Waltham Forest Council (202213576)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213576

Waltham Forest Council

29 September 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 damp and mould reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of the decant process.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy and the property in question is a three bed flat on the fifth floor of a purpose built block. The tenancy began on 14 January 2019. The landlord’s records show that during this complaint it identified that the residents have mobility issues and mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 23 March 2022, which was identified as being due to a leak from the bathroom. The landlord identified that the required works would involve the resident being decanted from the property temporarily.
The landlord said that suitable temporary accommodation could not be sourced to meet the resident’s needs but agreed to a permanent decant. The resident raised a complaint around the damp and mould issues and the decant process as they had to remain in the property while awaiting a permanent move. A permanent move was later sourced for the resident’s and they moved on 22 November 2022.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy uses seven different response times as below:
1. Emergency (2 hours)
2. Emergency (4 hours)
3. Emergency (24 hours)
4. Routine (24 hours or next working day)
5. Routine (3 days)
6. Urgent (Within 5 calendar days)
7. Routine (Within 21 calendar days)
8. 45 Day (Within 45 calendar days)
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it should contact the resident and arrange an inspection within the following timeframes:
1. Severe – within 7 working days.
2. Moderate – within 14 working days.
3. Low – within 21 working days.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The landlord’s Temporary Accommodation Allocations policy says that “the council does not have sufficient units of temporary accommodation within its own stock, and as a result, we rely on a supply of privately owned properties”.
The landlord’s decant and temporary accommodation policies make no mention of pets.
The landlord uses a two-stage complaint process compromising:
1. Stage one – Landlord should provide a response within 20 working days.
2. Stage two – Landlord should provide a response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 23 March 2022, the resident reported “mould in hallway wall, bathroom wall and in one of the daughters bedrooms”. The landlord visited the property to assess the issue but no date was recorded for the visit.
The landlord raised a works order on 29 March 2022, this included:
1. “Servicing and overhauling” of shower pump.
2. Repair or replacement of affected plasterboards.
3. Renewal of vinyl tiles in hallway.
4. Door frame repair.
5. Renewal of bathroom door.
6. Renewal of the bathroom floor.
7. Installing new shower doors.
8. Decoration of the bathroom once repairs were completed.
Internal emails show that a local councillor emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 requesting a joint visit to the property, as they had been told that “nothing has taken place following a surveyor’s visit”.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord attended the property and found “the hallway along with the bathroom floor is currently sitting under 12mm of water”. Its internal report said this was “being sucked up into the plasterboard stud walls which then causes a build-up of black mould”. The landlord found that the excess water from the shower was “running towards the door due to the direction of the falls on the screed”. It said the problem was also occurring in a different property in the building but “they manage the water over run by mopping it up immediately”. It recommended that the resident’s be placed in temporary accommodation until the required works were completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2022 and requested that they be moved out of the property while works were undertaken. They said that the level of damp was affecting their health, as members of the household had asthma and they were having to wear masks in the bathroom as a result. On the same day, the landlord requested details of the makeup of the household.
A referral to the Housing Options team was completed on 12 April 2022, this recommended arrangements be made for the residents to be decanted temporarily.
On 13 April 2022, an order to replace the shower pump was raised. The order said it should be replaced “regardless of the status on the day, as it had failed again”. A further order was raised to “clear blockage to shower waster and check stack”. The landlord noted that these works were completed on the same day and the residents were able to use the shower and bath following these repairs.
After attending on 14 April 2022, another works order was raised for an “uncontainable leak from toilet”. This work was recorded as being completed on the same day.
Internal emails from the landlord show that on 19 April 2022, it had requested an update on the availability of temporary accommodation. The reply explained that it had not been able to locate anything that met the residents requirements.
On 20 April 2022, a representative on behalf of the resident emailed the local councillor. Within the email, she explained that aside from the damp and mould, the property was no longer suitable for the residents. They explained that the resident had been a victim of crime and “no longer feels safe in the area” and another resident was a wheelchair user who “cannot use the lift due to her claustrophobia”. She said that they had been “advised that contractors will arrive on 26 April 2022 and that a temporary decant will be necessary”. They explained that the resident’s preference would be a permanent decant and they would consider moving out of the area.
