Wolverhampton City Council (202307969)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307969

Wolverhampton City Council

3 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around:
1. Damaged personal belongings.
2. Outstanding repairs.
3. Damp and mould.
4. Fencing renewal works.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various health and welfare concerns.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and her tenancy began in 2013. She occupies the property with her son. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden to the rear. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has various concerns about the landlord’s activities. She raised multiple complaints during the timeline. The evidence shows the parties’ relationship has broken down.
The landlord provided a sample copy of its applicable tenancy terms. The document, effective 2017, shows the landlord is obliged to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. It is also obliged to keep the property’s installations, such as sanitaryware or pipework, in repair and working order. It will apply a service charge for improving or replacing fencing. The resident is responsible for cleaning and decorations. She is obliged to allow the landlord access for repairs.
The landlord also provided an internal fencing document (it described the document as an “ASD” report). The evidence indicates the document was effective from 2021 onwards. The document outlines the landlord’s approach to its fencing renewal programme. It shows the landlord’s fencing service charge will be applied where the cost of improvement or renewal works exceeds £500. It also shows the service charge is around £1.95 per week.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows it aims to complete minor/day-to-day repairs within 20 working days. The timescale for planned or major repairs is 90 calendar days after an inspection. It also shows the landlord will inspect non-emergency reports of damp, water penetration or mould growth within 10 working days. Any related remedial works will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

In March 2022 the landlord replied to a previous complaint from the resident. Its stage 2 response addressed several issues including a leak. It encouraged the resident to raise a “compensation claim” in relation to damaged personal items. However, the response confirmed the landlord would replace her damaged living room flooring. The key points were:
1. If she needed help to complete the landlord’s claim form, the resident should provide a convenient date and time to discuss it.
2. Otherwise, more information about the landlord’s claims process was available through an email address provided.
3. The landlord would replace the living room flooring on a broadly like-for-like basis. The resident should confirm a suitable time to discuss matters.
The landlord’s repair records suggest a damp inspection took place in June 2022. From the evidence provided, it was unclear what prompted the inspection. Corresponding repair notes suggest the inspection recommended that drainage channels should be installed to the front of the property. The Ombudsman has not seen a detailed record of the inspection findings.
On 7 July 2022 the resident called the landlord about previous works to an external gate and internal flooring. Call notes said she reported a repair appointment had recently been missed in relation to the gate. In addition, there was uneven flooring in both bedrooms despite previous repairs by the landlord. The Ombudsman has was provided with limited evidence about these issues. The call notes said the resident advised she would approach the Ombudsman. This was on the basis she had to chase the landlord due to a lack of updates. From the landlord’s records, there was no indication it raised a complaint at this point.
On 19 July 2022, the resident called the landlord about various outstanding repairs. Call notes said she reported its operatives had visited the property and taken photos. The landlord’s notes referred to a related list of works but they did not mention any specific repairs. The landlord’s repair records did not include any information about a general inspection being conducted at the property around this time.
Call notes on 4 August 2022 show the resident chased the landlord about a complaint she raised the previous month. The notes said she reported the same issues again. No evidence was seen to show the landlord logged any complaints around this time. Subsequently, the resident chased the landlord on 24 August 2022. Call notes said she was “very unhappy”. They referenced a lack of communication, repeat visits by the landlord, and outstanding works at the property. The notes said the resident was mainly concerned about: a fire place, the roof, guttering, the kitchen, internal drains, and damp and mould “throughout the property”. They also said she ended the call before the landlord could finalise its next steps.
On 7 September 2022 a fencing contractor began works to the property’s garden fence. The works were part of the landlord’s large-scale fencing renewal programme. The resident called the landlord on the same day. Call notes said she had expected the landlord’s contractor to remove some nearby rubbish as part of the works. However, the contractor advised her it would only remove debris that was in its way. The evidence both parties provided (which included undated images of the garden) indicates the rubbish was fly-tipped on a patch of rough ground between 2 plots.
The resident called the landlord again on 3 October 2022. The notes said she was “quite frustrated” about outstanding repairs and she referenced a previous complaint and outstanding repairs. This shows the resident was raising similar concerns again. The notes also also said she raised concerns about a lack of internal doors in the property, an issue with a replacement electric fire, and incomplete fence works. The notes suggest a complaint handling operative subsequently called the resident. However, no information was seen to suggest the landlord raised a complaint at this point.
The repair history confirms multiple repair orders were subsequently raised during the same month. It also shows the kitchen ceiling, the laundry room, and an electric fire were damaged by a leak that occurred around 10 October 2022. A separate order was raised to repair brickwork that was causing damp near the back door. The repair history confirms that, among other works, plastering, flooring, electrical, and brickwork repairs were completed in the same month.
The resident made further calls to the landlord in late-November and early- December 2022. Notes show she referred to a previous complaint during both calls. Notes from the second call said she reported rubbish had not been cleared from the garden, “despite the fact (the resident) gave notice that she was not in”. They also said she was hoping to get another appointment. Though the landlord’s notes were not entirely clear, the wording suggests a rubbish collection did not go ahead because the resident cancelled an appointment.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord completed painting works to the kitchen. There was no mention of damp or mould being present in the landlord’s corresponding repair record. Later, the resident said the landlord’s operatives had painted over damp and mould without treating it. On 20 December 2022 the landlord failed to attend a planned inspection. The evidence suggests the inspection was arranged to assess some external brickwork following a previous repair. In its later internal notes (made by the stage 1 complaint handler), the landlord attributed the missed appointment to a record keeping issue.
The resident made further calls in early and late January 2023. Both sets of call notes show she was awaiting a response to a complaint about repairs. The call records referenced outstanding repairs and a list of repair issues. There was no indication the landlord raised a new complaint at this point. Nor was any information seen to show it attempted to clarify her list of repair issues.
