Westminster Community Homes Limited (202226266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226266

Westminster Community Homes Limited

18 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor. The resident advised the landlord during the complaint process that she had asthma. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded.
4. The local council are the managing agent for the landlord. The managing agent dealt with the resident’s complaint and repairs on behalf of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, the managing agent will be referred to as the landlord because it works on behalf of the landlord.
5. The resident reported a leak in her bathroom on 26 April 2022. The landlord attended and carried out repairs on the taps, the bath waste pipe, and regrouted the tiles. On 1 November 2022 the resident reported the leak was unresolved and was getting worse daily. The resident raised a complaint on 18 January 2023. She said she reported a leak in May 2022 and the taps were tightened and the tiles were resealed, but this did not resolve the leak. The resident said that she had contacted the landlord on several occasions to report the ongoing leak, but it was still outstanding. She said the leak was getting worse and it was infested with bugs. The resident asked for the leak to be dealt with urgently as it was close to electrical fixtures and said it was dangerous. She requested the repairs to the leak be completed and the affected areas redecorated.
6. On 26 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the leak was reported on 26 April 2022 and again on 1 November 2022. The landlord said it was sorry the resident had to call several times regarding an update on the pending investigation due to be carried out on the leak. It said a contractor was instructed to attend on 21 December 2022 to find the cause of the leak. This resulted in replacing the waste pipes. When this did not resolve the leak, the contractor reattended on 23 December 2022. The contractor recommended the warm lever valves were replaced. The landlord said this repair was booked in for 27 January 2023. It said after the works were complete, it would arrange for the affected areas to be redecorated. The landlord arranged for a pest control team to attend in relation to the resident’s report of bugs. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged there had been delays and no updates. The landlord offered £40 compensation made up of £20 for the lack of communication and £20 for time and trouble pursuing the matter.
7. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 12 July 2023 after being contacted by the Ombudsman. The unresolved issues were the outstanding repairs to the areas of the property affected by the leak, resultant damp and mould and the level of compensation offered at stage 1. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the electrical items affected by the leak. She also stated she had asthma, and the damp and mould were affecting her condition.
8. On 13 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there was a delay in repairing the leak. The landlord said the appointment for 27 January 2023 had gone ahead but work had been delayed. This was because an asbestos survey was needed. This took place on 7 February 2023. The landlord noted there were no records to identify why there were delays from February 2023 until 17 July 2023, when the contractor attended to complete the repair to the leak. It said the redecoration works were carried out on 22 August 2022 and the light fitting repaired on 23 August 2022. The landlord apologised for the delays in carrying out the repairs to the leak. It stated a mould wash was carried out on 21 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in assessing the property’s ventilation system. It said given the resident’s health conditions it should have done better. The landlord advised an appointment for the work to address the ventilation in the property would be arranged.
9. The landlord said the bugs were woodlice which are not a public health pest and therefore it was not responsible for addressing them. It said an inspection on 5 September 2023 found the area was now dry and there were no bugs present. The landlord said it attended in February 2023 to carry out an inspection of the sockets following the leak damage. The landlord said some lights had been tripped and it reinstated the power and lights. The landlord acknowledged its delay in issuing a stage 2 response. It offered £375 compensation comprised of the £40 offered at stage 1, £200 for its delays between February 2023 and July 2023, £75 for its delays in assessing the ventilation system, and £60 for delays in issuing its stage 2 response.
10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 October 2023. She said the outstanding work had only been completed that day. The resident was unhappy with the compensation offered as she initially contacted the landlord about the leak in April/May 2022. She said the landlord had ignored her complaints for “the best part of a year”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak at the property

11. The landlord’s tenant handbook states it is responsible for keeping in good repair:
    1. the structure and outside of the buildings.
    2. the services that supply water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water.
    3. all equipment that we have installed for delivering these services.
12. Under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord also has repair obligations. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
13. The evidence showed the resident reported a leak on 26 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 26 April 2022 as an emergency out of hours appointment which was appropriate and in line with the repair timescales in the landlord’s tenant’s handbook.
14. In response to this leak, the contractor carried out a repair on the taps and the bath waste pipe. It was also identified that the tiling around the bath needed regrouting and a work order was raised for this on 17 May 2022. The Ombudsman was unable to establish why it took until 17 May 2022 to raise a work order for a repair identified on 26 April 2022. This was a delay of 14 working days to raise a work order. This delay was not appropriate or reasonable.