Internal emails from the landlord on 29 April 2022 said that they were still unable to find a suitable property for a temporary decant. It also questioned whether “we could do these works in a staged fashion”. The response explained that a contractor had attended on 26 April 2022 to “carry out the necessary works to the bathroom, which will allow the resident to be able to use the bathroom without flooding out the property”. It said that the contractors “were refused access by the resident who said that we will need to go through her solicitor”. The emails explained that the bathroom works would have taken between 1.5 and 2 days to complete. The landlord confirmed that most of the initial estimate of several weeks to complete the work was for the plasterboard and decorating works. The landlord said that these timeframes had been explained to the resident and that it was “seeing if they can work out a way to do the work with the resident in-situ given the challenge of finding something appropriate for their needs”. However, this Service has not had sight of evidence of this being explained to the residents.
Internal landlord emails from 9 May 2022 show that the leaks had led to damage that was causing issues with electrical systems in the building. The landlord arranged for an emergency inspection to identify and repair the cause of the leaks.
A representative for the resident raised a stage one complaint on 9 May 2022. Within the complaint, they requested an update on the situation and that the residents be moved either temporarily or permanently to a more suitable property. Within the complaint, they raised the following points:
1. The ongoing leaks had led to damp and mould in the property.
2. Resident’s health issues were “being exacerbated due to the disrepair in the property”.
3. The landlord had incorrectly informed the resident’s that they would be moving to temporary accommodation on 26 April 2022.
4. There had been no temporary accommodation arranged that would allow the required works to be completed.
5. The property would continue to be unsuitable for the residents after the required repairs were completed, due to accessibility issues and other vulnerabilities.
Within its later complaint response, the landlord said it had offered hotel accommodation in May 2022. It said the resident had declined the offer as it would not accommodate their two dogs.
The landlord noted on 10 May 2022 that following its offer of hotel accommodation, it did not hold an accurate record of the makeup of the household. It said it previously only had three people, the resident, one son and one daughter. However, in the property but the decant list had four people on it, the resident, her partner, one daughter and one step daughter. Verification of the household makeup was required to assist with further searches for suitable temporary accommodation.
A further works order was raised on 12 May 2022 to repair a leak to the toilet in the resident’s property. Upon completion of the works, a dehumidifier was provided to assist with drying out the property.
On the same day, an audit was completed on the makeup of the household to assist with finding a suitable decant property. The landlord identified that there were four people living in the property and two dogs. It found that it had only given permission for one of the dogs and the resident had provided a permission request for the other.
Internal emails from the landlord show that it arranged an internal meeting on 7 June 2022, to discuss the progress in arranging a decant for the residents. Within this, there was mention of an accessible property that was under consideration for the residents.
On 26 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint and apologised to the representative. Within its response, which was not labelled as a stage one response, it included the following:
1. It said “departure of staff has created a backlog”.
2. It asked “can you please advise if the works are still in progress or if they have now been completed”.
3. It said “it is for the Housing Management department to arrange the decant”.
4. It said “I have chased up the contractor for an update on the status of the repair and will update you shortly”.
5. It added “once I received confirmation from them I will discuss the matter with my Head of Service to see whether compensation is due for the inconvenience”.
The resident’s representative responded the next day to advise that the “situation had not been resolved”. They said that through correspondence with the landlord, they “think there is a potential property for the family to move into, but I am not sure of the timeline or suitability of the property”.
Internal emails from the landlord in early July 2022 show that the property it had considered for the resident’s, would likely be delayed, due to further works that were required before a handover. The landlord discussed offering an alternative new build property, as “it looks like they might be coming back to us first”. The resident’s representative was updated with this information on 4 July 2022.
The resident’s representative escalated the complaint to stage two on 6 July 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 15 July 2022. It explained that the delay in responding was due to the complaint being “logged anonymously” on its website, rather than against the resident’s account.
The resident’s representative requested an update on 26 July 2022 as the resident’s “conditions are deteriorating as they remain in the unsuitable flat”.