Contact records show the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 February 2023 following a call from the resident. Call records said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s: failure to follow through with repairs, lack of communication, and lack of updates. They also said she had lost trust in the landlord. The call handler’s own summary notes show around 19 different topics were discussed during the call. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. It said it would issue a stage 1 response by 17 February 2023. The next day, the landlord raised an internal referral to its financial hardship team based on its discussion with the resident. Referral notes show the resident had mentioned a damaged freezer and a loss of food items. From the evidence provided, it was unclear when the freezer was damaged. However, the evidence confirms the resident felt the damage was caused by defective electrics within the property.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord attempted to complete a stock condition survey. Its related internal correspondence said the resident only allowed its operative to inspect the kitchen, rear lobby, and downstairs toilet. The landlord’s correspondence questioned why several internal doors and kitchen cupboard doors were missing. The Ombudsman has seen the corresponding survey report. A section relating to various potential hazards was left blank. This suggests the surveyor did not identify any potential health risks in the areas they inspected.
In internal correspondence on 16 February 2022, the landlord said the property needed to be inspected due to the multiple issues reported. This was around 7 months after the resident called the landlord about various outstanding repair issues. The internal correspondence said the resident had removed doors from the property’s kitchen units. It also said new repairs were required to address a hole in the bath enamel and a cracked window sill.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was 9 working days after the resident’s complaint was raised. The landlord did not recognise that its response was issued outside of the deadline given in its complaint acknowledgement. The response addressed concerns around communication and delays, the reporting of repairs and their subsequent completion, customer feedback, damp and mould at the property, a missed appointment linked to repairs in the kitchen, a service charge relating to fencing, and damage to a chest freezer. The complaint was partially upheld. The landlord’s main points were:
1. The resident’s concerns around communication and delays were upheld. This was on the basis the landlord failed to inform her about a delayed electric fire installation. It also failed to attend a prearranged inspection on 20 December 2023.
2. An inspection had been scheduled for 3 March 2023. Multiple repair issues that were discussed on 7 February 2023 would be inspected. An appointment to address the fire was scheduled for 8 March 2023. The resident should contact the landlord if the proposed dates were not convenient.
3. The resident had advised the landlord did not log repair issues that she raised directly with its operatives. The landlord needed more information to investigate this matter. It recommended using the correct repair reporting channels to avoid any miscommunication.
4. The landlord noted plastering works were still outstanding. However, although it sent a text reminder 24 hours in advance, it was unable to gain access to complete the works on 9 November 2022. The resident had not raised the outstanding works until recently. The landlord would schedule an appointment in due course.
5. Skirting that was removed in the laundry room would be replaced once the plastering works were complete. Overall, the resident’s reporting/completion concerns were partially upheld. The landlord acknowledged the resident lacked trust in its repairs process.
6. The resident had reported she was not given an opportunity to provide feedback about some previous painting works. The landlord was introducing satisfaction surveys across a number of areas (but the process was incomplete). If she was unhappy with the works, the resident should notify the landlord directly.
7. Recently completed decoration works were not intended to treat damp and mould. The resident should contact the landlord to arrange an appointment if she suspected there was damp and mould at the property.
8. The resident reported a stock condition survey appointment was missed on 6 February 2023. However, the landlord’s records showed the appointment was scheduled for 8 February 2023 and a reminder was sent in advance. The inspection confirmed the property’s kitchen was not due for renewal.
9. Works to complete the garden fence could resume when nearby rubbish was removed. There were delays because the resident rearranged previous appointments to remove it. She should arrange a convenient appointment as soon as possible. Due to the extra costs involved, the landlord did not agree to the resident’s request for a gate to be installed in the fence. Overall, her fencing related concerns were partially upheld.
10. The resident reported she was not contacted following drainage works to the front of the property. The works were completed on 8 February 2023 and no further works were required. The landlord was sorry if this was not communicated during the visit.
11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s service around arranging repairs and providing updates afterwards. The landlord tried to keep its resident’s fully informed about appointments. It was sorry if the resident had not been kept updated. Feedback had been provided to the landlord’s relevant department. The communication element of the resident’s complaint was upheld.
12. The resident reported a chest freezer had been damaged by faulty electrics in the kitchen. The landlord’s records showed all related repairs were completed within reasonable timescales. In addition, a contractor previously completed a full electrical check of the property. The resident should claim through her home contents insurance.
13. The resident was awarded a £50 goodwill payment based on the landlord’s delays and inadequate communication.
Three days later, the resident raised an online complaint with the landlord. She said its compensation award was unfair. She asked to escalate her complaint. She said many repair issues arose because the property was decaying. In addition, she lived “like a tramp” due to its condition. The resident denied she was responsible for any access issues. She also said she was uncomfortable with operatives coming and going and her home was “not a zoo”. In summary, her detailed email broadly reiterated her previous concerns around outstanding repairs.
In internal correspondence on 3 March 2023, the landlord’s supervisor relayed their findings from an inspection that day. They said the resident only allowed access to the hall, kitchen, and downstairs toilet. In addition, she had shown them various photos, but this was not the same as seeing repair issues in person. They also said no mould was seen during the partial inspection. The email included a list of repair issues the supervisor felt should be investigated. It shows the resident asked for a single point of contact (SPOC) to improve communication around repairs.
On the same day, the resident raised another online complaint. She said, “in the past”, she had lived in a single room due to damp and mould issues at the property. In addition, sentimental belongings were damaged along with various furniture items. She wanted compensation for these items and compensation for related physical and mental stress. She said the property was cold and lacked flooring but the landlord never put things right. Her other key points were:
1. Damp, mould, and cold issues had caused the resident numerous chest infections.
2. Her “health conditions (had) been put in jeopardy” (the resident did not say what these conditions were).
3. The resident was prepared to contribute towards the cost of a gate in the fencing. This would allow her to remove any nearby rubbish herself.