15. The grouting work on the bathroom tiles was completed on 1 July 2022. The appointment for this work was originally arranged for June 2022 but the appointment had to be rearranged by the resident as she had Covid. Any delay to the landlord carrying out the remedial work due to the resident requesting it be postponed was reasonable.
16. On 1 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord with 4 photos of the water damage attached. She stated she had called several times regarding a leak from the bathroom to the front door. The resident said she had told the landlord that the leak was not resolved, and it had assured her it would send a surveyor to carry out an inspection. She said this had not happened. The resident asked the landlord to look into this urgently because the problem was getting worse daily. She said the leak was close to the intercom system and was spreading to the light socket.
17. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the call records from the landlord. However, the resident’s repeated calls were not disputed by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s calls in its stage 1 response. It apologised that the resident had to call the contact centre “several times for an update on the pending investigation works due to be carried out”. It was not appropriate or fair that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for the leak to be investigated and repaired. The landlord should have appropriately logged and responded to this matter. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish why the landlord did not respond in a timely manner to the resident’s concerns about the ongoing leak. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 response.
18. In response to the resident’s email of 1 November 2022, the landlord raised 2 work orders on the same date. One was for the leak which it listed as an “ongoing issue with leak from behind shower to the front door intercom”. The second work order was to “make safe electrics by the intercom and light switches and ceiling light”. The landlord replied to the resident on 2 November 2022 to advise the contractor would attend on 4 November 2022.
19. The Ombudsman was unable to establish why this appointment did not happen sooner, given responding to a leak was covered under The Right to Repair scheme. This is a scheme that gives tenants the right to have urgent repairs completed within a set timeframe. Under The Right to Repair scheme, the response time for a leak is 1 working day. The landlord attended 3 working days after the work order was raised which was not in line with The Right to Repair scheme. This was also not in line with the timeframes stated in its tenant handbook which lists plumbing works as urgent. The tenant handbook says urgent works should be responded to, and the work started, within 24 hours.
20. It was unclear what happened at the appointment on 4 November 2022 but a note on the work order stated a tiler was going to return on 7 November 2022. It was evident that the appointments on 4 November and 7 November 2023 did not resolve the leak because another work order was raised on 8 November 2023. This work order said, “seek remedy of leak”. The work order said the leak was likely to be a burst pipe joint defect from the bath and toilet drainage pipe. It was not clear from the landlord’s records why this work order was raised and where the information about the pipes had come from. However, in an email dated 29 November 2022, the resident advised the landlord that a surveyor attended the property on 8 November 2022. At this visit, the landlord had concluded there was not an issue with the tiles but that there was a pipe defect. It was reasonable to conclude that the work order raised on 8 November 2022 was because of the surveyor’s visit of the same date.
21. However, it appears the work was not booked in and the resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord. This was unreasonable, the landlord should have been monitoring the outcomes of appointments and taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner. The evidence showed the resident contacted the landlord on 25 November, 29 November and 30 November 2022 to chase when the leak was going to be addressed. In her email of 25 November 2022, the resident stated the leak was getting worse, there were bugs in the area affected by the leak, and she was really concerned as the leak was getting “extremely close” to the ceiling light. The resident asked for the matter to be treated urgently.
22. The resident continued to chase the landlord and was quoted in a landlord internal email on 21 December 2022. The resident had told the landlord that after reporting a leak in Spring she had contacted the landlord numerous times. She said the landlord had tightened some taps and sealed tiles but not fixed the leak. The resident said there was now extensive water damage to a wall and provided photos of this. She said a surveyor had attended on 8 November 2022 and told her there was a leak from a pipe behind the tiles. The resident said, “Each time I call, I am told [contractor] will contact me to arrange an appointment, but that does not happen, then when I call/email the council for an update, I’m given a new reference number, and the cycle starts again”. The resident expressed again her concerns about how close the leak was to the electrical items such as lights and the door entry system intercom. She said the light in the living room was no longer working.
23. It was not appropriate or reasonable that a work order raised on 8 November 2022, where a surveyor identified there was a leak coming from a pipe, was still outstanding on 21 December 2022. The delay in contacting the resident to book another appointment unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s distress and wait for a resolution. The landlord has provided no explanation for why it did not arrange this sooner.
24. It was evident that there was a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency from the landlord to resolve the matter. Insufficiently robust procedures and records also added to the unreasonable delays the resident experienced. A landlord internal email sent on 17 December 2022 queried where the job was at. It asked a colleague to check the repairs records, and the jobs raised and advise what the position on the repair was. However, the evidence showed this email was not replied to and was chased again on 21 December 2022.
