Walsall Housing Group Limited (201903432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903432

Walsall Housing Group Limited

18 May 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

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repair issues in the property, specifically related to structural defects, bathroom repairs, the front door, the back door locking mechanism, a leak in the kitchen, a foul smell from an external drain, a leech infestation and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of its staff and her request that a female staff member was present during repairs.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in July 2016. The property is an end of terrace house that was built in June 2016. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident or her family. However, the resident has advised that she is disabled and has two young children with asthma who are affected by damp conditions.

Summary of events

3. The landlord’s records show that a six-month defect inspection was completed on 23 January 2017. This identified works required to the fence at the rear of the property which had not been completed, a faulty gate lock, a gap in the front door frame where the insulation was visible, a plug in the living room which was not connected to the wall, the lock on the front door which “jammed” occasionally, the loft hatch which “jammed” and the keys for the windows which did not work. Further repair issues were raised on 18 May 2017, which included that the bathtub had sunk, the tiles were not finished in the bathroom and only covered half of the wall and there was a smell in the kitchen cupboards. The resident continued to report that her bath seal had split, and water was running down the back of her bath and a large crack in the plasterwork in her kitchen in June 2017.
4. On 19 June 2017, the resident advised that she wished to raise a complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction that the developers did not follow procedure and raised additional repair issues, including no cover on the rear gully drain, draughty windows in the lounge and toilet and damp and mould. She advised that the property smelt of sewage and damp which she believed had impacted her child’s health.
5. The end of defect inspection took place on 26 June 2017. This identified a gap in the fence, staining on the lounge ceiling following a leak, cracking in the wall and ceiling near the stairs, the front door locking mechanism needed to be adjusted and the door handle was loose. There was also a crack around the front door, a shower rail needed to be provided and fitted, mortar was cracked to all external lintels and the TV point was not working in the lounge. It also noted that the resident had reported noise from the loft hatch when there was strong wind and a strong sewage smell in her bathroom and bedroom.
6. The resident pursued her concern that repair issues had not been addressed between June 2017 and May 2019. During this time, she reported issues with leeches in her garden and advised that the local authority would be taking action. She raised concern about appointments that had not been attended to. She added on 10 May 2019 that the shower head was coming away from the wall, the shower hose was broken and that there was a leak under her kitchen sink despite an operative attending and saying there was no leak. She asked that the landlord put things right.
7. The resident contacted this Service on 17 June 2019 to advise that she had experienced issues with the property since she moved in. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask it to consider the resident’s complaint under its formal complaints process. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of; damp and mould and the damage it had caused, a broken drain outside the property, a broken bath panel, her shower coming away from the wall, cracks in the walls, an ongoing leak beneath her kitchen sink, a faulty front door and back door lock and a leech infestation. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage two of its complaint process and said that it would respond within ten working days on 18 June 2019.
8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 15 July 2019. It apologised for the upset and inconvenience the issues had caused. It also apologised for the breakdown in communication between it and its developer. It explained that a 12-month defect inspection was carried out on 26 July 2017 and a list of works were issued to the developer who was responsible for completing the defect repairs. It noted that the defect repairs were not completed for which it apologised. It completed an inspection on 20 August 2018 to create an up-to-date list of works which was passed to the developers again. It apologised that these were outstanding. It explained its intention to complete a further inspection to identify any outstanding works to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. It understood that the resident did not want another inspection but encouraged her to agree to this and asked her to contact it to arrange this.
9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 August 2019 to explain that she had escalated her complaint three weeks prior but had received no response. She advised that the landlord had attended but that the staff members’ behaviour was inappropriate. Four males had attended which she was not comfortable with and she felt that an individual had spoken down to her. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to get in touch with the resident within ten working days as she wished to escalate her complaint.
10. The landlord called the resident on 30 August 2019. She expressed dissatisfaction with staff behaviour during the recent inspection. The landlord confirmed that it would ask its internal repairs team to attend the property.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 September 2019 and explained the following:

a.     The developer had agreed to attend on 4 September 2019 to carry out work to the tiling around her bath, install a shower rail and fixing to hold the shower head and adjust the back door locking mechanism. Its repairs team would then attend to address the issue of the blocked drain outside of the property.

b.     It confirmed that a leech infestation was not present during its inspection and would be the resident’s responsibility to resolve in line with the tenancy agreement. There was no evidence of damp and mould at the time of the visit. There was also no evidence that the shower was coming away from the wall at the time of its visit but would be resolved by the developer when they attended to the tiling if this was the case. The broken bath panel was not damaged when the property was handed over and was deemed to be tenant damage. The cracks in the walls were minor cracks which would be the resident’s responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement. There was no evidence of an ongoing leak under the kitchen sink, so no further action was needed.