4. The landlord had painted over areas that were prone to damp. The resident wanted it to apply damp block, “so (she stood) a chance if it came back”.
In internal correspondence on 8 March 2023, the landlord said it called the resident that morning. It also said the resident reported there were no outstanding repairs for the kitchen area. The correspondence suggests the landlord enquired about a specific repair order and the resident confirmed the related repairs were complete. Subsequently, the resident called the landlord on 3 April 2023 about a fireplace repair on the same day. Call notes said she was unaware of the appointment. In addition, she reported the operative’s instructions were wrong because the fireplace did not need to be repaired. The evidence shows the resident wanted the landlord to address damage, including ripped wallpaper, that she said occurred when the fireplace was installed.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on the same day. It also cancelled several repair orders. The repair notes said the works would be added to a bigger job and passed to an external contractor. The evidence suggests the landlord wanted to reduce the overall number of repair visits to minimise disruption for the resident. It was also noted the resident previously said she lacked trust in the landlord’s own operatives. Within days, the landlord’s financial hardship team told the landlord there were no funds available to help the resident replace her freezer. The hardship team also said it called the resident multiple times but she did not answer.
Call records confirm the landlord removed the rubbish from the rough ground near the garden on 14 April 2023. This was around 7 months after the resident reported the landlord’s contractor had declined to remove it. Subsequently, the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 April 2023. It asked if she was willing to allow its contractor to complete the fence now the rubbish was removed. It said she should provide a convenient date for the works to resume.
On 27 April 2023 the resident texted the landlord. She said that due to unforeseen circumstances, she would have to cancel an inspection scheduled for the following day. She said she would contact the landlord in due course to rearrange it. On the same day, she raised another online complaint with the landlord. The resident said, before the contractor could return, she wanted written confirmation that the landlord would install a gate in the fence. She also said she would be unavailable for a while due to unforeseen “family issues”. In addition, she would not allow the landlord to complete a full inspection on privacy grounds.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 May 2023. This was around 10 weeks after the resident’s initial escalation request. The landlord did not acknowledge its response was delayed. The response included the landlord’s reply to a list of 11 repair issues. The list confirmed the landlord had scheduled various repairs for 24 May and 2 July 2024. In summary, the landlord said it had not identified any additional service failures during its review of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s key points were:
1. Repairs had not been raised for the areas the landlord was unable to inspect (living room, bathroom, garden, bedrooms). The landlord needed access to assess the reported repairs, and to establish the required works and materials. The resident’s descriptions and images did not remove the need for an inspection.
2. At stage 1, the landlord advised it would contact the resident to rearrange plastering works. It did this on 8 March 2023 but the resident said the works were not required. Subsequently, the works were rescheduled based on the landlord’s partial inspection findings.
3. The landlord would complete all identified repairs that were its responsibility. All the repairs it had raised were still within the landlord’s applicable repair timescales. The inspection on 3 March 2023 found no damp and mould works were required.
4. The landlord prioritised repairs based on the nature and scale of the works required. It had asked the resident if she wanted several repairs to be addressed in a single appointment. The resident had declined this option. She also declined a full property inspection on 28 April 2023.
5. The resident felt she was eligible for replacement floor coverings in several rooms due to a leak in 2020. The landlord’s stage 2 response in March 2022 confirmed it had only agreed to replace the living room flooring.
6. The landlord’s records indicated the resident had not contacted the landlord about the replacement flooring. However, the landlord also failed to follow up its agreement with the resident. The resident should provide details of the damaged flooring so the landlord could progress matters through its contractor.
7. In relation to the damaged chest freezer, the landlord had no concerns about the property’s electrics. Its stage 2 response in March 2022 told the resident to claim for damaged personal items through her own contents insurance. Alternatively, she could raise a claim against the landlord using a link that was provided.
8. With regards to the fence, the landlord apologised for a “minor delay” in removing the rubbish. While it was being removed, the landlord inspected the boundaries. It found the rubbish was located on another of the landlord’s properties. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for removing any rubbish on the rough ground. The area was not part of the resident’s tenancy and the landlord could access it from elsewhere.
9. The landlord noted it previously amended its fence specification, in September 2022, to meet the resident’s request for a 6-foot fence. The resident’s request was made on privacy grounds. The resident should contact the landlord and agree a date for the works to continue.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy with its £50 goodwill offer. Though it had not identified any additional service failures, it acknowledged there were communication delays. As a result, the landlord would increase its previous goodwill offer to £100 and add an additional £50. This was to recognise the delay related to the replacement flooring.
On 9 May 2023 the resident replied in a new online complaint to the landlord. In summary, she felt the landlord had attempted to blame her to avoid any responsibility. She said the fireplace was still damaged and there had been no related updates from the landlord. She also felt the landlord was unlikely to remove any rubbish from the rough ground quickly. After several more interactions over the next few days, the landlord told the resident her complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure. It also said her concerns about the fireplace were passed to its repairs team. It asked for permission to complete an inspection.
Soon afterwards, the landlord considered referring the resident’s case to its legal team. This was to gain access to the property. Later, in its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it decided not to pursue this option because it did not want to undermine the parties’ relationship further. Subsequently, a number of repair orders were marked complete later the same month. They included repairs to a light fitting and taps. Another repair order said the bath was too badly chipped to repair and a replacement was needed.
Our records show the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman around 5 June 2023. This was around 15 months after the landlord responded to her previous complaint at stage 2 (the relevant response was issued on 22 March 2022).