On 29 July 2022, an internal email at the landlord said that it had identified another two bed new build property that was on the ground floor and wheelchair accessible would soon become available. An instruction was made to offer the resident’s a viewing of the property but it noted it could not currently complete a sign off, as the property was yet to be handed over to the landlord.
The resident’s attended a viewing of the proposed property on 1 August 2022. Internal emails from the landlord show that the resident’s said they were happy to move to the property. It said that the handover date from the developer was 8 August 2022.
An internal email from the landlord on 2 August 2022 details questions asked as part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint. It asks what further actions were taken after the offer of a hotel, whether rehousing the dogs was discussed or offered at the landlords cost and whether they requested further assistance from the housing team.
The landlord explained to this Service within the information provided that hand over of the property from the developers did not go ahead on 8 August 2022. It said this was due to issues with the “boiler sign off”.
An internal email sent on 30 August 2022 partially details the outcome of the investigation. It acknowledged that the response was already overdue and asked for “sign off” on the response. Within the email it said “regrettably due to their high backlog, I have not been provided with a response from repairs to my enquiries or feedback when I sent the first version for sign off”.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord issued the stage two complaint response. Within the response it said the following:
1. It apologised for “poor communication regarding the incident of 26 April 2022 about the provision of temporary accommodation”.
2. It was unable to find temporary accommodation that met the resident’s needs outside of a hotel, but this was unwilling to accommodate their dogs.
3. It said it “did all they could to find suitable accommodation. However, there was no temporary accommodation available to accommodate the family and their pets”.
4. It acknowledged that the initial complaint was incorrectly dealt with as a service request rather than a stage one complaint.
5. It partially upheld the complaint and offered a compensation payment of £250 due to “poor communication”, “distress inconvenience and uncertainty” and “time and trouble”.
The resident’s representative contacted this Service on 26 September 2022 to request a review of the complaint.
On 22 November 2022, the residents completed a permanent move to the new build two bed property they had viewed on 1 August 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident distress as they experienced damp and mould in the property. Aspects of the complaint relate to the impact of their living conditions on their health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports.

The first report of damp and mould was made on 23 March 2022. This was recorded by the landlord as a “routine” works order, which should have been attended within three days, in line with its repair policy. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it attended, as the job was marked as “cancelled” and does not show any completion date. Given that the next works order, a list of required works was not recorded until 29 March 2022, this suggests that either the landlord did not attend within three days, or it did but it failed to log the required works for several days. This demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, and potentially a failure to meet its own repairs policy timeframes. Given the nature of the problem, the landlord has not shown an adequate degree of urgency in managing the first reports of damp and mould.
When the landlord attended the property, it found the cause of the damp was a significant amount of water leaking from the bathroom. It is clear from the list of repairs it logged in its works order on 29 March 2022, that the remedial works required were significant.
Despite the level of damp and mould present found at the property, the landlord did not attend again until 11 April 2022. Its second attendance at the property followed an email from the local councillor, expressing concerns at the level of damp and mould and the lack of action taken after its surveyor had attended. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord as it was clear from photographs, the works order raised following the survey and its own further inspections, that the level of damp and mould was severe and required urgent intervention either works, or treatment or both. This demonstrates a lack of urgency to address a serious issue in the property that carried a potential health risk to the resident’s, particularly so given that the landlord was aware of vulnerabilities at the property.
After identifying the cause of the damp and mould, this Service has not seen any record of the landlord carrying out works, such as a mould wash, to limit the risks posed by its presence. Although the lack of it being recorded does not mean that it was not carried out, the landlord is unable to demonstrate that it took an important step in treating the damp and mould problem.
Given the level of damp identified at the property, any application of a mould wash would not have lasted long before it required it again. However, this should have been undertaken, along with an offer or install of a dehumidifier at this stage to limit the resident’s exposure to the mould, until it could either stop the cause of the damp or carry out the required works. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, which could only have caused further distress to the resident during an already difficult situation.