12. The landlord’s records show that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage on the same day. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 October 2019 to confirm that the developer would be attending that day and advised her to raise any further repairs via its contact centre. The resident refused to do this and asked that the landlord looked through the case notes in relation to outstanding repairs.
13. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage three on 23 October 2019. It confirmed that it would respond within 15 working days. On 8 November 2019, it said that the complaint had been put on hold pending a visit to the property which was scheduled for 11 November 2019. The landlord’s records show that the visit was completed, and the complaint was discussed. The landlord has advised that works to tile around the bath, replace the shower head fitting, fix the back door locking mechanism, repair shrinkage cracks and repair the outside drain were completed by the developer between 18 and 25 November 2019.
14. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 9 December 2019 and explained the following:

a.     It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident. It confirmed that it had changed how it handled repairs to new build properties by appointing a staff member responsible for ensuring any outstanding works were followed up with the developers.

b.     The drain outside of the resident’s property had a pea-gravel strip which had fallen into the gully. When this was remedied, debris from the drain was left on the pathway for which it apologised. It had highlighted this to the developer and confirmed the importance of ensuring that debris was removed from the site at the earliest opportunity.

c.      In relation to the resident’s reports of a leech infestation, it noted that this was contained to the garden and happened a year prior. It said that this was caused by a combination of a newly laid garden, which was mostly soil, and the resident emptying water from her children’s paddling pool into the garden. The warm weather and wet soil contributed to leeches spawning. It noted that the leeches had not repopulated but that the experience was likely to have been upsetting.

d.     It confirmed that works to resolve shrinkage cracks in the property had now been resolved. It understood that tiling around the bath, the installation of a shower rail and fixing and work to the back door locking mechanism were outstanding at the time of its visit but had since been completed. It apologised for the delay in completing the works.

e.     It had not witnessed excessive damp or mould in the property. It advised that small amounts of condensation and mould growth around windows was not unusual and could be controlled by cleaning regularly and ventilating the property. It advised the resident to continue to clean these areas when necessary.

f.        It confirmed that the sink base unit in the kitchen was inspected, and no leaks were found. It said that the kitchen was adapted for a dishwasher which the resident did not have and that the pipework and wastepipe were not capped. It apologised that this was not completed previously and confirmed that it would put a permanent solution in place.

g.     It said that the kitchen floor covering suffered some discoloration and staining near the front of the sink. It had agreed to take up the flooring and inspect the floor for damp. Depending on damp-meter readings, it would either replace the floor covering with a like for like replacement if the flooring had dried out or would carry out further investigation. It confirmed that it would provide flooring samples for the resident to choose from. It offered £250 compensation in recognition of the resident’s poor experience.

15. The resident called the landlord on 23 December 2019 to report that she was dissatisfied with its offer of compensation given the three-year delay in completing repairs. She added that the bath seal was of poor quality and the original shower head bracket had left a hole in her bathroom tile. She said that her daughter’s health had been affected by the mould and expressed concern that her concerns related to staff conduct had not been addressed. She also advised that the initial lack of shower curtain rail meant that the bathroom floor needed to be replaced. The landlord advised her that it would discuss this in the new year.
16. Following contact from the resident, who advised that she had not received a response to her complaint escalation sent three weeks prior, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2020 and asked it to respond by 10 February 2020. She remained dissatisfied that waste was left on the side when her drain was unblocked, with the conduct of its staff who had inspected her property for damp and mould, with the ongoing damp and mould issues and the quality of works in her bathroom.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to advise that mould was present in her child’s bedroom, her bedroom and by the front door. She advised that she would send pictures of damage to her bedroom carpet because of her bath not being sealed. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange a visit to assess her damp and mould concerns.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for her complaint to be moved to panel review on 23 January 2020. It advised that it would contact the resident within 20 working days to arrange the panel review meeting and the response would be provided within ten working days following the meeting.
19. An inspection of the resident’s property was carried out on 29 January 2020 to investigate the staining on the kitchen flooring and the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The surveyor concluded that:

a.     In the kitchen, there was no damp below the resident’s kitchen floor covering but a small amount of condensation present on the cold pipework within the sink base unit. The sink base unit had been in contact with water in the past as the chipboard was swollen but there were no signs of current or previous leaks. They advised that the staining was likely due to chemical cleaning products being used.

b.     No repair issues were noted in the living room but the silicone sealant to the front door was detached in places in the hall.

c.      In the bathroom, the extractor fan was turned off, the bath panel and shower hose were split and there was no shower rail or curtain to contain water. The tiling previously completed was of a poor quality and the split bath panel would allow water to enter behind the panel and onto the flooring.

d.     In the rear bedroom, the resident had advised that the window reveals were affected by mould, but no evidence was found. The trickle vents were closed. In the front bedroom, there was no evidence of mould around the windows and no evidence of damage to the carpet. The report states that the surveyor offered advice on ventilating the property to the resident.