On 13 June 2023 the resident cancelled a prearranged inspection when the landlord’s operative arrived at the property. Around 10 days later, the landlord issued an extensive works order to an external contractor. The resident’s subsequent correspondence suggests the contractor visited the property on 1 July 2023 to assess the works. Repair records show the landlord completed works to the property’s guttering on 2 July 2023. They confirm the other repairs, that were due to be completed on this date, were previously assigned to the landlord’s external contractor for completion.
On 10 July 2023 the resident raised a new online complaint. She said she was comfortable with the landlord’s external contractor. However, other areas of the property were in disrepair and they needed to be addressed. She felt the landlord was responsible and it was trying to cut corners. She also said she was unable to have guests due to the property’s condition. In addition, she was “not being consulted” about various repair issues. She reiterated previous concerns about damaged items and said the overall situation had impacted her mental health. She also raised new concerns about water ingress into the property through “brand new doors”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 July 2023. It said it would amend its fence specification. In addition, the amendment would allow the resident to check if any rubbish had been fly-tipped onto the rough ground from nearby flats. However, it would involve placing the fence in front of some trees (planning documents from September 2022 indicate the resident originally wanted the fence to run between these trees). The letter said the contractor would contact her to arrange the work. The evidence suggests the fencing contractor was subsequently unable to contact the resident.
Between 3 August and 16 October 2023 the resident made several further complaints to the landlord. They were broadly in line with her previous concerns (outstanding repairs, damaged belongings, and overall property condition). However, they also included new issues that were not covered by the landlord’s previous responses. For example, the resident said a toilet was leaking, the roof needed to be cleaned, and she wanted the electrics to be checked. She also said she did not have a bed or a sofa due to previous damp and mould damage. Overall, she felt little progress had been made and the landlord did not care about her situation.
Around late November 2023, the resident raised another complaint about the fence. At this stage, her complaint involved a related staff conduct issue. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint. Around the same time, the landlord’s external contractor refused to return to the property to complete its allocated repairs. It told the landlord the resident was often verbally abusive and she made regular allegations about its operatives.
The evidence confirms these allegations included drinking around the site, erratic driving, and inappropriate conduct towards the resident. The landlord’s related internal correspondence shows the contractor reported that the resident had cancelled 7 prearranged repair appointments at short notice. The contractor also advised it was struggling to complete the repair works due to the number of cancelled appointments.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response about the fence. Its internal investigation notes, which included a timeline of fence issues from August 2022 onwards, suggest this was around 21 working days after the resident’s related complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge any delays. Its response addressed the incomplete fence, the fencing service charge, and its supervisor’s conduct during a recent call about the fence. Though it rejected her main complaint points, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s staff conduct concerns. Other key points were:
1. Between April and August 2023, the landlord and its fence contractor made numerous efforts to progress the works. The resident was contacted through various channels. She should notify the landlord if her contact details had changed.
2. The landlord would not refund the resident’s fencing service charge, which was applied whenever its costs exceeded £500.
3. The landlord acknowledged its supervisor had ended a phone call with the resident on 30 November 2023. The supervisor had not disputed the resident’s assertion that they asked whether “(the resident wanted her) fencing done or not?”. The landlord was sorry if the supervisor’s tone seemed abrupt during the call.
In an email the next day, the landlord asked the resident to confirm her availability for a fence appointment. It said the appointment would establish the relevant measurements and determine the materials needed to complete the fence. No information was seen to show the resident responded.
During a call with the Ombudsman on 8 January 2024, the resident mentioned various repair issues including: an unfinished kitchen, a lack of flooring, a faulty extractor fan, and a broken cistern. She also referenced a lack of internal doors. This was around 15 months after the resident notified the landlord about the issue (during a call on 3 October 2022). Following our call with the resident, we asked the landlord to complete an urgent fire safety inspection. This was based on the increased fire risk presented by the lack of internal doors.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. Its correspondence said she recently declined a general repairs inspection on the basis she had “a lot going on”. The landlord asked her to confirm a convenient inspection date as soon as possible. The correspondence suggests the resident had agreed to a specialist fire safety inspection on 19 January 2024. The landlord’s subsequent internal correspondence, on this date, shows the resident subsequently declined access for the inspection. This was on the basis she was unwell.
The landlord’s subsequent internal correspondence shows it called the resident on 21 March 2024. Its related email said, during the call, she declined an appointment for a fire safety inspection. This was on the basis she was recovering from an operation. Around the same time, the landlord provided its case evidence to the Ombudsman. It included a summary of the landlord’s current stance on the case. Some key points from the summary were:
1. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in its systems.
2. The landlord had assigned all the repairs to its external contractor in order to provide a SPOC for repairs.
3. The parties previously agreed that the landlord’s external contractor would complete the repairs in stages. This was to ensure the resident did not feel overwhelmed.
4. The resident had changed her mind about repairs and made allegations about the operatives who had attended. As a result, the landlord decided 2 operatives would attend each visit.
5. This had impacted the landlord’s service delivery since dual visits took additional time to arrange. The landlord felt it might ease the burden on the resident if she appointed a representative to act on her behalf. It also felt this measure could expedite the repairs.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 10 May 2024. She said there was no damp or mould in the property. However, she felt there was a water problem because the property was on a slope, there were issues with drains and doors, and water damage was still visible. She said she previously removed internal doors for health reasons because the property was so mouldy. The resident made several references to health conditions but did not confirm the specific details. Her other key points were:
1. The property was in a “terrible” condition. Repairs to the kitchen, bathroom, laundry room, and bedroom were outstanding. The resident was also concerned about external doors and drains. She wanted repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
2. The landlord ignored her and only completed works that it wanted to do. The resident felt this was “cherry-picking”. She also felt the landlord was dishonest and cut corners. She was unsure what could be done to improve the parties’ broken relations.
3. The resident had been unable to provide access for health reasons at times. Nevertheless, she had not prevented the landlord from completing any works. She would not allow further inspections because her health needed to recover. The landlord should arrange repairs based on her images.