After identifying the source of the leaks, the landlord replaced the shower pump and repaired a significant leak from the toilet. The repair logs show that these issues were addressed by 14 April 2022 and it was noted that the resident was able to fully utilise the bathing facilities again afterwards. However, at this stage the landlord did not take steps to dry out the property with a dehumidifier. Although it did provide one later in the process, it should have been done at this time at the point after the initial visit in response to the first reports. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, as it would have offered a practical interim measure in mitigating the adverse impacts of the damp and mould in the property. This lack of any mould wash or the provision of a dehumidifier meant that although the leaks were stopped, the damp and mould was still unresolved , adding to the resident’s exposure and continued concerns around the risk to their health and that of their household.
A further repair was made to the toilet on 12 May 2022 after another leak was identified.. Following these works, the landlord arranged for a dehumidifier to assist with drying out the property and preventing further damp related damage.
As the landlord was unable to carry out the required works with the resident’s in situ, the actions it then took were reasonable. It had treated the cause of the damp, educated the resident on how to avoid excess water leaks while the bathroom repairs remained outstanding and addressed the damage caused, as best it could. It also agreed with the resident to delay the required works until they had been decanted. Therefore, after addressing the leaks and drying out the property, the landlord was not in position to carry out any of the other required works until such time as suitable temporary accommodation was secured.
Following the works on 12 May 2022, there are no other reports or records of damp and mould related works being carried out at the property, prior to the resident’s decanting on 22 November 2022. This means that during this time, works to correct the wet room install, a potential mould wash and the replacement of the affected wall surfacing remained outstanding. It would have been good practice for the landlord to remain in contact with the residents during that time. This would have allowed it to ensure that the leaks had not reoccurred, or the mould not worsened and suitably update the resident on any further planned actions.
It is clear that the landlord failed to act quickly when damp and mould was identified during its first visit, showing a lack of urgency that heightened the residents concerns.. It then required further prompts before taking action to identify and stop the cause of the leaks which were causing the damp and mould. During this process, there were record keeping issues, with works orders incorrectly recorded as “cancelled” along with other visits and works that do not show on the repair logs. Once the landlord stopped the leaks, it took reasonable steps to address the damp and mould they had caused within the property. However, as a consequence of its inability to secure suitable temporary accommodation it was then unable to carry out the required corrective works to the bathroom and other works.. This extended the period of exposure to mould spore risk , and cannot but have engendered avoidable distress. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the decant process.

On 11 April 2022, the landlord identified that given the intrusive nature of the works, the residents should not be in the property while they were completed. This Service has seen evidence of the landlord taking steps to start the process of decanting the residents from the property and to identify suitable temporary accommodation. Further emails show that it was actively looking for accommodation but it could not find any that met the resident’s needs. However, it is clear that during this period, there were miscommunications, as the resident was left under the impression they were being moved on 26 April 2022. Instead, contractors attended to complete works, despite the resident’s still awaiting temporary accommodation. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it had agreed that works would not be carried out with them in the property. This would likely have caused unnecessary confusion and distress to the resident’s.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord discussed difficulties in finding temporary accommodation for the residents. However, it failed to update the resident of its efforts or its considerations. Given the level of damage and the resident’s concerns of its effects on their health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident’s updated throughout this period. Instead, it’s responses typically only followed enquiries from the resident or their representative. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord that left the resident’s in a state of uncertainty and concerned for their health. The lack of effective communication during this time, even if the landlord was making reasonable efforts , would have left them feeling distressed in their mould damaged home with no certainty as to when the situation would end.
The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy says that it does not hold enough stock and it relies on privately owned properties. In view of this, it is understandable that it found it difficult to find a privately owned ground floor, accessible property that would allow pets to be kept there.
The landlord’s decant policy makes no mention of pets and how they would be considered during a decant process. As the policy does not provide any sort of exemption of pets, it would be reasonable to assume that they would therefore be considered part of the household during the process. In view of this, the resident’s refusal of the hotel accommodation offer is understandable, as the dogs would still require housing during the decant process.