20. The surveyor recommended works to remove and replace the floor covering in the kitchen, re-fix the sink base unit and sink top, replace the bath panel and shower hose, re-do the tiling repair using a replacement tile, install a shower rail so that a shower curtain could be hung, backfill around the rear elevation gully and remove and renew the sealant around the resident’s front door. The landlord’s records show that most of the repairs, including work to cap the redundant standpipe and hot and cold supply were completed on 7 February 2020. The works to the rear elevation gully and kitchen floor covering remained outstanding.
21. Following a phone conversation with the resident on 11 February 2020, the landlord emailed her on 12 February 2020. It acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the two floor choices offered. It explained that these were the standard offered across all properties but confirmed that it would cover the cost of flooring of the resident’s choice up to a value of £450. It noted that the resident had agreed that once the kitchen flooring was installed, the landlord would no longer be responsible for it. It acknowledged that the resident wished to pursue her complaint and would provide her availability for a hearing date once work had been completed.
22. The resident submitted a Subject Access Request on 25 February 2020. On 6 March 2020, she advised that she would confirm her availability for the panel review hearing once she had received the information. On 23 March 2020, the Government imposed national lockdown restrictions in response to the impact of Covid-19. Following this, the landlord was only completing emergency repairs and all non-emergency repairs were put on hold. On 5 May 2020, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange the panel review meeting once restrictions had lifted.
23. On 6 October 2020, the resident confirmed her availability for the panel review hearing which had been arranged for 20 November 2020. The Government imposed a second national lockdown on 5 November 2020. The landlord advised that it was unable to hold face-to-face panel reviews due to the restrictions and advised that it would arrange this as a priority once restrictions had lifted. The landlord agreed to arrange the flooring installation with the resident’s choice of carpet company and the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £450 to cover the cost of the kitchen flooring.
24. A visit to the property took place on 18 January 2021 to inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould and check the kitchen floor. A work order was then raised on 5 February 2021 to level the kitchen floor, replace the mixer tap, replace a section of skirting board and the kitchen end panel, anti-fungal wash the living room ceiling and paint, anti-fungal wash the bathroom ceiling and walls and paint, replace the handles to the resident’s front door and dig out a section of turf/soil and fill with gravel along the rear wall of the property.
25. On 1 March 2021, the resident confirmed that she was happy for the panel review to take place over video call. The evidence shows that the above works were completed between 9 and 12 March 2021.The panel review hearing was arranged for 21 April 2021. Work to replace the kitchen base unit was completed on 26 April 2021.
26. The landlord issued its panel review response to the resident on 5 May 2021 and explained the following:

a.     It acknowledged that the resident’s experience of needing to chase both it and the developers, the significant length of time taken to complete several repairs and the repetition of issues were not acceptable. It apologised for the resident’s experience.

b.     In relation to her reports of mould, it recognised that there had been mould in the property and that it had applied anti-fungal treatment to prevent this. It noted that while surveyors had not witnessed mould during inspections, the resident had advised that this was ongoing. In view of this, it offered to provide a list of independent surveyors and pay for a further investigation. It could also work with the resident to look at alternative ventilation systems for the bathroom, for example, a system triggered by moisture levels rather than needing to be switched on manually.

c.      It acknowledged that the resident had advised that the repair to the blocked drain at the rear of the property had been completed but that this had taken a significant period and the waste causing the blockage had been left for her to clean up. She also advised that there was a smell remaining. It confirmed that it had asked a surveyor to attend on 11 May 2021 to address this and the external roof drain which the resident had reported to need repair.

d.     It acknowledged that work to repair the broken bath panel, cracks in the walls, faulty front door and faulty back door gate had taken too long to complete. It apologised for the level of time and trouble experienced by the resident to ensure that this was completed. It acknowledged that the length of time taken to complete tiling repairs in the bathroom had caused unnecessary inconvenience. It admitted that a gap in a tile was left when the shower fitting was moved. The gap was filled with silicone which looked like a poor-quality repair. It had offered to fit a soap holder due to the difficulties it faced finding a matching tile. It acknowledged that it could have explained this at the time. It confirmed that this was a reasonable alternative to removing and replacing all tiling in the bathroom. It was happy to replace the tile with one that matched as closely as possible or fit a suitable bathroom accessory to resolve the issue.

