Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited (202105585)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105585

Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited

1 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould;
2. Response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen and bathroom;
3. Response to various other repairs, including a defective gulley;
4. Complaint handling;
5. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and her husband are joint tenants. Their assured tenancy began in April 2018. The property is a three-bedroom house with a garden. The resident’s husband has a number of vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. They include a heart condition, depression, anxiety, Attention-deficit disorder and Fibromyalgia. Over time the resident became her husband’s full-time carer.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in good repair. This includes drains, gutters, pipes and any fittings the landlord has provided such as kitchen units. It shows the landlord will carry out any repairs it is responsible for “within a reasonable period and within any time limits set by law”. The landlord will advise what these time limits are depending on the type of repair.
The landlord’s relevant repairs and maintenance policy shows its standard 28 day response timescale for non-emergency repairs was suspended in response to the pandemic. Its website shows the landlord had not reverted to its pre-Covid timescales at the time of this assessment. The policy does not specify how often cyclical upgrades, such as full kitchen replacements, should take place.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective January 2021, can be found online. It confirms the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage one. Stage two consists of a panel hearing to be held within 20 working days of an escalation request. A written response will be issued within ten days of a panel hearing.
The policy confirms complainants are given ten working days, following a stage one response, to request an escalation. Further, they are required to explain the reason for their continuing dissatisfaction. It also confirms the landlord handles allegations of fraud or misconduct through the landlord’s Anti-Fraud Policy rather than its complaints procedure.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman has seen the property’s repair records from 6 March 2018. The first reference to damp was dated 9 October 2018. The corresponding notes said the landlord should assess damp patches on the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. At least six subsequent repair orders reference damp or leaks in these rooms. The repair records show the following key points:
1. Images taken during a survey in May 2019 show significant wet patches on walls and ceilings in the kitchen and bathroom. One image of the bathroom ceiling appears to show some localised mould growth around pipe boxing. No mould was noted in the other images. A works order to replaster a bathroom wall was raised around the same time.
2. Before the events detailed below, the last repair order referencing external works was dated 8 October 2019. Corresponding notes show a survey had identified a number of repairs. Further, the property’s roof tiles and leadwork were being checked. The most recent related repair record was dated 22 December 2020. It said the bath was leaking while in use and water was escaping through the kitchen ceiling. The order was not marked complete, so the landlord’s response is unclear.
3. Despite several investigations and repair attempts, the records show the leak, and the associated damp and mould, proved persistent over a number of years.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 February 2021. The subject heading was “Queries”. She said her husband was referred to the local authority’s Occupational Therapy Team having been recently diagnosed with Fibromyalgia. Because his mobility was affected and he was in constant pain, the resident was seeking a grant to adapt the property’s bathroom. The email also raised a number of concerns. The resident’s main points were:
1. After moving to the property in 2018, the resident was advised the kitchen was due for renewal in two years. The landlord later gave a longer replacement timescale. The resident was unhappy with this contradictory information.
2. A leak affecting the kitchen and bathroom had been ongoing since 2019. Having moved some radiator covers, the resident found the property was missing a number of storage heaters.
3. The property did not meet required standards but the resident’s concerns had been unfairly dismissed since the tenancy began. Given her husband’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should resolve the situation as soon as possible.
The landlord’s senior surveyor replied on 15 February 2021. The email suggests they spoke to the resident earlier that day. It included images of the property’s kitchen and bathroom, which the surveyor said were taken before the property was let to resident. The main points were:
1. An independent stock condition survey in 2020 confirmed the kitchen and bathroom did not need replacing until 2025 and 2030 respectively. The survey confirmed both rooms met the Government’s Decent Homes standards. (The Ombudsman has checked this information in the survey).
2. The landlord understood the resident wanted to raise a formal complaint. A case would be opened in due course. Funding for adaptations was a matter for the local authority.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day. It said it would respond to her kitchen and bathroom replacement concerns within 20 working days.
Around 18 February 2021, the resident requested copies of the property’s repair and void records from the beginning of the tenancy, along with the stock condition survey and installation dates for the kitchen and bathroom. She said the landlord’s images were edited. Further, she was pressured to raise a formal complaint during the discussion on 15 February 2021. Her main points were:
1. A leak the resident reported several times was not addressed for nine months. Though it was now resolved, she was concerned it had damaged the kitchen and bathroom, along with the property’s gable end.
