negatively impacted the resident in 2022 and offered her £1,500, which was calculated at £500 per year. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord reviewed its position and made an offer to compensate the resident. However, although the offer went some way to compensate the resident, it did not take into consideration the landlord’s failure to address her concerns about the damp and mould affecting her daughter’s health and its failure to carefully consider the resident’s request for it to buy back her property.
Overall, it is clear that the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident over a substantial period of time had a detrimental impact on her and caused distress and inconvenience. Coupled with its failure to address the resident’s health concerns and its failure to carefully consider the resident’s request for it to buy back her property, means that the Ombudsman has found that there was severe maladministration in the overall handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the building and damp and mould in her home.
Whilst the Ombudsman’s investigation has largely focused on events that were considered by the landlord in its own complaints procedure, it is unsatisfactory and concerning that the issues with leaks and associated damp and mould have continued since then and that the resident has been living in alternative accommodation for a significantly protracted period. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation has been calculated to take this into account.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage one complaint response in January 2021 failed to address the resident’s concerns about the mould and damp affecting her daughter’s health, her concerns about getting hold of the surveyor and her request for a detailed report on the issues. As stated in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, landlords must address all points raised in a complaint, which it failed to do.
The landlord issued its stage two response five months after it was due and failed to adequately review the resident’s complaint. It again failed to address the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould was adversely affecting her daughter’s health, and failed to demonstrate in its response that it had reviewed its stage one response in relation to the resident’s original complaint and her concerns outlined in her complaint escalation request. The response appeared to be an update on the situation, rather than a review of the resident’s complaint, therefore was an inadequate stage two response. Both the delay in the landlord’s response and its response itself was inappropriate and inadequate.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to buy back her property was inadequate. Whilst the landlord may not have a legal obligation to buy back the property, its response appeared to be a standardised one. The tone and some of the language in the landlord’s response lacked sensitivity to the resident’s situation and failed to take into consideration the reason she was asking for the landlord to buy back her property.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure that its response was tailored to the resident’s circumstances and refrained from using statements that were about the landlord’s position financially and setting precedents, as this was not relevant to the resident’s situation.
The landlord issued three stage one responses to the resident which caused a delay to the resident’s access to the landlord’s stage two complaint phase and subsequent access to the Ombudsman. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint at stage two in June 2019 which would have allowed the resident access to escalate her complaint sooner.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident £150 for its delayed stage two response in October 2021, and a further £100 in 2022, because it issued three stage one complaints. Whilst the landlord therefore took some steps to offer redress for the failings in its complaint handling, the total offer of £250 did not constitute reasonable redress, given the extent of complaint handling issues in this case, and resulting impact on the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

The repair records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in their records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.
Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted, the protracted period of time over which there have been leaks reported, the resulting impact on the landlord’s ability to ensure that repairs were completed to an appropriate standard, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the building issues when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the building and damp and mould in her property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to acknowledge, assess and respond to the resident’s concerns that her daughter’s health was affected by the damp and mould in her property. It also failed to adequately assess the resident’s request for it to buy back the property in line with its policy and failed to keep the resident updated, although it had promised several times that it would do so which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also carried out many visits that failed to identify the root cause of the leaks over a substantial length of the time which ultimately led to the resident having to live in alternative accommodation for a unreasonable amount of time. Although the landlord offered the resident compensation for its failure to handle her reports of leaks and associated damp and mould in her home, it did not fully redress the failures outlined in this report.
The landlord failed to investigate and review the resident’s complaint at stage one and two in 2021. The review at stage two was inadequate and did not demonstrate that it thoroughly reviewed the stage one complaint and response, as well as the resident’s concerns when she escalated her complaint. It also issued three stage one responses, which caused a delay in the resident’s access to escalate her complaint to stage two and this Service.
Although the landlord offered the resident compensation for it issuing three stage one responses, the compensation did not adequately redress the other complaint handling failures.
The landlord also failed to demonstrate by way of repair logs/outcome of contractor visits that in 2019 it adequately handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the building.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
Pay the resident compensation of £4,900 within four weeks of the issue of this report, which should be paid directly to the resident, comprising of:
1. £2,100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s inadequate handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the building and damp and mould in her property.
2. £550 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its internal complaints process
3. £500 for poor record keeping.
4. £150 it offered as part of the its stage two response delays and £100 for issuing three stage one complaints, if has not already paid this amount.
5. £1,500 it offered the resident for its lack of communication on her reports of leaks and damp and mould in her property.
Assign a single point of contact for the resident and agree a schedule of contact whilst she remains in alternative accommodation. Provide evidence of the agreement to the Ombudsman within two weeks of this report.
Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with monthly progress updates until all work is completed and any post inspections completed and the resident is able to return.
Provide the Ombudsman with supporting evidence of the aftercare team process and procedure within four weeks of the issue of this report.
Raise staff awareness around the potential effects of mould and damp on residents’ health and/or their household members. Information should include how to risk assess when presented with a household that has health concerns which it is stated are in relation to or exacerbated by damp and mould with their property within 12 weeks of the issue of this report.
Contact the resident to discuss her request to buy back her home in line with its policy and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the outcome within four weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident within four weeks of the issue of this report, in line with this Service’s guidance that:
1. an apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff.
2. an apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
3. where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
The Ombudsman requires the landlord to undertake a review of the outcomes of this investigation and produce an action plan for service improvement which should be shared with this Service within twelve weeks of the date of this determination, including any updated policies. This action plan should include –
1. a review of its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs, taking into account the comments in this investigation report. It should ensure that it has robust record keeping arrangements in place which allow it to provide clear audit trails of all actions taken.
2. a review of its complaint handling policy and procedure against the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code including ensuring there is a clear process and awareness for staff to accurately review resident’s complaints at stage two.
3. consideration of the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes the following actions:
1. Remind all members of staff to record all contact with residents, contractor and landlord visits on the relevant system with detailed notes.
2. Review its repairs records for other properties in the block to establish if other households have been affected by similar issues to the resident. If the landlord identifies any such households it should proactively ensure that any outstanding issues around leaks and damp and mould in their individual properties are resolved and consider whether an offer of compensation would be appropriate.
3. Commit to formalising and implementing a shared ownership buy back policy. This should explain how and when it will use its discretion to buy back shares from shared owners.