e.     In relation to the resident’s reports of a leak in her kitchen, the landlord noted that a leak had not been present during an inspection in January 2020 but that following the resident’s ongoing reports, it had established that the tap needed replacing. It had established that it had not been installed correctly which had allowed a small amount of water to drop onto the kitchen cupboard. It acknowledged that this should have been identified sooner but that the minimal amount of water contributed to its operatives not identifying the leak. It apologised for the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident. It advised that it would cover any additional costs in getting the floor covering replaced and would liaise with the carpet shop on her behalf if she wished.

f.        It did not uphold the aspect of the resident’s complaint related to a leech infestation. It acknowledged that this issue was likely to be upsetting for the resident and that the combination of factors which caused the issue had previously been identified. This included a tent placed in the garden and water being emptied form a paddling pool which created the conditions for leeches to spawn.

g.     The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had initially asked for a complaint to be raised in June 2017 but there was no evidence to confirm that this was handled in line with its process at the time, indicating that it had failed to follow its policy. In addition, it acknowledged that while the combination of trying to find a suitable date for the panel review meeting and the impact of Covid-19 restrictions had an impact on the timescale, the panel meeting could have been held sooner.

h.     It acknowledged the level of disruption and inconvenience experienced by the resident and offered a total of £2500 compensation. This was comprised of £250 for its failure to accept the complaint in 2017, £250 for its failure to hold the panel review hearing at an earlier opportunity, whilst also considering the Covid-19 restrictions, and £2000 in recognition of the significant inconvenience experienced by the resident over a four-year period because of outstanding repairs. This was offered in addition to any kitchen floor covering costs. It apologised again for the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident.

27. Within its panel review response, the landlord also explained the following:

a.     It was unable to consider the resident’s comments that her and her children’s health had been affected by the issues experienced. It confirmed that the resident could pursue a personal injury claim through its insurance team.

b.     It was unable to consider the resident’s concerns related to the conduct of its staff as its complaints policy did not initially cover these matters in August 2019 when the issues were reported. It added that her concerns were passed to the staff member’s manager at the time for investigation. It confirmed that its complaints policy changed in September 2019 to include matters related to staff conduct.

c.      It was not able to consider the resident’s concerns related to insects, her bathroom ceiling, data protection and her tenancy conditions as these did not form part of her initial complaint. It confirmed that the resident could ask it to consider these matters as a new complaint if she wished.

d.     In relation to the resident’s preferences – in that she would be more comfortable with a woman visiting her property – it explained that it could not guarantee that a female colleague would be present, for example in emergency situations. It said that it would work with the resident to agree to some wording to be shared with colleagues and added that it was introducing a new approach where customers would have a community housing officer. It agreed that if the officer was female, it could arrange for them to be present where needed.

e.     It confirmed that it had asked for photos of new-build properties to be taken at key points of handover to support in addressing issues. It had also changed its process, noting that it now had a designated person to liaise with developers on a resident’s behalf regarding new-build defects. It had also changed its complaints process and held staff training for complaint handlers. It said it would use the resident’s case as an example to support its staff training for other complaints.

28. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2022 and explained her reasons for dissatisfaction. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and did not feel this was proportionate given the impact on her and her family, including on their mental and physical health. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord failed to arrange for a female member of staff to attend when works were carried out at her request and that this only happened once her complaint was at stage four. In addition, the landlord had not considered her concerns about the conduct of several male staff members during a visit. She maintained that several repair issues remained outstanding, including repairs to her back door and guttering, despite the landlord advising that these were new repair issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

29. The resident has maintained that the issues affecting her property had a negative impact on her and her children’s health. Within its complaint responses, the landlord has advised that should the resident feel her family’s health had been affected, she would need to pursue a personal injury claim through its insurance team. It is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as these matters are more suitable to be dealt with through a personal injury claim. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
30. The resident has raised concern that several repairs, including to her guttering and to remedy damp and mould following water ingress, were incomplete at the time of the landlord’s final response. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had advised that these were new issues. While the Ombudsman acknowledged the resident’s concerns, this Service is limited to investigating the issues that were raised in the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord as detailed in the complaint definition. As these issues did not form part of the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident may wish to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved if she has not already done so.
31. The resident raised concerns about how her data was shared between staff and staff members. These issues did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord and will not be addressed as part of this report. If the resident has concerns about the use, or misuse, of her personal data, she could approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO can investigate complaints about possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. She may need to raise a complaint with the landlord in the first instance regarding these issues prior to approaching the ICO.