2. Despite the installation of a new extractor fan, the bathroom was “very damp” causing mould spots to form.
On 4 March 2021 the resident updated the landlord by email. She said she had met with an Occupational Therapist, who would contact the landlord about the bathroom and a stairwell banister.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around 18 working days after it raised a formal complaint. The response acknowledged the resident’s emails on 18 February and 4 March 2021. It addressed multiple issues including: the resident’s requests for a replacement kitchen and bathroom; her request for the property’s repairs and maintenance information; the leak; mould and the property’s heating, along with the resident’s concerns she was not given a copy of tenancy agreement. The main points were:
1. The kitchen and bathroom were installed around 2001. In 2020 an independent surveyor suggested replacement dates of 2025 and 2030 respectively. The kitchen replacement date was consistent with advice the resident was given by a surveyor in 2019. The resident acknowledged this advice in an email and there was no evidence she was given an alternative timescale.
2. The landlord previously agreed to review the kitchen’s layout, but this agreement was superseded by the surveyor’s comments in 2019. During a recent inspection, the landlord noted a narrow base unit was missing. Because health and safety regulations required worktops to be present on both sides of a cooker, the landlord’s repairs team would install a new section of worktop.
3. The landlord’s kitchen and bathroom replacement programmes were determined by the results of its stock condition surveys. A copy of the survey was included with the response. The kitchen was fitted in line with regulations. Its suitability for her husband’s health conditions was a matter for the local authority. In relation to the bathroom, the landlord would cooperate with the Occupational Therapist.
4. The landlord’s records showed electric storage heaters were installed throughout the property at the beginning of the tenancy. Central heating was recommended during an inspection on 22 February 2021 (The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report). The landlord would re-attend the property to specify an oil powered central heating system in the next few weeks. A separate damp survey would also be completed on 15 March 2021.
5. The landlord acknowledged the property suffered a leak. Video footage the resident provided showed water exiting the property through “weep holes” in a wall. These holes were intended to allow water to escape. The landlord understood the leak was now resolved after several years. Its repair history showed there had been a number of leaks at the property and the landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused. Any residual damp or damage should be identified during the upcoming survey.
6. Copies of the repairs information were provided in a separate document. The resident’s concerns about the tenancy agreement had been passed to the landlord’s tenancy team, who would contact her in due course.
The resident replied on 24 March 2021. This was around nine working days after the stage one response. She queried the kitchen installation date based on information in the stock condition survey. She asked which installation date was correct because the survey indicated the kitchen was installed in 2000. She also said the landlord failed to provide her requested list of void works. Her main points were:
1. A surveyor inspected the property and said there was no damp. The resident was waiting for their report. The landlord’s repairs information showed it was slow to react to the resident’s reports of leaks and damp over two years. This was unfair because the leak caused mould growth and the family were vulnerable.
2. The resident had secured a grant to replace the bathroom and she was happy with the landlord’s progress in relation to the heating. However, she was waiting to hear from its tenancy team and she did not agree the surveyor’s 2019 comments superseded any previous agreement.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord asked the damp surveyor for their report. Repair records show the survey was completed on 15 March 2021. The surveyor said a significant leak had been repaired but mould growth was reported around the bathroom window. Further, the resident “seemed fixed” on structural damage from the water leak. However, the surveyor would expect to see various signs of any significant damage. The surveyor also said they were not a structural specialist so they could be wrong. Their main points were:
1. An extractor fan in the bathroom was working. The resident reported damp and rotten pipe boxing, but testing confirmed it was dry. There was also no sign of decay. “Limited” mould growth was identified on the gable wall but the plaster was sound. The surveyor recommended installing “thermal dry” paint on the wall but later felt the works would be negated by the upcoming bathroom refurbishment. The resident accepted their conclusion. The surveyor noted the bathroom was cold but heating works were imminent.
2. In the kitchen, mould growth was identified from the leak above. Though it would benefit from an extractor fan, there was nothing wrong with the kitchen itself and no replacement units were required. The surveyor noted the resident was reluctant to remove the wallpaper. It was therefore difficult to assess what was underneath.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day. It said the stock condition survey was based on an estimated kitchen installation date whereas the landlord’s records reflected the actual completion date. Regardless, the survey’s recommended replacement date remained valid. Further, no additional maintenance information would be provided because it would not include the information the resident wanted. The landlord relayed the full damp surveyor’s report to the resident. It said it would refer the property to a structural surveyor if there was any evidence of cracked plaster or brickwork joints. Further, it would raise a works order for a kitchen extractor fan.