4. The resident did not speak to the landlord any more for mental health reasons. Her family were “traumatised” by previous damp and mould issues and their health had been impacted.
5. The external contractor’s works were “very good”. The resident wanted the contractor to finish the works. However, she would not allow it to resume work without an action plan and a relevant completion timescale. The parties should agree the scope of the remaining works.
6. In addition to completing a post-inspection, the landlord should ask the resident if she was happy with the contractor’s completed repairs. Any appointments should be attended by more than 1 operative. This would ensure the resident felt comfortable.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or personal belongings.
The resident has referenced repair issues that date back to the beginning of her tenancy. It may help to explain that the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the amount of time that has passed since the events in question. In addition, residents must bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period after a landlord’s stage 2 response. This means we are unable to consider the resident’s previous complaint to the landlord which is referred to at paragraph 8 above.
In accordance with our remit, we focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint which is reflected in the timeline above. Unless otherwise stated, any new issues (that were raised after the landlord’s final response on 3 May 2023) are beyond the scope of this assessment. This is because, in general, landlord’s need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues accordingly prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damaged personal belongings

Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to their personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. Alternatively, a landlord can address the reported damage through its own internal complaints procedure. In this situation, a landlord will typically complete its own inspection of the damaged items. In this case, the landlord signposted the resident to its insurance process during its stage 2 response in March 2022. The key points from this response were:
1. If she needed help to complete the landlord’s claim form, the resident should provide a convenient date and time to discuss it.
2. Otherwise, more information about the landlord’s claims process was available through an email address that was provided.
3. The landlord would replace the living room flooring on a broadly like-for-like basis. The resident should confirm a suitable time to discuss matters.
The above shows the landlord’s approach was in line with our expectations. No information was seen to show how the resident reacted to the landlord’s information at this point. However, she began to raise concerns about damages again around 7 February 2023. This was around 11 months later. At this point, call notes referenced damage to a chest freezer and a related loss of food items. In its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023, the landlord said the resident should contact her own insurer about the freezer. This was on the basis an inspection in March 2022 found there were no electrical issues with the property.
In response, the resident said she did not have contents insurance and other personal belongings were previously damaged. For example, in March 2023 she referenced furniture items, clothes, and photos that were damaged by damp and mould. In its final response to the resident’s complaint, on 3 May 2023, the landlord referred to the information it provided in its previous responses. It said the resident could either claim through her own insurer, or submit a compensation claim to the landlord. The response provided a specific link to the landlord’s claims process. This was broadly consistent with the information the landlord previously provided during the complaint timeline. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations. As a result, we were unable to point to any related failures on the landlord’s part.
In relation to the damaged flooring, the landlord said it had only agreed to replace the living room flooring in March 2022. In addition, contrary to its instructions at this point, the landlord had no records to show the resident subsequently contacted it to arrange the replacement flooring. Nevertheless, the landlord also said it had failed to contact the resident about the agreed replacement. It awarded her £50 in related compensation. This was on the basis it should have proactively followed up its outstanding complaint resolution with the resident.
There was around 13 months between the landlord’s stage 2 response (to her previous complaint)on 22 March 2022 and its final response to the resident’s current complaint on 3 May 2023. The landlord has said the resident did not contact it (to arrange the replacement flooring) during this period. There was no evidence to undermine the landlord’s assertion. Overall, the evidence suggests both parties contributed to the above identified delay period. As a result, the landlord’s offer of a £50 goodwill gesture was proportionate given the nature of the landlord’s failure. It represents a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord.
In summary, there was reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point. This is because the landlord’s offer of a £50 goodwill gesture was proportionate given its failure to follow up with the resident about the replacement flooring. The evidence suggests the resident also contributed to a related delay of around 13 months. In March 2022, the landlord asked her to confirm a convenient date and time to discuss the replacement flooring. There was no evidence to suggest she provided the requested information.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs

The resident raised numerous repair issues during the timeline. The landlord’s records show it completed multiple repairs between June 2022 and December 2023. Both parties agree several repair issues are still outstanding to date. The evidence shows that some of them, such as the lack of internal doors, have been outstanding for a significant portion of the overall timeline. In contrast, other repair issues that were raised early in the timeline appear to have been resolved. Due to the complexity of the situation, the Ombudsman took a holistic view of the evidence out of fairness to both parties.
The timeline shows the resident began raising concerns about outstanding repairs in July 2022. At this point, she referred to a list of works that arose from an inspection around this time. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding list of works. In addition, it was unclear when the related inspection took place or what prompted it. From the evidence provided, there was no indication the landlord attempted to gather any relevant details from the resident. Asking her for more information could have helped the landlord establish what had happened.
Subsequently, the resident chased the landlord numerous times about the outstanding repairs over the next few months. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for her, and chasing the landlord caused additional inconvenience. Ultimately, the landlord should have been more proactive in July 2022. Had it done this, the landlord may have concluded that a full inspection was needed at a much earlier stage of the timeline.
Instead, it took the landlord until 16 February 2023 to decide a full inspection was needed based on the number of reported issues. This was around 8 months after the resident began to raise her related concerns. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt a full inspection, the corresponding delay was both unfair and unreasonable for the resident. The timeline shows the unreasonable delay period was around 7 months. This calculation is based on the period between 1 July 2022 and 3 March 2023. It included a 1 month grace period for the landlord to complete the inspection.
It is accepted a number of repairs were completed in the interim period. However, the above identified delay was a key failure and the landlord should have attempted to put things right for the resident as a result. Its complaint responses did not acknowledge the delay or its related impacts. As a result, the landlord’s £100 goodwill gesture (awarded for various other repair related issues) was disproportionate given what went wrong. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident.