The landlord’s handling of repair issues in the property, specifically related to structural defects, bathroom repairs, the front door, the back door locking mechanism, a leak in the kitchen, a foul smell from an external drain, a leech infestation and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

32. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including internal walls, doors, and major internal plastering. It is also responsible for repairs to the installations it had supplied, including bathing facilities and pipes. The landlord’s repairs guidance states that residents would be responsible for ensuring that there was adequate ventilation in the property to prevent damp and mould. They would also be responsible for treating mould that is present with a fungicidal wash. If a resident has persistent issues with damp and mould, they should report it to the landlord who would investigate.
33. The landlord’s repairs guidance states that when a resident lives in a new-build property, any faults or problems that need fixing within the first 12 months are known as defects, which the building developer would be responsible for repairing. It further states that the landlord should carry out repairs it is responsible for within specified timescales. Routine repairs should be completed within one month and planned repairs should be completed within three months. The landlord’s tenancy management policy confirms that residents should liaise with the local authority regarding any pest infestations in the property.
34. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident experienced significant delays and spent significant time and trouble pursuing various repair issues affecting the property between 2017 and 2021. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the significant impact, inconvenience and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing various repairs to her property and offered £2000 compensation in recognition of the impact on her.
35. The landlord has acknowledged that the communication from both it and the developer had been poor, leading to delays. While the developers would have initially been responsible for completing repairs to any defects within the property during the first 12 months, this did not happen. Given that the landlord was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the repairs were completed in line with the tenancy agreement, it would have been appropriate for it to have liaised with the developer on the resident’s behalf at an early stage to prevent any unnecessary inconvenience. The landlord has demonstrated that it had taken steps of learning from the resident’s complaint by confirming that it had introduced a designated member of staff who was responsible for liaising with the developers of a property on a resident’s behalf. This is appropriate to prevent similar circumstances in the future.
36. The evidence shows that the resident first reported cracks in the plasterwork of her property in June 2017 and that these were identified within the end of defect inspection. The landlord’s records show that work to remedy the internal plasterwork was completed around 25 November 2019. This was an unreasonable length of time, and the evidence shows that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the repairs. The landlord has acted fairly by acknowledging that these repairs took too long to complete within its complaint responses to the resident.
37. Works required to the resident’s bathroom were first identified in May and June 2017. This included repairs needed to tiling, the bath seal and work to install a shower rail. The landlord’s records show that works in the resident’s bathroom to complete tiling, repair the bath seal, replace the bath panel, install a shower rail replace the shower head fitting and replace the shower hose were not fully completed until 7 February 2020. Some repairs had initially been carried out in November 2019. However, the installation of a shower rail had not been completed despite the landlord concluding in its complaint response on 9 December 2019 that this had been done. In addition, following a further inspection on 29 January 2020, it was found that further work to the tiling and bath seal was needed due to poor workmanship. The landlord has acknowledged the impact that the delays and need to repeat repairs were likely to have on the resident.
38. It is noted that the resident raised concern about water ingress from her bathroom into her bedroom and the damage this had caused to her bedroom carpet alongside her complaint. While this was likely to be concerning for the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the resident’s bedroom in January 2020 and finding no evidence of water damage. As such, it was reasonable that no further action was taken.
39. The landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported experiencing leeches in her garden in July 2017 and that she was advised to contact the local authority’s pest control team. This advice was in line with the landlord’s repairs and tenancy management policy. The landlord acted fairly by explaining the reasons why the leeches may have spawned – attributing this to the combination of newly laid soil and the resident emptying her children’s paddling pool into the garden, creating a moist environment. It is noted that the leech infestation was not ongoing, and the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the distress the leeches were likely to have caused the resident and her family. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted unreasonably in its handling of the matter.
40. The resident also reported issues of gaps around her front door and the locking mechanism in January 2017. The records show that issues with the locking mechanism and door handle were also identified within the defect inspection report in June 2017. These issues were reported as resolved in November 2019. However, repairs to the sealant on the front door were not completed until 7 February 2020 and the evidence shows that further work to replace the front door handle was completed around March 2021 following the resident’s reports of further issues in October 2020. It remains unclear as to whether the issues were a continuation of the same problem or new issues due to wear and tear over time. Nonetheless, the landlord has acknowledged that the repairs took too long to complete.
41. The resident has advised that issues with gaps around her back door remain unresolved. The landlord’s records and evidence provided shows that the back door locking mechanism was adjusted on 20 November 2019 by the developers. There is no evidence that issues of gaps around the back door had been raised or identified during multiple inspections of the property. As such, it remains unclear as to whether the landlord had sufficient knowledge of the issue or had the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
42. The landlord’s records show that the gully drain at the rear of the property was first identified as having no cover in June 2017. Work to remove debris from the drain and cap took place around 25 November 2019 – this was a significant time later and represented an unreasonable delay. The resident raised concern that waste from the drain had been left and not cleared away by the developers. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the time taken to complete works and apologising that the waste had not been cleared. It also acted fairly by confirming that it had provided feedback to the developers on the importance of removing any debris from site following works.
43. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised concern about a smell under her kitchen sink around June 2017. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when the resident first reported a potential leak, however, she raised concern that an operative had attended and said that there was not a leak on 22 June 2018. She continued to report a lot of moisture below the sink in May 2019. It is noted that despite visits to the property and works undertaken to cap a redundant waste and cold-water supply pipe in February 2020, the cause of the leak was not correctly diagnosed until April 2021. The landlord has confirmed that this was caused by an incorrectly fitted tap which was allowing a small amount of water to escape over time.
44. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord would ultimately be entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified staff and contractors when determining what works to undertake. The landlord has acknowledged that the small quantity of water escaping from the faulty tap in the kitchen contributed to the delay in diagnosing the issue as the leak had not been present on several visits. It has, however, acknowledged that it took too long to effectively resolve the issue and apologised to the resident which was appropriate.
45. The landlord acted fairly by agreeing to pay for the cost of the new kitchen flooring and the installation costs. The landlord was not strictly obliged to offer to cover the cost of a floor covering of the resident’s choice as it would be entitled to lay a standard floor covering at its discretion. However, its offer was resolution-focused in view of the delay in diagnosing the cause of the leak in the kitchen which had impacted the appearance of the flooring in places. It is noted that the landlord initially agreed to this in February 2020 and the resident accepted its separate offer of £450 to cover the cost of the flooring in October 2020. Due to the impact of Covid-19, the replacement needed to be put on hold by the resident’s carpet company. This was outside of the landlord’s control and would not amount to a failure.
46. The landlord has advised this Service that it was unable to confirm whether the flooring had since been replaced as it had received limited contact from the resident since its final response in May 2021 due to her dissatisfaction with its response. The Ombudsman has not seen any further communication between the resident and the landlord regarding the floor covering and it is unclear whether the replacement has since been completed by the resident. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether her kitchen flooring has since been replaced. If this is not the case, it should seek to progress this with the resident and ensure that she is reimbursed for any costs associated with the kitchen flooring replacement as previously agreed, if it has not already done so.
47. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported mould on a skirting board in the property in January 2017. She continued to report that the smell of damp had spread from her kitchen to her living room in June 2017. The end of defect inspection in June 2017 did not identify any damp or mould within the property. Following this, there is no further evidence to confirm that the resident had reported mould in the property directly to the landlord until her complaint in June 2019.
48. The resident has advised that operatives attended her property following the landlord’s complaint response on 15 July 2019 to inspect for damp and mould. The landlord has not provided the details of this inspection to the Ombudsman for further review. Its records show that the resident was given advice on ventilating her home and preventing the build up of mould by using her extractor fan in the bathroom which had not been in use.
49. The landlord’s records show that it attended in November 2019 and January 2020 following the resident’s further reports, but that no excessive damp or mould was witnessed by its operatives. It is noted that the resident’s trickle vents were closed on the windows and the extractor fan was turned off during the survey of the property in January 2020, which may have been contributing to condensation build up in the property. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer the resident advice on ventilating the property and removing excess condensation from her windows in the first instance as this would be the resident’s responsibility in line with the landlord’s policies. In addition, it was entitled to rely on the opinions of its staff and contractors who determined that the issue was not witnessed during the visits and that no remedial action was required at this stage.
50. It is noted that following the resident’s further reports and an inspection in January 2021, the landlord arranged to apply anti-fungal paint to the resident’s lounge ceiling and bathroom. This was completed during the week ending 12 March 2021. The resident first raised concerns about staining on her lounge ceiling due to the leaks from the bath in June 2017 and this was identified as part of the defect inspection at the time. While it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have remedied this at an earlier stage, it is noted that it would have needed to ensure that the bathroom issues were resolved prior to completing this action to prevent the need for further visits. It is not disputed that the bathroom repairs took a significant time to complete which contributed to the delay in resolving the staining on the lounge ceiling.
51. The resident has raised concerns that the damp and mould in her bathroom is ongoing despite the previous anti-fungal wash. As part of its final response to the complaint, the landlord offered to complete a survey of the bathroom, using an independent surveyor, or discuss alternative ventilation options with the resident given her concerns about the cost of using her extractor fan. The landlord acted reasonably by offering these options to resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns and assist her in ventilating the property. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident said she did not want to pursue these options in May 2021 as the damp was not present. The landlord’s records also show that the options were discussed with the resident in November 2021, however, the resident did not wish to pursue these options. It has advised this Service that it has not received any further engagement from the resident regarding its offers.
52. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the options offered to the resident to resolve any ongoing damp and mould concerns in the bathroom. Should the resident have further issues with damp and mould in the bathroom, she may wish to contact the landlord in relation to its offers to progress any required repairs. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and gain a list of outstanding repair issues in view of this and the resident’s reports of gaps around her back door.
53. The Ombudsman agrees that the time and trouble the resident needed to spend pursuing her concerns and the unreasonable timescales involved in resolving the multiple repair issues was likely to have caused significant inconvenience to the resident. Financial compensation is warranted in recognition of this. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £2000 is considered reasonable in the circumstances, considering the identified failings above and the overall impact on the resident as a result of the repair issues over a significant period. This level of compensation was significant and within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been multiple or long-term failings that have had serious detriment to the resident. The landlord has also demonstrated that it took points of learning from the resident’s complaint. Its remedy was therefore proportionate in recognition of the cumulative impact on the resident, and together with the apologies given, satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of its staff and her request that a female staff member was present during repairs.