Repair records show the landlord installed a staircase handrail and adapted the existing banister rail on 8 April 2021. Images of the completed works show the banister was fixed to the wall using with a piece of timber placed around half way up the stairs. The image suggests the timber exceeds the height of the banister.
On 12 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord a list of around five concerns. She requested the kitchen’s installation date. She also asked when pipe boxing in the kitchen and bathroom would be investigated, and when the new section of worktop would be fitted. She said she was entitled to the property’s repair information and she may submit a Subject Access Request (SAR). Further, the landlord preferred to communicate by phone so there were no records of discussions. In addition, the landlord unfairly closed her complaint prior to the response deadline.
The landlord replied the following day. Its email included a link to a SAR request form. It said it could not provide more accurate information about the kitchen’s installation date. Nevertheless, following an inspection, there was no evidence it needed replacing before 2025. In relation to the pipe boxing, the landlord reiterated that bathroom works would be negated by the refurbishment. It said the only kitchen works needed concerned the worktop and extractor fan. It offered to communicate by email. It also said her complaint was closed because the resident only asked for clarification.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2021. She said her complaint was unfairly closed contrary to its complaints procedure. Further, the landlord failed to help her resolve damp and mould issues she experienced over two years. Additionally, its incomplete repair records contained incorrect information and the property was damaged. She also said most of the necessary void works were not completed prior to the tenancy. Her key points were:
1. The surveyor noted water marks and damp patches in the bathroom and kitchen. They also saw damage to the wall and floor around pipe boxing, which included: loose tiles, a loose power socket and a lifting floor covering. The surveyor said the likely cause was water damage over a prolonged period.
2. The resident was concerned about the above items, along with damage behind plaster on the property’s gable wall. Her husband’s pain management consultant recently advised spending prolonged periods in cold, damp and mouldy conditions was known to cause Fibromyalgia. The resident would approach the Ombudsman to pursue her concerns.
The landlord’s, undated, complaint timeline indicates it visited the resident on 20 May 2021 to discuss the complaint. It said the landlord was shown examples of mould around window reveals and a missing gulley-top. Further, the landlord acknowledged there were issues with completed works to the stairwell banister.
Subsequent correspondence between the parties confirms the landlord completed another home visit on 26 May 2021. The information seen indicates it inspected the roof and pipe boxing with two contractors. The landlord’s complaint timeline suggests the visit prompted the following actions: works to repair roof leak, gulley repair, electrics to kitchen and removal of kitchen pipe boxing. The timeline said there were no signs of damp when the boxing was removed.
In an email on 1 June 2021, the landlord asked the resident to clarify her outstanding concerns. It said this clarification would determine its next course of action. The email referenced proposed works to the property’s roof and a passageway gulley. The resident replied on 3 June 2021. She said the landlord failed to acknowledge the health and wellbeing impacts of its “neglect” and lack of communication over several years. Further, a hazardous open drain was only recently resolved.
The resident approached the Ombudsman around 7 June 2021. We asked the landlord to confirm the complaint’s status. The landlord responded on 22 June 2021. It said the case was investigated at stage one but the resident declined to escalate her concerns. Nevertheless, it would contact her and begin a stage two investigation.
In an email on 23 June 2021, the resident again told the landlord her complaint was closed unfairly. Further, promises the landlord made during a home visit were not kept. She said she preferred email communication following a “rude and aggressive” call from the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint timeline indicates all works arising from the home visit on 26 May 2021 were completed by 18 June 2021.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage two acknowledgement. Two days later, it told the Ombudsman a panel hearing was scheduled for 13 July 2021.
On 4 July 2021 the resident detailed her concerns in writing to the panel. The wording used suggests she also provided photographs and video footage. She said she gave the landlord this footage in May 2019. The resident said the roof leaked for three years and the situation was only resolved by her formal complaint. Further, the landlord’s voids information showed it knew about the leak before the family moved in. The resident’s main points were:
1. The landlord made several failed attempts to fix the leak over the years. The resident was now “extremely concerned” about the damage caused to the property. The landlord made false claims about the investigation work it had done.
2. The resident reported a missing drain cover in a passageway several times, but the landlord failed to respond until her son tripped over it. Though it then attended the same day, the landlord’s operative covered the drain with wood while a cover was ordered. Because it was cemented in place, the rear of the property eventually flooded. This prevented the resident using her washing machine, which emptied into the drain. The landlord attempted to resolve the problem by drilling holes in the wood.