25. As the resident was struggling to get the repair progressed by the landlord, the resident contacted her member of parliament (MP) for assistance. It appeared that this prompted the landlord to investigate the repair and take some action. While it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the matter on receipt of the MP’s contact, it was unreasonable and unfair that this appeared to be the only way the resident was able to get her repair addressed.
26. On 21 December 2022 the resident was contacted by the landlord to advise its contractor was carrying out some work in other properties in the building. It said the contractor would visit later that day. Work order notes showed the contractor attended on 21 December 2022 and found the leak was “clearly from within” the resident’s property. It arranged to reattend on 23 December 2022.
27. In an email to the landlord dated 21 December 2022, the contractor said it would attend the resident’s property on 23 December 2022 to carry out “further intrusive works” and “to trace the leak”. Work order notes suggested the appointment went ahead on 23 December 2022. It was identified that warm lever valves needed to be replaced.
28. As a result of the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2023, the landlord chased up internal departments and the contractor. In an internal email the landlord noted a work order had stated a plumber was needed to investigate on 6 January 2023. There was no evidence to show this had occurred.
29. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said an appointment had been scheduled to attend the resident’s property on 27 January 2023. This was to carry out a repair to the warm lever valves. This was 35 calendar days after the potential fix for the leak had been identified. Delaying a potential remedy to a leak was not appropriate and not reasonable. The further delay in addressing the leak had meant the leak had continued in the resident’s property causing more damage and distress.
30. A contractor internal email which was added to some work order notes stated, “Does not appear that the FOW appt mentioned in the report below for 23/12/2022 was scheduled in”. This was not appropriate, as mentioned previously, the landlord should be monitoring the outcomes of appointments and taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner.
31. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs states, “If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services”. It was clear from the significant delays the resident experienced that the landlord did not have adequate oversight of the contractor and had not been monitoring the progress of the resident’s repair.
32. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that the appointment arranged for 27 January 2023 went ahead. It said at this appointment the operative identified that there was a leak behind the tiles in the bathroom wall. The repairs logs showed that a work order was raised on 31 January 2023 as a result. The work order said the wall behind the bath, where the stack pipe was, needed drilling out as the leak was not visible. It was listed as a job for 2 people and that an asbestos test was required. The landlord’s internal emails and its stage 2 response confirmed the asbestos test took place on 7 February 2023. The results of the test were sent to the landlord on 9 February 2023 which showed there was no asbestos present.
33. The landlord’s internal emails and an email from the resident evidenced that an appointment had been made for 7 March 2023. This was arranged to knock through the bathroom wall and repair a pipe leak. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish why this appointment was booked in for 7 March 2023. This meant the leak would be affecting the property for another month. At this point the water damage at the property was already considerable as it had been unresolved since it was reported on 26 April 2022.
34. When this appointment was made the contractor did not manage the resident’s expectations about the appointment. On 9 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to ask about the extent of the work, how long it would take and if her household would have any access to their bathroom. This was another example of where the resident was having to reach out to the landlord as the relevant information was not provided. The landlord provided the details requested on 13 February 2023.
35. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023 to say she did not think she could wait until 7 March 2023 for the appointment. She said water damage was affecting the electrics in the property. The resident had called the out of hours repairs line as some of the electrics were not working and the mains circuit kept tripping. She said she was extremely concerned for the safety of her household. The landlord attended the property on 13 February 2023 to make the electrics safe. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales in the landlord’s tenant handbook. The visit notes stated there were signs of a “fresh leak”.
36. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish if the appointment for remedial work to the leak was bought forward as requested by the resident. The landlord’s evidence was unclear whether the appointment of 7 March 2023 went ahead.
37. However, work did take place at some point, as on 21 March 2023 the resident said the leak appeared to be repaired. She asked when the damage caused by the leak would be addressed. The resident advised the bathroom now had extensive damp and mould, there was a water-damaged light fitting and several parts of the property needed repairing and redecorating. She also said that the contractor who fixed the leak had suggested an electric extractor fan be fitted to combat the damp. The resident attached photos of the water damage and the mould she referenced. There was no evidence to show the landlord replied to the resident’s email.
38. The evidence showed the resident continued to chase the landlord for the outstanding work to be carried out. A local councillor also contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf in April 2023 and June 2023. An email from the landlord to the local councillor on 23 June 2023 showed the landlord did not have oversight of the resident’s case. It stated any new repairs needed to be raised with the contact centre. However, the repairs that the resident and the local councillor were chasing up were not new repairs. The work was to remedy the significant water damage caused by the leak, and the redecoration, as promised in the landlord’s stage 1 response once the leak was fixed.
39. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that after the asbestos results were received on 9 February 2023 that there were no records from this point to determine why there were delays until 17 July 2023, when the contractor completed the repair to the leak. It said on 17 July 2023 the pipes under the bath were replaced, the mixer tap replaced and the bath panel and silicone around the bath renewed. In its stage 2 response the landlord also said a mould wash was carried out on 21 June 2023.
40. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the redecoration and reinstating the light fitting were outstanding from the stage 1 response. The plastering and decoration took place on 22 August 2023 and the light fitting was repaired on 23 August 2023. The resident had raised these outstanding works in an email on 21 March 2023. From this date, it had taken the landlord 92 calendar days to carry out a mould wash, 154 calendar days to carry out the plastering and redecoration and 155 calendar days to mend the water-damaged light fitting. These lengths of time were not appropriate or reasonable.
41. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. By taking 92 calendar days to carry out a mould wash, there was no evidence to show that the landlord acted with any urgency or took sufficient action to comply with the HHSRS requirements.
42. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. The landlord did not do this.
43. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that damp and mould is still present in the bathroom. Recommendation 1 from the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”. The landlord was advised by the resident on 21 March 2023 of the contractor’s recommendation to fit an extractor fan to help manage the damp. However, the inspection for this important preventative measure did not take place until 5 September 2023 which was 168 calendar days later. This was not appropriate. The delay in carrying out an inspection for this work did not demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and delayed resolution for the resident.
44. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the recommendations from the inspection regarding an extractor fan concluded that it should change the grille in the bathroom and move the motor in the communal system. However, this work remained outstanding when the stage 2 response was issued on 13 September 2023. This was 176 calendar days after the resident chased up this work on 21 March 2023.
45. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the resident would be contacted about these works “shortly”. However, the repairs logs showed the grille was not changed until 27 October 2023. On this date the work on the communal system was still outstanding. A repair note dated 27 October 2023 stated, “new job to be raised to replace belts and guard on communal unit”. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish if this work order was raised, and if it has been completed.
46. The evidence showed that at no point did the landlord acknowledge that the delay in resolving the leak was causing other problems to form. Electrical problems emerged due to the proximity of the water damage to a light fitting and the leak had caused damp and mould in the bathroom. The resident repeatedly raised her concerns in emails to the landlord, and it was evident the escalating matters caused her distress and inconvenience.
47. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about pests in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. On 25 November 2022 the resident had advised the landlord that the areas of the property affected by the leak now had “bugs”. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concern about this matter. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to assist the resident or appropriately signpost her. It was not until its stage 1 response that the landlord addressed this, as the resident had raised her concerns about bugs again in her complaint. As part of its stage 1 response dated 26 January 2023, the landlord raised a request for the local council’s pest control team to attend. It also signposted the resident to that department for any future pest problems. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take. However, it should have taken these steps 2 months earlier when the resident first reported this issue. It should not have needed the resident to make a formal complaint to get the help and advice that she needed.
48. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish when the pest control team attended after the landlord raised this request as part of its stage 1 response. Landlord internal emails dated 30 August 2023, stated the bugs present at the resident’s property were identified as woodlice. There was no evidence to show the resident was advised this by the landlord until its stage 2 response on 13 August 2023. In its stage 2 response it said woodlice live in moist conditions and once the area dries out, they should disappear without the need for any treatment. It said woodlice are not a public health pest. Therefore, woodlice are not treated by the local council, nor is a landlord required to treat these.
49. The landlord’s response was dismissive of the issue. It did not acknowledge that the reason the resident had experienced a problem with woodlice was due to the delays in the landlord fixing the leak. This was causing damp areas which were attracting woodlice. While the landlord said when the area dries out the woodlice should disappear, it would have been appropriate and reasonable to give the resident some advice on how to manage the problem until the area dried out. Although the landlord was not required to treat this, due to the reason why the woodlice were there, it could have been fair for the landlord to consider assisting the resident with this matter. This would have been a customer-focused approach. The lack of resolution to the leak prolonged the damp and woodlice problem for the resident.
50. When bugs were raised in further communications with the resident and a local councilor representing her, as part of the stage 2 investigation the landlord requested another inspection of the property. It was appropriate and reasonable of the landlord to arrange another inspection. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated this inspection took place on 5 September 2023. At this point, the leak had been resolved so the area was dry, and no bugs remained.