54. The resident initially raised concern about the conduct of the landlords’ operatives on 30 August 2019 following a visit to the property sometime after its complaint response on 15 July 2019. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the details of this appointment. The resident advised that she felt intimidated during the appointment and felt staff members had spoken down to her. She also raised concern that the staff members were all male which she was uncomfortable with. She had also requested that a female staff member was present for future appointments.
55. In its communication with the resident and this Service, the landlord has advised that it was unable to consider the resident’s concerns as its complaints policy did not initially cover complaints related to staff conduct in August 2019 when the issues were reported. It added that her concerns were passed to the staff member’s manager at the time for investigation.
56. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s Customer Experience policy active in August 2019. The policy does not specify that complaints related to staff conduct would not be covered under its complaints process. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either considered the resident’s concerns under the existing complaint or opened a new complaint to resolve the resident’s concerns.
57. In addition, while the landlord has advised that the matter was passed to the staff member’s manager at the time, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that this was the case, nor has it provided any evidence of the outcome of its investigation at the time. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations or confirmed whether it would investigate her concerns.
58. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrongdoing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said. Given the length of time that has passed, it would not be possible for either the landlord or the Ombudsman to undertake a full investigation into what happened. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord to investigate the matter while the issue was ‘live’. The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s allegations which was likely to have caused distress to the resident as it remains unclear as to whether her allegations had been investigated.
59. The resident has advised this Service that despite raising her concerns and asking that a female staff member was present on visits to the property, this request was ignored, which led to further male staff members visiting the property and added to the inconvenience she experienced. She noted that it was not until her complaint was at stage four that a female staff member was present during visits. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to offer reasonable adjustments and attempt to act in accordance with a resident’s preferences or clearly explain why it is unable to do so.
60. The landlord’s records show that the resident initially raised concerns about the conduct of several staff members directly with the landlord on 30 August 2019, but the record of this conversation is limited and it remains unclear as to whether she specifically requested that a female staff member be present during visits from this date. However, the landlord would have had the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns and proactively seek to reduce any impact on the resident by considering actions it could take, such as ensuring that the specific staff members did not return to the property or attempting to ensure that a female staff member was present from this date. As above, it failed to demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s concerns or the actions it could take to mitigate the distress caused to the resident at the time which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
61. The landlord has ultimately advised within its final response in May 2021 that it could not guarantee that a female colleague would be present during visits to the property, for example in emergency situations. It added that it was introducing a new approach where customers would have a community housing officer. It agreed that, if the officer was female, it could arrange for them to be present where needed. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s request as the presence of a female staff member would be dependent on their availability.
62. In view of the identified failings, the landlord is to pay the resident additional financial compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to consider her concerns regarding staff conduct or confirm its position at an earlier stage. An order and recommendations have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