3. For several years, inadequate heating from the property’s open fire and outdated storage heaters caused mould growth in the property. After an inspection deemed the open fire dangerous, the landlord provided fan heaters which proved too expensive to run. In contrast, a nearby home recently had central heating installed when a family moved in.
4. The resident was told the property should have storage heaters in every room. She felt the landlord suggested her family removed some of the heaters. Though central heating was now installed, the resident was concerned the property’s condition was linked to her husband’s Fibromyalgia.
5. The kitchen and bathroom were dated when the residents moved in. Around two years ago, the landlord advised replacements were due and the kitchen layout was poor. Several operatives visiting the property were shocked by both rooms. A wet room was now installed through the grant, but the resident wanted the kitchen to be looked at again.
6. The landlord’s attempt to repair the banister was unsafe because a piece of wood had been screwed half way up the stairs. Unless he momentarily lifted his hand from the banister, the resident’s husband was now at risk of catching it on the wood while using the stairs. A surveyor had inspected the repair, but there was no further communication from the landlord.
7. The resident was waiting for a drain to be installed at the rear of the property. This would prevent the patio and garden from flooding. She understood the repair was scheduled for 7 July 2021. However, due to the landlord’s poor communication, she had to call to discover the date. She was also unhappy with the senior surveyor’s handling of her concerns. This was on the basis they were rude and dismissive on the phone and in person. Further, they unfairly closed the resident’s complaint having pressured her to open it.
The landlord provided meeting notes from the panel hearing on 13 July 2021. They show the resident attended part of the hearing. Further, the landlord confirmed she reported the leak from 2018 but it had only recently been resolved. The landlord said misdiagnosis led to multiple inspections and repair attempts. Further, there was “an element of damp condensation”, and the resident had not yet confirmed the situation was fully resolved. The landlord eventually accepted it took too long to repair the leak. The notes show:
1. The landlord understood the leak was resolved on 29 May 2021 after the roof was fully tiled and a soil pipe was capped. It said previous repairs were temporary, but there had been no further reports since the above date. Additionally, there was no internal water damage.
2. The landlord admitted failure in respect of the drain cover. It said it was unacceptable to cover the drain with wood and a replacement cover should have been ordered. Though it admitted the service was poor, the landlord was reluctant to award compensation because it acted quickly to resolve matters.
3. The landlord said repairs had extended the kitchen’s life and it did not need replacing. Further, there was no evidence the resident was given incorrect information about its renewal date. In addition, there were no issues with the bathroom and a level-access shower was recently installed.
4. The landlord strongly disputed any storage heaters were missing when the resident moved in. However, it noted the resident had provided images to the contrary.
5. The resident said the landlord’s void records showed it knew the property had an unresolved roof leak. Nevertheless, it allowed the family to move in regardless and it failed to act until water leaked into the kitchen. Though central heating was now installed, the resident said she could not recall signing the tenancy agreement. Further, she had been taking anti-depressants due to the stress of the situation and the landlord’s senior surveyor was rude.
6. The parties agreed the complaint would be kept open until all required works were complete. Further, the property would be inspected with an Occupational Therapist.
The parties exchanged emails later that day. The landlord set out the issues to be addressed, which included “Heating issues – mould”. It also asked whether any other issues should be included in its final response, which would be issued by 27 July 2021. The resident said she was concerned a recent repair to an electrical socket was inadequate. Further, during an electrical safety inspection, she was advised the supply box was in an awkward position and it may need relocating. She also said her concerns about the tenancy agreement were not included.
The parties exchanged emails again on 27 July 2021. At around 7pm the landlord told the resident it was still working on its final response. Further, it would issue the response by the following day at the latest. The resident replied around an hour later. Her email shows the response had not been issued. The resident said the landlord had failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s response deadline.
The landlord’s stage two response was dated 27 July 2021. Nevertheless, the landlord’s internal correspondence confirms it was issued the following day. The response addressed the following ten issues: staff rudeness and early complaint closure; drain cover and drainage repair; kitchen requirements/issues; stairwell banister; heating issues; drainage issues to the outdoor area; roof leak; electrical concerns; tenancy agreement concerns and compensation. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The main points were:
1. The resident’s stage one complaint was closed after ten working days in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure. Because its complaint correspondence was poor on occasion, the landlord understood why the resident felt her complaint was closed early. The landlord was sorry for any confusion. However, it was unable to find any evidence its staff were rude to the resident.
2. The landlord’s drain repair was contrary to its required standards. The matter had been addressed with an individual staff member. The landlord understood the repair was ultimately completed correctly. It was sorry for the poor quality service and workmanship in relation to the repair.