The evidence points to an overall delay timescale of around 21 months. This calculation was based on the period from 3 October 2022 (when the resident raised a lack of internal doors) to the date of this report. The evidence shows both parties have contributed to this protracted timeframe. The above assessment shows the landlord was largely responsible for key delays and failures during the initial part of the timeline. However, it was subsequently unable to progress matters due to various stipulations and denial of access imposed by the resident.
For example, the resident prevented full inspections in February and March 2023. She subsequently cancelled prearranged inspections in April and June 2023. Later, the evidence confirms further delays occurred due to a dispute between the resident and the landlord’s external contractor. If the resident is unhappy with the contractor’s conduct, she should raise a formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance. She can bring her concerns to the Ombudsman when they have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Ultimately, from the evidence both parties provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any other significant delays or failures that were overlooked by the landlord. In relation to lesser failures, such as short delays or missed appointments, call records indicate the resident was inconvenienced by a failed appointment on 3 April 2023. At this point, she said the landlord’s operatives arrived unexpectedly and with the wrong instructions. The Ombudsman was unable to confirm the full details from the landlord’s repair records. As a result, our compensation order will reflect the resident’s version of events.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord failed to respond proactively to the resident’s concerns in July 2022. As a result, there was an unreasonable delay of around 7 months before it attempted to complete a related inspection. Later, the landlord failed to recognise these key delays and failures or redress the resident accordingly. This was unfair and its goodwill offer was disproportionate. It also failed to put things right for the resident following a failed appointment in April 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around damp and mould

There was conflicting evidence about damp and mould. Repair records suggest there was a damp inspection in June 2022, but they did not include a detailed account of its findings. Call notes from 24 August 2022 show the resident reported there was damp and mould throughout the property around 2 months later. The notes also said she ended the call before the landlord finalised its next steps. Subsequently, partial inspections in February and March 2023 (the former was a stock condition survey) did not identify any damp or mould issues.
Later, in her May 2024 update to the Ombudsman, the resident said there was no damp or mould at the property. The Ombudsman has seen a number of undated images taken by the resident. Though they showed several areas of the property, the images did not appear to show any observable damp or mould issues. On balance, the evidence does not point to a serious damp and mould problem that required urgent remedial action from the landlord. Records show the landlord completed various repairs around the time the resident reported damp and mould throughout the property.
For example, 2 repair orders completed in October 2022 referenced damp by the back door and in a utility room (the evidence suggests the utility room was damaged during a leak around this time). One of these orders was a patch repair to external brickwork. Subsequently, in its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it failed to attend a prearranged follow-up inspection in December 2022. Since it was intended to check the external brickwork repair, it is reasonable to assume this inspection was damp related.
However, aside from the inconvenience the resident was caused by the missed inspection (which was included in the landlord’s £100 goodwill offer), there was no evidence to suggest the missed inspection contributed to a more serious damp problem. Instead, the evidence suggests it was a monitoring visit and the damp issue had already been rectified. There were no further references to the same repair in the landlord’s repair records.
Whilst the evidence does not support a substantial failing, it does point to some damp and mould related failures by the landlord. Its records in relation to the June 2022 inspection were inadequate since damp and mould are potential health hazards. It was noted that poor inspection record keeping was one of the resident’s key complaint points. The evidence shows she subsequently raised a similar issue in February 2023. Her concerns related to the scope of the landlord’s redecoration works following the leak in October 2022.
It is understood the resident feels the landlord did not complete the full redecoration works as promised, or that it cut corners by painting directly over damp and mould. Based on the wording of her complaint on 3 March 2023, there was also some evidence she wanted the landlord to apply damp block on a preventative basis. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude these understandable concerns were a source of considerable anxiety for her. The evidence shows they remain unresolved around 17 months later.
Ultimately, he Ombudsman was unable to resolve this aspect of the dispute from the information in the landlord’s repair and other records. The landlord should have clear records of any work undertaken to address damp and mould. As a result, it should have been able to address the resident’s concerns promptly using the information in its repair records. For example, it should have been able to confirm its repair specification and the supporting rationale if necessary.
The above shows the landlord’s damp and mould record keeping was inappropriate and the resident was impacted as a result. From the landlord’s repair and other records, the Ombudsman was unable to establish whether damp and mould treatments should have been applied during its redecoration works in December 2022, or whether the landlord’s actions were proportionate to the circumstances. The situation was a source of anxiety for the resident and it was ongoing for around 17 months. The landlord should have been able to resolve the situation promptly. The evidence shows there were other record keeping failures around damp and mould. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fencing renewal works

The resident’s concerns about fencing relate to delays, the scope of the works, and the related service charge. The landlord partially upheld her initial complaint based on a “minor delay” during the early part of the timeline. This related to the removal of rubbish from the garden area. Though it apologised, the landlord said the resident also contributed to the delay. This was on the basis she rearranged appointments to remove the rubbish. The landlord’s call records show the resident raised concerns about the rubbish on 7 September 2022.
Call records from December 2022 confirm the resident cancelled at least one appointment to remove the rubbish. They said the resident advised she had told the landlord she was not in (for an appointment). Subsequent call records confirm the rubbish was ultimately removed on 14 April 2023. This was around 7 months after the issue was raised. However, the September 2022 call note suggests the rubbish was not a barrier to the contractor’s works. This is because it said the contractor would only remove rubbish that was in its way. As a result, it not entirely clear why the rubbish became a focal point of the dispute.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude the rubbish was unsightly and it may have presented a risk. It should therefore have been removed within a reasonable timeframe. It was noted that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it could access the area from elsewhere. On balance, the evidence was not consistent with a “minor delay”. Since the landlord could have removed the rubbish from elsewhere, its apology was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. This was based on the length of time it took the landlord to remove the rubbish (around 7 months).