63. The landlord’s customer experience policy (2016), which was in place at the time of the resident’s initial complaints in June 2017 and June 2019, states that the complaints process involved three stages: an investigation, review, and panel review. The policy did not provide specific timescales for response at each stage but noted that the landlord would respond promptly, and that the resident could escalate their complaint to the next stage if they remained dissatisfied with its response. The landlord has since updated its policy in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
64. In its communication with the resident and this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that it failed to handle the resident’s complaint formally following her request on 19 June 2017. It has acknowledged that despite some factors being outside of its control, such as the impact of Covid-19 on its ability to hold face to face panel review meetings and difficulties finding a suitable date for the meeting with the resident, the complaint panel hearing could have been held sooner following its acknowledgement on 23 January 2020. It acted fairly by apologising to the resident and offering £250 for each of its identified failures, bringing the total amount to £500.
65. Following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to consider the resident’s formal complaint on 17 June 2019. The landlord did not provide its final response until 5 May 2021, over 22 months later. This caused significant inconvenience for the resident who spent considerable time and trouble pursuing her complaint both directly to the landlord and through the intervention of this Service. The landlord has acted fairly by acknowledging the impact of the delays experienced by the resident at the beginning and end of its complaints process. Given the overall 22-month timescale of the complaint, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have acknowledged other failings which contributed towards the delay to show that it had fully considered its handling of the matter. The Ombudsman has identified additional failings as set out below:

a.     The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 June 2019 and said that it would respond within ten working days. It responded on 15 July 2019, approximately 19 working days later. The landlord did not acknowledge this failure or manage the resident’s expectations at the time.

b.     Following the Ombudsman’s communication on 27 August 2019, noting that the resident wished to escalate her complaint, the complaint was not escalated until 23 October 2019, approximately 41 working days later. This was despite the resident confirming that she wished for the complaint to be escalated on 12 September 2019.

c.      The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 23 December 2019, but she needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing this with the intervention from this Service on 20 January 2020 before the escalation was acknowledged on 23 January 2020.

66. The landlord has acknowledged the delay in carrying out the complaint panel review meeting between 23 January 2020 and 21 April 2021. The Ombudsman is satisfied that some of the delay at this stage was outside of the landlord’s control due to the initial delay in establishing the resident’s availability and the impact of Covid-19 on its staffing levels and ability to hold face to face meetings. While it is noted that the resident had requested a face-to-face meeting, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that a video call option was offered to the resident at an earlier date. Nonetheless, the landlord has acted fairly by acknowledging the delay at this stage and admitting that it could have done more to arrange the meeting at an earlier date to prevent any additional inconvenience to the resident.
67. Despite the additional failings identified, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s combined offer of £500 is proportionate in view of the overall impact on the resident in this case. This figure is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure or maladministration which adversely affected the resident, but where there may be no permanent impact because of its actions.
68. The landlord also acted fairly by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused and has demonstrated that it took points of learning from the complaint by confirming that it had since updated its complaints policy, held staff training for complaint handlers and would use the resident’s case as an example to support its staff training. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

69. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of repair issues in the property, specifically related to structural defects, bathroom repairs, the front door, the back door locking mechanism, a leak in the kitchen, a foul smell from an external drain, a leech infestation and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
70. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of its staff and her request that a female staff member was present during repairs.
71. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

72. The landlord acknowledged the significant inconvenience, time and trouble and distress caused to the resident because of repair delays and its poor communication over a significant period. It offered £2000 compensation, which is considered proportionate in recognition of the impact its failings had on the resident.
73. The landlord failed to recognise, acknowledge, or apologise for its failures to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct or requests for a female staff member to be present at an earlier stage which was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident.
74. The landlord has acknowledged the significant timeframe of the complaint, its failure to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint in June 2017 and the significant delay in arranging the panel review hearing with the resident. Considering the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord’s service, its offer of compensation is considered proportionate in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders

75.  Within four weeks:

a.     The landlord is to pay the resident £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate her concerns related to staff conduct or explain its position regarding her request to have a female member of staff present during appointments from the outset.

b.     The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified above.

c.      The landlord is to contact the resident to obtain accurate information related to any household vulnerabilities and preferences. It should confirm whether the resident’s community housing officer is male or female and the actions it is able to take to accommodate her request that a female staff member is present during necessary visits to the property.

76. The landlord is to contact the Ombudsman to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks.

Recommendations

77. It is recommended that:

a.     The landlord pays the resident £2500 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis that this was paid.

b.     The landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether her kitchen floor covering has since been replaced. If this is not the case, it should seek to progress this with the resident and ensure that she is reimbursed for any costs associated with the kitchen flooring replacement as previously agreed.

c.      The landlord contacts the resident to obtain a list of any outstanding repair issues. It should then seek to resolve these issues within its repair timescales.

d.     The landlord ensures that the resident is provided with sufficient notice of appointments where appropriate; it should also seek to confirm whether a female staff member is available to be present when booking the appointment and confirm this with the resident so that she can ask a representative to be present if she wishes.

e.     The landlord ensures that complaints are acknowledged within its complaint policy timescales and that residents are adequately updated where there is likely to be a delay in responding to a complaint to ensure that a resident’s expectations are successfully managed.

78. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within four weeks.