3. The panel found no reason to disagree with the stock condition survey’s recommended kitchen replacement date. However, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about its layout’s impact on her husband’s health. The landlord would survey the kitchen with an Occupational Therapist. It would implement any recommendations the therapist made. It was willing to contact a therapist on the resident’s behalf.
4. The landlord would assess the banister with the therapist to ensure it met the resident’s needs. Having also reviewed the resident’s electrical concerns, it would inspect the socket repair and the supply box during the kitchen and banister inspection.
5. The landlord was “unable to make any definitive conclusions” about missing heaters. This was because its void images showed radiators were installed in all the property’s bedrooms. The landlord understood the resident was satisfied with the property’s new heating system.
6. In her letter to the panel, the resident said the rear garden was flooded and she was awaiting an inspection. Further, the landlord’s poor communication prompted her to contact it for an appointment date. The landlord’s investigation showed the appointment was suspended due to Covid-19. However, the resident was not given a new appointment date. The landlord agreed it could have contacted her earlier. It was sorry for its poor communication.
7. It took the landlord five attempts, between April 2018 and May 2021, to identify and resolve the roof leak. This was an unacceptable timescale and poor workmanship was a factor. The matter had been raised with the operatives involved. The landlord recognised the impact to the resident’s family and it was sorry for any inconvenience caused. Given the circumstances, it would award discretionary compensation of £300.
8. The landlord would investigate the resident’s tenancy concerns as a separate complaint. It noted the matter was only raised formally at stage two, and it lacked sufficient information to draw any conclusions without further investigation. A new complaint was already raised and the landlord would respond in due course.
9. The landlord felt its offer of £300 compensation was sufficient to redress its identified failures. Though it empathised with the family’s situation, a number of the resident’s concerns fell outside of its complaints process. As a result, the landlord was unable to reach any conclusions about the effect on the family’s health. However, it had identified communication improvements around outstanding repairs and its complaint closure process.
In an email on 29 July 2021 the resident questioned the landlord’s handling of her tenancy agreement concerns. She said addressing them through a new stage one complaint felt like “going backwards”. Further, this approach was contrary to information the landlord previously provided.
On 16 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said it had made several “untrue statements”, and information from its solicitor was contradictory. Further, her tenancy agreement contained “fraudulent signatures” so its legality was questionable. She also said, because it knew about her husband’s disability beforehand, the landlord breached the Equality Act (2010) by allowing the family to move in. She also said the property failed to complete the landlord’s voids process and contained mould. Further, the situation contributed to her husband’s ill health.
The landlord’s repair records show extensive works to the rear gully were completed on 31 August 2021, The repair notes said the works were required because the garden was “still flooding”.
During internal correspondence between 16 and 20 September 2021, the landlord said the resident had stopped responding to its emails. The correspondence shows it was concerned proposed joint inspections with an Occupational Therapist were outstanding. The correspondence said the resident had not accepted its offer to contact her preferred therapist.
In an email to the Ombudsman on 29 November 2021, the resident said the property was unfit for habitation at the outset of the tenancy due to: penetrating damp, the roof leak, significant mould growth in three rooms and insufficient heating. She also said the following issues were further confirmation that the property was in disrepair: hazardous rear access due to missing manhole cover, broken outhouse window, scattered glass in the garden and incomplete void works. Her main points were:
1. The landlord promised to complete all outstanding repairs/void works within the first month of the tenancy. However, the resident soon became concerned it did not intend to fulfil this promise. The landlord’s repair records showed it had marked repair orders complete without attending the property.
2. The resident’s recent video footage confirmed the roof was still leaking during heavy rain. (The Ombudsman has seen several undated videos of water leaking into a covered alley outside the property’s front door). Further, the landlord failed to address her concerns about mould during its final response letter. The resident felt this omission was intentional.
3. The property’s condition significantly impacted the family’s physical and mental health. The resident also spent excessive time engaging with the landlord to resolve issues. She was shocked it had failed to respond to major repairs and she felt her neighbours’ repair requests were treated differently.
The landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman around January 2022. It said all the repair issues raised during the complaint were either “completed or appointed”. However, the resident did not respond to the landlord’s offer of a joint inspection with a therapist.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 17 January 2023. It was understood the original leak was resolved when the landlord replaced a missing cowl missing on property’s soil stack. Further, this repair was completed in response to the resident’s formal complaint. In addition, the ongoing leak related to a covered alley between the property and an outbuilding. The resident said the alley was not covered until later in the tenancy. The following is a summary of the resident’s key points:
1. The family were keen to move to the property due to mould and damp in their previous accommodation. The landlord was aware of their situation and, by failing to complete various repairs, used it against them. The landlord failed to consider the family’s vulnerabilities during the tenancy sign-up process. Contrary to its final response letter, the landlord never responded separately to the resident’s tenancy concerns.