From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any subsequent delays by the landlord. This is because it made reasonable efforts to follow up the outstanding works later in the timeline. For example, it wrote to the resident around a week after the rubbish was removed. It asked if she was willing to allow its fence contractor to complete the works. In a complaint soon afterwards, the resident said she was unable to facilitate a related appointment, she wanted written confirmation the landlord would install a gate, and she would notify the landlord when its contractor could return.
No information was seen to show the resident subsequently agreed a date for the fence contractor to complete the works. The evidence suggests the landlord and its contractor made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident by phone and email in July and August 2023. Ultimately, the landlord could not progress the works without the resident’s agreement. The information seen indicates she is still unhappy with the landlord’s proposed fence specification.
The evidence suggests the landlord has amended its specification on more than 1 occasion to accommodate the resident’s preferences. This was based on its initial planning documents from around September 2022, and its letter to the resident on 12 July 2023. There was no evidence the landlord was obliged to do this. Where it declined to include the resident’s requested amendments, the landlord’s supporting rationale was reasonable.
For example, its stage 1 response in February 2023 said installing a gate would add an unreasonable amount to the total cost of the works. Its subsequent stage 2 response said the landlord (not the resident) was responsible for removing the rubbish and it had other means of accessing the rough ground. We were unable to point to any flaws in the landlord’s decision-making. Overall, there was no evidence of any failures by the landlord in relation to the scope of the fencing works.
The evidence shows the fencing service charge is consistent with the landlord’s standard tenancy terms and its internal fencing report. Both documents show the charge is applied when the cost of renewal/replacement works exceeds £500. The Ombudsman has not been provided a copy of the landlord’s costs to date. However, we have seen images of the garden where several new panels were visible along with concrete posts. Based on these images, the Ombudsman was satisfied that (on balance) the landlord’s partially completed works exceeded its £500 service charge threshold. Overall, there was no evidence of a related failure by the landlord. Nor was any information seen to suggest it was obliged to refund the resident’s previous charges.
In November 2023, the resident raised concerns about a supervisor’s comments during a phone call about the fence. In its subsequent stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for how the resident perceived the supervisor’s tone. This was on the basis they asked the resident if she wanted her fence to be completed “or not”. In addition, they eventually ended the phone call. The landlord did not provide a copy of the call recording. This was not a failure because no information was seen to show the resident’s conduct concerns have completed its internal complaints procedure.
To resolve matters swiftly for both parties, we expanded the scope of our investigation to include the issue. This is because the resident has not disputed the version of events detailed in the landlord’s stage 1 response. Providing its description of the call was accurate, the information seen suggests the landlord’s apology was sufficient to put things right for the resident.
In summary, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point. The landlord acknowledged it contributed to an initial delay in clearing rubbish. Though it apologised to the resident, it took around 7 months to resolve the matter. It is reasonable to conclude the rubbish was unsightly and may have presented a risk. The landlord later said it could access the rough ground from elsewhere. This shows it did not depend on the resident for access. On balance, the landlord’s apology was disproportionate given the length of time it took to remove the rubbish.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various health and welfare concerns

Several important issues related to this topic arose during the timeline. The resident raised concerns around financial hardship and damage to her health. She also requested a SPOC and for operatives to visit the property in pairs. The below assessment used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to consider the landlord’s overall response to her various health and welfare concerns.
The landlord’s offer to help the resident complete a damage claim form in March 2022 was noted, along with its internal referral to a financial hardship team in February 2023. Later, in March 2024, the landlord told us all future visits would be attended by more than 1 operative. The resident subsequently confirmed she preferred this arrangement. It was also noted, at times, the landlord amended the scope of its works to accommodate her preferences.
Similarly, the evidence shows the landlord sought to group or phase repairs at various points. This was to minimise any disruption for the resident. It also decided not to pursue legal action against the resident for failure to provide access (breach of tenancy grounds). These measures confirm the landlord was mindful of the resident’s welfare, it was willing to offer her additional support, and it was broadly responsive to her related concerns. Nevertheless, the evidence points to some problems in relation to this topic.
Significantly, there was no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns around damage to her health. In March 2023 the resident said her health conditions “(had) been put in jeopardy”. She also said damp, mould, and cold had caused her numerous chest infections. She subsequently raised similar concerns on a number of occasions. It is acknowledged these issues were raised later in the timeline. It is also accepted she made a significant number of detailed complaints, which involved a considerable amount of duplication.
Nevertheless, her comments warranted a reaction from the landlord. Given their direct relevance to some of the reported repair issues (such as damp and mould), the landlord should have sought to establish details of the resident’s health conditions promptly. At this point, it could have updated its records to guide its future interactions with her. In March 2024, the landlord told us it had no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident. This information suggests the landlord lacks information that could affect its decision-making.
In summary, the evidence suggests there were 2 significant procedural failures in relation to the resident’s health concerns. Based on her complaint on 3 March 2023, the landlord should have promptly asked the resident if she had any vulnerabilities and recorded the information. It should have also signposted her to its insurance process. This would have allowed her to raise a claim on health/personal injury grounds. There was no indication the resident has made a related claim to date. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is accepted this was a complex and difficult case for the landlord to manage. Nevertheless, the evidence points to problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the landlord should have raised a formal complaint much earlier in the timeline. Its records show it raised a stage 1 complaint around 8 February 2023. In contrast, the resident felt she had complained in July 2022. She referred to this complaint during several subsequent interactions. These interactions included clear expressions of dissatisfaction.