51. On 28 January 2023 the landlord was advised that the resident had asthma. However, this did not appear to have been considered when the repeated delays to remedy the leak and resultant damp and mould occurred. The resident’s asthma was also referenced in the escalation request dated 12 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that assessing the ventilation system was “especially important” given the resident’s health conditions. It stated it was sorry that it “did not do better on this occasion”. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s health condition and how its failing could have affected this.
52. It does not appear that the resident’s records were updated when the landlord was made aware of her asthma. There was no evidence to show a risk assessment was carried out by the landlord. On 23 September 2024, when providing the Ombudsman with the evidence for this investigation, the landlord stated it did not have any records of vulnerabilities for the household. This was 604 calendar days after the landlord was made aware the resident had asthma. The landlord said in its evidence submission that, “we will be conducting a housing services review within the next two weeks to ascertain if there are any vulnerabilities/support we can offer the family”. This was appropriate. However, this should have been addressed when the resident disclosed the information in January 2023, not in September 2024 because of an evidence request from the Ombudsman.
53. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £40 compensation. This was comprised of £20 for the lack of communication and £20 for time and trouble pursuing the matter. While it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation, the Ombudsman did not feel this was enough. This was due to the length of time the problem had been unresolved, the long lengths of time when the landlord took no action, and the resident had to repeatedly chase for the leak to be investigated.
54. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £315 compensation. This was comprised of:
    1. the £40 awarded at stage 1.
    2. £200 for the delays between February 2023 and July 2023 and how the resident was affected by this.
    3. £75 for the delays in attending to assess the resident’s ventilation system.
55. While it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation, the Ombudsman did not feel this was enough. The £40 offered at stage 1 was still not proportionate to the delays the resident had experienced during that period. The landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer only considered delays up to July, yet the plastering and decorating was delayed until 22 August 2023 and the water-damaged light fitting repair was delayed until 23 August 2023. The last of the making-good repairs were completed on 17 October 2023. While the landlord awarded compensation for the ventilation delays, it did not acknowledge its lack of urgency regarding other damp and mould related matters, such as a mould wash not happening until 21 June 2023 when the problem had been reported 92 calendar days previously.
56. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property. This was because of the delays the resident experienced in getting a resolution to the leak and the delays to the repairs for the resultant water damage and damp and mould. The resident also had to repeatedly chase the landlord to progress these matters. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award the resident with £600 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This award of compensation replaces the landlord’s stage 2 award of compensation. If the landlord has already paid the resident £375 from its stage 2 complaint, only the difference between the 2 awards is due.
57. The landlord is ordered to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property and carry out all recommended works identified. If it has not already done so, the landlord must also complete the repairs identified for the communal ventilation unit which included replacing the belts and guard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

58. The landlord’s policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. The requirement under the Code is to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
59. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 12 July 2023 and requested it investigated the resident’s complaint under the landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident by 20 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge the escalation of her complaint on 13 July 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 13 September 2023 which was 43 working days after the landlord had logged the complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code which both state that a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. However, the landlord apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response which was appropriate and reasonable.
60. The landlord acknowledged service failure had occurred by issuing the stage 2 response outside of its published timescales. It awarded the resident £60 compensation in recognition of this. The landlord said this offer of compensation was in keeping with its complaints and redress procedure. This offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for service failure.
61. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling because the landlord acknowledged its failures. It apologised for issuing a stage 2 response outside of its published timescale. The landlord appropriately awarded £60 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak at the property.
63. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

64. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £660. If the landlord has already paid the resident £375 from its stage 2 complaint, only the difference between the 2 awards is due. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £375 awarded at stage 2, the evidence of compliance to this order must include a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, from that payment too. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
    2. £60 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
65. The landlord must contact the resident and arrange to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property within 4 weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
66. All recommended works identified in the inspection report must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced by the landlord submitting the completed work orders detailing the work carried out within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
67. If not already done so, the landlord must complete the repairs identified on the communal ventilation unit which included replacing the belts and guard. If not already done so, this work must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced by the landlord submitting the completed work order detailing the work carried out within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If the work has already been completed, this must be evidenced by the landlord submitting the completed work order detailing the work carried out within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

68. It is recommended that the landlord remind all complaint handling staff that complaints must be acknowledged and responded in line with the timescales featured in the Code.
69. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording of vulnerabilities and to ensure consideration is given to these when dealing with cases of damp and mould. The landlord should consider, if it has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.