2. Damp patches were visible in the bathroom and kitchen from the outset of the tenancy. Though the patches dried during the summer, they returned in winter months prompting mould growth in corners. The property’s lack of heating contributed to the original mould growth. The landlord played down the resident’s mould concerns and painted over it on several occasions.
3. Given the level of water ingress, the family was concerned about residual structural damage. They felt the landlord unfairly dismissed these concerns. They were also concerned water was still entering the property above the “weep” holes, causing them to discharge significant volumes of water.
4. Inadequate drainage arrangements in the alley had caused periodic flooding. This flooding impacted the garden and the resident’s ability to use her washing machine. Several family members had tripped over the gulley and the family were sometimes unable to access the rear garden through the alley.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline confirms it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s actions. This assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. Any concerns raised following the landlord’s final response, such as unreported mould growth in a bedroom, should be raised with the landlord in the first instance.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
The resident has said the landlord breached the Equality Act (2010) by allowing the family to move in. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

The timeline suggests extractor fans were ultimately installed in the kitchen and bathroom. During her conversation with the Ombudsman, the resident did not raise ongoing mould in these rooms as an outstanding issue. This indicates the problem stemmed from the leaking roof.
The resident has said the landlord was aware the property’s roof was leaking before the tenancy began. While no information was seen to support this assertion, the landlord’s stage two response confirmed the roof repair timeline began in April 2018 (when the family moved in). The evidence suggests the leak was resolved on 29 May 2021, so the overall repair timescale was around 38 months in total. This was an inappropriate delay. The landlord accepted it took “too long” to rectify the leak and it awarded the resident £300 to acknowledge its failures.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
From the information seen, it was difficult to gauge the extent of the damp and mould problems over the above identified period. For example, images from the landlord’s 2019 survey show significant damp patches in the bathroom and kitchen. However, the resident later told the Ombudsman damp was less prevalent during the summer months. She also said the landlord painted over mould on a number of occasions. In contrast, the landlord’s repair records contained very few references to mould.
Further, contrary to one of the included bathroom images, mould was not mentioned in the landlord’s 2019 survey. It is noted mould is a potential health hazard. However, in March 2021, a different surveyor identified “limited” mould growth in the same room. The disparity between the landlord’s repair records and the resident’s comments was notable given her emphasis on the mould. The information seen suggests the landlord’s records failed to capture the presence of mould or accurately reflect the resident’s concerns.
Despite the difficulty, the evidence suggests the landlord’s offer of compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong. For example, it is reasonable to conclude living with a long-term roof leak, along with the resulting damp and mould, caused considerable anxiety for the resident and her family; particularly given her husband’s vulnerabilities. Further, that facilitating multiple repair attempts was inconvenient. The landlord’s repair records show at least six related repair orders were raised over the above identified period.
The resident has said inadequate heating contributed to damp and mould at the property. Further, several storage heaters were missing at the outset of the tenancy. While the resident’s concerns were noted, the Ombudsman was unable to evidence any related failures on the landlord’s part. For example, it was noted the Decent Home standards require a property to provide “a reasonable degree of thermal comfort”.
No information was seen to show the property was confirmed to fall below the above standard. Nor was any information seen to show that excess cold was identified during the timeline. It was noted the landlord ultimately installed a central heating system.
Nevertheless, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. Though it offered the resident compensation to recognise its failures, its award was inadequate given both the duration of leak, and the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put thing right for the resident based on the information seen. The calculation will be based on £100 compensation per month during Autumn/Winter months for the duration of the roof leak timeline.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen and bathroom

Neither the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy specify any obligations around the timing of cyclical upgrades. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say the kitchen is overdue for an upgrade. The landlord has said its decision-making around upgrades is based on the information returned from independent stock condition surveys. This is a reasonable approach and the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant qualified specialists.
In this case, the landlord’s own surveyors inspected the property on a number of occasions following the stock condition survey. No information was seen to undermine the original survey’s recommended replacement dates. For example, no information was seen to suggest the condition of the kitchen deteriorated significantly following the survey. The timeline suggests the landlord was open to implementing adaptations recommended by an Occupational Therapist. This was an appropriate approach from the landlord given the family’s circumstances. It was noted an adapted bathroom was installed during the timeline.