For example, a related call note on 3 October 2023 said the resident was “very dissatisfied with (the landlord’s) service”. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s initial failure to raise a formal complaint added to her overall frustration. The evidence shows she chased the landlord several times for a response. Ultimately, she was denied an opportunity to resolve her concerns through the landlord’s complaints procedure for several months.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 20 February 2023 did not include any details about the date of the resident’s original complaint. This omission indicates the landlord did not attempt to establish the full complaint timeline. Had it done so, the landlord could have identified the initial delay and redressed the resident accordingly. Instead, the evidence shows it overlooked an inappropriate delay of around 7 months. This was unfair to the resident. To avoid similar issues, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. This includes establishing the full complaint timeline and addressing any delays or procedural issues accordingly.
There were similar delays and failures at stage 2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her concerns during a new complaint on 23 February 2023. However, the landlord did not action her request. It is accepted her related correspondence was long and detailed. It is also accepted her request was not submitted to the landlord’s stage 1 case handler. Regardless, the landlord should not have overlooked it. The timeline shows the complaint was escalated on 3 April 2023. In addition, a stage 2 response was issued around 10 weeks after the resident’s initial escalation request.
Again, the landlord did not acknowledge the above delay or attempt to put things right for the resident. The timeline shows the same pattern repeated in relation to its stage 1 response in December 2023. Overall, the evidence points to combined complaint handling delays of around 8 months in total. It also shows the landlord failed to address any of them accordingly. This was unfair and inappropriate.
Another issue involved compensation. The landlord awarded the resident compensation at both stages of its complaints process. At each stage, it referred to the compensation as a “goodwill gesture”. However, the response wording confirms the compensation was awarded to address various delays and failures by the landlord. This means the landlord’s description was incorrect. It is reasonable to conclude this approach did not help the landlord build trust with the resident. For openness and transparency, the landlord should stop using “goodwill” terminology incorrectly. Goodwill payments can be used in cases where an investigation has shown the landlord is not at fault.
Finally, it may have benefitted both parties if the landlord had also appointed an internal SPOC. The internal SPOC could have handled the resident’s complaints and liaised with the external contractor. Had it done this, the landlord may have identified the resident’s initial escalation request and her important concerns around health impacts. The landlord is encouraged to consider this option going forwards.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The evidence suggests the landlord’s complaint handling delays and failures added to the resident’s overall frustration. The landlord overlooked these delays and failures. As a result, it failed to redress the resident accordingly. This was unfair and inappropriate. The evidence points to combined delays of around 8 months. The landlord also used incorrect terminology to describe its compensation awards. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s approach did not help it to build trust with the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s concerns around outstanding repairs.
  2. Response to the resident’s concerns around damp and mould.
  3. Response to the resident’s various health and welfare concerns.
  4. Complaint handling.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around fencing renewal works.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around damaged personal belongings.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of a £50 goodwill gesture was proportionate given its failure to follow up with the resident about replacement flooring. The evidence suggests the resident also contributed to a related delay of around 13 months. In March 2022, the landlord asked her to confirm a convenient date and time to discuss the replacement flooring. There was no evidence to suggest she provided the requested information.
The landlord failed to respond proactively to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs in July 2022. As a result, there was an unreasonable delay of around 7 months before it attempted to complete a related inspection. Later, it failed to recognise these key delays and failures or redress the resident accordingly. This was unfair and its goodwill offer was disproportionate. It also failed to put things right for the resident following a failed appointment in April 2023.
The landlord’s damp and mould record keeping was inappropriate and the resident was impacted. From its repair and other records, the Ombudsman was unable to establish whether damp and mould treatments should have been applied during its redecoration works in December 2022. The situation was a source of anxiety for the resident and it was ongoing for around 17 months. The evidence shows there were other record keeping failures around damp and mould.
The landlord acknowledged it contributed to an initial delay in clearing rubbish. Though it apologised to the resident, it took around 7 months to resolve the matter. It is reasonable to conclude the rubbish was unsightly and may have presented a risk. The landlord later said it could access the rough ground from elsewhere. This shows it did not depend on the resident for access. On balance, its apology was disproportionate given the overall removal timescale.
There were 2 significant procedural failures in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s health and welfare concerns. Based on her complaint on 3 March 2023, the landlord should have promptly asked the resident if she had any vulnerabilities. It should have also signposted her to its insurance process. This would have allowed her to raise a claim on health/personal injury grounds. The was no indication the resident has made a related claim to date.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s complaint handling delays and failures added to the resident’s overall frustration. The landlord overlooked these delays and failures. As a result, it failed to redress the resident accordingly. This was unfair and inappropriate. The evidence points to combined delays of around 8 months. The landlord also used incorrect terminology to describe its compensation awards. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s approach did not help it to build trust with the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident. Its apology should recognise the key failures outlined in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to complete a full inspection of the property. The inspection must be completed by a senior surveyor. This is to address any repairs or safety issues accordingly. The landlord can consider appointing an independent surveyor as a means to build trust between the parties. While this is not a mandatory part of the order, the landlord is encouraged to consider the potential costs of an independent survey in relation to the potential costs of legal action on breach of tenancy grounds. The landlord can also invite its external contractor to attend the inspection. It should share the survey’s findings with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £900 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around outstanding repairs.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around damp and mould.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around fencing renewal works.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s various health and welfare concerns.
5. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. £150 which the landlord previously awarded the resident at stage 2. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid the resident from this figure.
The landlord to ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before updating its records, the landlord should contact the resident to gather the correct information. During this contact, it should signpost the resident to its insurance team/process. This is in case the resident wants to raise a claim for any health impacts.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. Specifically, its complaint investigations should consider the whole complaint journey from beginning to end. This will allow the landlord to identify delays and address any procedural issues accordingly. It should also help the landlord to avoid adverse findings from the Ombudsman. The landlord should ensure it responds to reports around vulnerabilities and health impacts promptly. It should emphasise the importance of record keeping in cases involving potential health/safety issues. It should also use the correct terminology around compensation. The landlord should share a copy of its related internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider appointing an internal SPOC. This is to handle any complaints from the resident and liaise with the external contractor.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.