Within its email dated 2 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged that further consideration of the dogs should have been made. It suggested discussing the dogs being placed with family, friends, or a stay in kennels during the works. The landlord also asked whether it had offered to pay for the dogs to stay in kennels, which implies that this had been done before. However, this Service has not had sight of any evidence of such discussion taking place, or any proposal by the landlord to assist with it. This demonstrates a lack of consideration of alternatives, a lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach and highlights the need for its policy to include details of the landlord’s position around pets during a decant process. In view of this, a recommendation has been made for an addition to the decant policy.
As the requirement for the move to temporary accommodation was due to a defect in the landlords installation of the bathroom, it is the view of this Service that the landlord should have offered to cover the cost of rehousing both the resident’s and their dogs. Had it done so, the required works could have been completed to the property, removing the need for a permanent decant. This would have reduced the time that the residents were in the property whilst it showed signs of the damage caused by the damp and mould.
It is clear from the resident’s emails during this period that they preferred a permanent decant to a different property, as they felt the current property was unsuitable for broader reasons. In June 2022, the landlord identified two potential new build properties that met the resident’s needs but neither had completed a hand over from the developer. After the first was delayed in July 2022, it allowed the resident’s to view the other on 1 August 2022 and indicated it would be handed over one week later. This property handover was then delayed, and this meant that the resident waited a further three and a half months before being able to move into it in November 2022. This was a failing on the landlord’s part as it raised the resident’s expectations incorrectly. This would have caused further distress given that the resident was living in the property with the potential for further issues with damp and mould as the underlying problem in the bathroom had still not been repaired.
This Service accepts that delays with developers can occur and landlords are not always in a position to resolve them. However, it can only be seen as good practice to maintain regular contact with the resident’s during this time to provide updates as to the current situation. This Service has not had sight of any regular contact between the landlord and the resident during this delay. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it has not offered reassurance to the resident’s that they were monitoring the process to minimise any further delay.
It is worth noting that despite the damage to the property and the concerns around damp and mould, the landlord was not obligated to provide a permanent decant. It could have followed its decant policy and provided a priority status within the housing and allocations process for rehousing them either permanently or during the required works. This would have meant that the resident’s would have had to bid on available properties in competition with others in housing need. However, it has worked outside of that process in this instance, albeit with some mistakes and delays along the way, which has eventually been to the benefit of the resident in terms of the overall outcome.
Ultimately, the landlord did take steps to arrange suitable temporary accommodation but it struggled due to the requirements of the resident. The landlord could have taken further steps to arrange temporary accommodation that would have allowed the works to be undertaken. However, given the resident’s desire to move to a different property, its difficulty locating a temporary accommodation did lead to an outcome that worked for both parties. The resident was moved to a new and more suitable property. There were failings in the initial stages of the process, delay factors and once a new property was agreed, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed of the delays. When all factors are considered in its management of this process, cumulatively the landlords actions and omissions amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating stage one process which was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. The process it used said that stage one complaint responses would be made within 20 working days. However, this Service is pleased to note that it has since adopted a process that is in line with the Code.
After the stage one complaint was raised on 9 May 2022, the landlord failed to acknowledge it until 26 June 2022, some 34 working days later. Its response did not demonstrate any investigation of the issues having been carried out. Instead it offered a reason for the delay in its response, asked if the issues remained outstanding and said they would seek further updates and information. Having received this response, the resident was no better off, as none of their concerns had been addressed in any meaningful way. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it has failed to meet its own timeframes and its response showed no evidence of it following the principles of effective dispute resolution.
The resident escalated their complaint on 6 July 2022 but the landlord failed to provide a stage two response until 31 August 2022, some 40 working days later. The reason for the escalation is not specified as the resident’s representative only referred back to the previous complaint. The response provided by the landlord addressed the key issues that had been raised at the time of the initial complaint and actions that had taken place since then.
Prior to issuing the stage two response, the landlord said that it had not received replies from other departments around their response to the complaint. It said this was likely due to a “high backlog”. Although these kind of delays are not uncommon and sometimes unavoidable, the complaint response was already late in being issued. In order to ensure that the investigation was to the highest possible standard, the landlord should have ensured it had received the required information prior to issuing its response or if necessary advised of the delay reasons and agreed a new issue date with the resident. Although the information in its response regarding reasons for the delay may be correct, it expressed its own concerns at the time, which calls into question the quality of its overall complaint management practices. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it was willing to compromise on the accuracy and completeness of its response, in order to send it out, despite it already being significantly outside of its own target timeframes..