Overall, the Ombudsman was unable to evidence any failure on the landlord’s part. As a result, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen and bathroom. The timeline suggests the resident did not respond to the landlord’s offer of a joint inspection with an Occupational Therapist.

The landlord’s response to various other repairs

The timeline suggests the landlord was alerted to the gulley issues around 20 May 2021. No information was seen to show it knew about the problem significantly earlier. Its stage two response, dated 27 July 2021, apologised for its poor quality service, workmanship and communication in relation to drainage repairs. Repair records show extensive gulley and drainage repairs were not completed until around 31 August 2021. This indicates the overall gulley timeline was around three months.
Given its operations were impacted by the pandemic, the landlord could have reasonably provided the resident an estimated repair timescale. This may have prevented her from contacting the landlord unnecessarily. Given the overall repair timescale, communication and workmanship issues, the evidence suggests landlord’s apologies were insufficient to redress the resident. The landlord should have reasonably considered compensation given what went wrong.
The timeline shows the banister was installed on 8 April 2021. It also shows the landlord acknowledged there were installation issues by 20 May 2021. However, no information was seen to show the resident received any further contact until around the landlord issued its final response around ten weeks later. A joint inspection was a reasonable approach given the resident’s preference for a different type of banister. However, the landlord’s images seen suggest it could have improved the situation in the meantime.
This is because excess timber obstructing the banister could have reasonably been trimmed. Overall, the above suggests the landlord not sufficiently resolution-focussed given the resident’s concerns about her husband’s welfare. The evidence suggests the resident declined to accept the landlord’s proposed joint inspection. Nevertheless, the landlord could have been more proactive during the interim period and the evidence suggests its communication was poor. As a result, the landlord’s response was inappropriate.
Following her email on 29 April 2021, the timeline indicates the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s socket concerns. It suggests electrical works were completed around 26 May 2021 when the landlord attended the property with its contractors. When resident raised concerns about the quality of the repair, around 13 July 2021, the landlord offered to inspect the socket during the joint inspection. This was a reasonable approach given the circumstances. No information was seen to suggest the socket was left in a dangerous state.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to various other repairs. The landlord was insufficiently resolution focussed in relation to the resident’s banister concerns and it missed an opportunity to improve the family’s short-term situation. It should have also considered compensation given the overall drainage repair timescale, and the related quality and communication issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to multiple issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the landlord’s response to the roof leak was a key concern in the resident’s initial “Queries” email. Though the landlord addressed this issue in its stage one response, which apologised for the time taken to resolve the leak, the resident raised the matter again around nine working days later. This confirms she was not satisfied the issue was fairly resolved at stage one. Nevertheless, the timeline suggests her objections were treated as requests for clarification and the complaint was closed.
If it was unsure how to proceed at this point, the landlord could have asked the resident whether she wanted to escalate her complaint. To satisfy the requirements of its complaints policy, the landlord could have also sought to clarify her escalation rationale. The landlord failed to adopt a proactive approach and, ultimately, the resident raised further concerns that her complaint was closed unfairly. Still, the timeline confirms these procedural fairness concerns were not sufficient to prompt the landlord to escalate the complaint internally.
Despite several objection emails from the resident, the timeline suggests the Ombudsman’s intervention, in June 2021, was required to escalate the complaint. This represents an avoidable delay of around three months between 24 March and 22 June 2021. It is reasonable to conclude approaching the Ombudsman was both unnecessary, given the landlord’s internal procedure was incomplete, and inconvenient for the resident. The following observations were also noted in relation to the landlord’s stage one complaint handling:
1. Ten working days is a comparatively short period of time for a resident to respond to a complex complaint.
2. An apology was unlikely to resolve the resident’s primary complaint issue given the duration of the roof leak.
The resident’s experience suggests the landlord should demonstrate flexibility with regards to its stage one closure deadline. This is because strict adherence to the deadline may be seen as a barrier to progressing complaints. Further, to increase the chances of resolving complaints at stage one, the landlord should consider appropriate proportionality when offering redress. Generally speaking, an apology is sufficient to address a minor one-off failure.
The timeline points to further issues at stage two. For example, given its limited impact to the resident, an apology may have been appropriate to address the small delay in issuing the stage two response. However, no information was seen to show the landlord acknowledged this delay and the response was dated incorrectly. Further, despite the landlord’s scoping email on 13 July 2021, the response failed reference “mould”. Since she consistently raised mould concerns during the complaint journey, the resident felt this omission was both deliberate and unfair.