The landlord disputed that there had been an agreement over temporary accommodation being offered before 26 April 2022 but it is reasonable that it acknowledged there had been miscommunication around it. It acknowledged that it failed to manage the stage one complaint in line with its own policy but despite acknowledging it at the start of the letter, it does not include this delay within its summary of the overall complaint. The landlord provided some detail around the search for temporary accommodation but overlooked that the offer it did make was not suitable, as it did not account for their pets. Further to this, it did not acknowledge the lack of communication there had been around the decant process and the ongoing delays at that time, while they were awaiting hand over of the property from the developer. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to show a full understanding of both the complaint and empathy for the resident at that time.
After receiving the resident’s complaints, the landlord failed to address it initially as a complaint, failed to meet its own timeframes and did not demonstrate a full understanding of the complaint. When it did provide its response, it overlooked some of its failings and the current delays with the decant process. Further to this, it acknowledged issuing its response without having sourced what it must have considered to be relevant key information, meaning it was not assured its response which lacked any certainty as to when a genuine resolution could be expected. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of damp and mould reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the decant process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the complaint process.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports.

The landlord initially failed to show an adequate degree of urgency to address a significant damp and mould problem. Despite acknowledging early on that this was a defect with the installation of the bathroom, it took over two weeks to begin any action to address the cause of the leaks. Vulnerable residents were left waiting in a property with severe damp and mould which posed risks to them. The delay only adding to the damage caused by the damp and mould. Once it stopped the leaks it did take some reasonable steps to address the damp but further works could not be completed due to the requirement for a decant. The landlord’s record keeping around this period was also inadequate .

The landlord’s handling of the decant process.

The landlord did actively seek temporary accommodation, once it identified that the residents could not be in the property while the works were undertaken. However, it failed to keep the resident’s informed throughout and it’s only offer was a hotel that could not accommodate their dogs. No further discussions or considerations were made in terms of temporary accommodation, following the resident’s refusal. Although this is a failing on the part of the landlord, this led to the decision to find a permanent decant for the resident, which is what they desired throughout. Following its decision to look for a permanent decant property, the landlord acted quickly in identifying a suitable property. However, it set expectations incorrectly around when they could move in, as the developer had not handed the property to it at the time of the offer. There was then a significant delay, during which time the resident was not kept informed as to the progress it was making, leaving the resident in an uncertain position as to when they could except to move from the damp property..

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord failed to address the stage one complaint correctly as it was managed as a service request. The initial response was provided outside of the timeframes in its policy and it did not address the issues raised within the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint but did not provide a response by the date it initially offered. Internal emails show that during its investigation, it sought information that was then not mentioned within its response. This demonstrated either a lack of thorough investigation into the complaint, or an unwillingness by the landlord to acknowledge its failings. Further to this, the landlord acknowledged not having all of the information it wanted prior to issuing a response, calling into question the accuracy and its own confidence in the response it provided. Ultimately, the resident was not afforded a thorough investigation or resolution of their dissatisfactions, in line with the Complaint Handling Code. Despite these delays, the landlord failed to acknowledge or offer remedy for its failings nor address the significant delay with the handover of the new property.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £1250 to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report. This payment is made up of the following elements:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the management of the damp and mould reports.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and associated management of the search for temporary accommodation and the eventual decant.
3. £250 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensuring it have adequate oversight measures in place to meet timeframes set out in its repair policy in respect of damp and mould.
2. Ensure adequacy of records when repairs and inspections are taking place and detailing the outcomes.
3. Ensure that residents are kept informed, with adequate records made, of searches for temporary accommodation or decant properties with particular reference to decant requirement involving pets.
4. Knowledge refresh for relevant staff re complaint handling timeframes and managing complaints in line with the Code.
5. Ensure that thorough complaint investigations are undertaken and responses are only issued once it is entirely satisfied with the completeness of its responses, utilising resident agreed time extensions where required and justified.