This was contrary to section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which said “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. The relevant provision can now be found in Section 5.6 of the updated Code. If the landlord felt the resident’s mould concerns amounted to a personal injury claim, and were therefore out of scope, it should have made its position clear in the response wording.
The response said a new complaint had been raised to address the resident’s tenancy concerns. The timeline shows these concerns developed during the complaint journey, so this was a reasonable approach from the landlord. For example, the landlord’s stage one response addressed concerns around a failure to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident raised allegations of fraud/misconduct. The landlord was entitled to subject these concerns to both stages of its complaints procedure.
However, no information was seen to show it ultimately responded to the resident’s new complaint. If the landlord was ultimately unable to investigate them under its complaints procedure, it should have referred the resident’s tenancy concerns to the appropriate policy/department and responded accordingly. Similarly, no information was seen to show the landlord responded to the resident’s equality concerns. Though they were raised after the landlord’s final response, the nature of the allegations warranted an appropriate response.
This was inappropriate complaint handling from the landlord. Allegations of this type should be investigated through a landlord’s formal complaints process. In this case the landlord should have raised a new formal complaint to address the issue (or included the matter in its new tenancy complaint). While no information was seen to suggest the resident was treated differently, the evidence indicates her serious concerns remain unaddressed around seventeen months later. This represents a significant failure by the landlord.
In summary, the evidence points to complaint handling delays of around three months along with significant unredressed failures. They include, contrary to the Code, a failure to clearly address the resident’s mould concerns and a failure to respond to appropriately to her separate complaint or discrimination/equality concerns. The above represents maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s apology was disproportionate given what went wrong.

The landlord’s record keeping

As mentioned, the evidence suggests the landlord’s repair records failed to capture the presence of mould or to reflect the resident’s mould concerns. However, the timeline points to a similar pattern in relation to other issues. For example, repair records relating to the drainage works said the garden was “still flooding”. However, the Ombudsman was unable to find an original reference to flooding. Nor was there any record to show the resident’s son had tripped over the gulley.
It was also noted the landlord had to ask the damp surveyor for their report in March 2021. The timeline suggests the request was made around ten days after the inspection took place. The resident’s later comments, from 29 April 2021, indicate the surveyor identified issues, such as the loose socket, that were not referenced in their report. These issues should have been recorded promptly. They should have reasonably been flagged to the relevant department if they were beyond the surveyor’s specialism.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents. Given the above the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s inadequate record keeping impacted the resident and hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould;
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to various other repairs, including a defective gulley;
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling;
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
5. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen and bathroom.

Reasons

Though it offered the resident compensation to recognise its failures, the landlord’s award was inadequate given both the duration of leak, and the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman was unable to evidence any failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord was insufficiently resolution focussed in relation to the resident’s banister concerns and it missed an opportunity to improve the family’s short-term situation. It should have also considered compensation given the overall drainage repair timescale, and the related quality and communication issues.
The evidence points to complaint handling delays of around three months along with significant unredressed failures. They include, contrary to the Code, a failure to clearly address the resident’s mould concerns and a failure to respond to appropriately to her separate complaint or equality/discrimination concerns.
The landlord’s inadequate record keeping impacted the resident and hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,450 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1600 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s protracted response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £300 which the landlord awarded during its stage two response dated 27 July 2021. If the landlord has already paid this sum it should be deducted from the above total.
3. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to various other repairs.
4. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to respond accordingly to the resident’s tenancy and equality/discrimination concerns. Both issues should be handled through the landlord’s formal complaints process in the first instance, until a more relevant policy applies. The landlord should evidence its progress to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the banister obstruction. This is with a view to safely removing the obstruction as soon as possible. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of the outcome of the inspection within four weeks. The landlord could also ask the resident whether she wants to proceed with the joint inspection (with an Occupational Therapist).
The landlord’s leadership to review the record keeping issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. This is with a view to ensuring repair records accurately reflect repair reports, any potential hazards are recorded and survey results are captured promptly and actioned accordingly. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord to review its repairs policy timescales and update the Ombudsman within four weeks. This is to ensure the policy reflects reasonable response timescales. The landlord’s pre-Covid repair timescales, or similar, may be more appropriate given the worst effects of the pandemic are now over.

Recommendations

The landlord to inspect the property in response to the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak affecting the covered alley and mould in a bedroom.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.