Bolton at Home Limited (202234276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234276

Bolton at Home Limited

9 June 2025

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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the communal area.
   2. Complaint about its Sustainment and Support officer. 
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom flat.
4. The landlord’s records state that the resident has “long term” mental health issues including anxiety and depression.
5. On 30 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report damp and mould in the communal stairwell and corridor.
6. On 2 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report issues she had experienced with its support service, particularly in relation to migrating her benefits to Universal Credit (UC) and her request for emergency food provisions.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023, as follows:
   1. It partially upheld the complaint.
   2. The resident’s Sustainment and Support Officer (SSO) was changed for operational reasons which it recognised was not ideal.
   3. It was satisfied with the support provided to the resident in response to her request for a food parcel.
   4. It followed the correct process in supporting the resident’s migration of benefits. Based on the information it held the resident should not have received a reduction in her UC.
8. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 17 March 2023 she said she had to obtain a food parcel from the local authority because the one promised to her by her SSO did not happen. She was dissatisfied that her UC had reduced by £100 and that she had to seek support from the local authority to resolve the issue. She added that she felt it unfair that her SSO was changed.
9. On 28 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask to add to her stage 2 complaint. She said her SSO had failed to progress her request for additional locks on her windows and doors.
10. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 24 April 2023, the main points being:
    1. It partially upheld the complaint.
    2. The resident’s housing costs were fully covered by UC.
    3. It was satisfied with the support it provided in respect of benefits migration and the resident’s request for a food parcel.
    4. It apologised that it had to change SSO.
    5. It had requested that additional locks and bolts be fitted to the new door that was currently being installed. It had also referred the resident to the local authority to install additional window locks.
    6. It set out proposed works to resolve damp and mould in the communal area which were due to take place on 22 and 23 May 2023.

Events post internal complaints process.

11. On 24 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had been unable to carry out works on 22 and 23 May. This was because the complexity of the works meant they needed to be allocated to a subcontractor. It apologised that this was not communicated to the resident.
12. The resident contacted us on 1 November 2023 to request that we investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area.

13. The landlord’s Repairs Guide says it aims to carry out responsive repairs and respond to reports of damp within 21 calendar days,
14. The resident reported damp and mould in the communal area on 30 January 2023. On 8 February the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had raised an inspection.
15. The landlord’s target date was 20 February 2023 in line with its repairs target. On 2 March the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that its surveyor had attended on 27 February which was 7 days out of time. It said that once its surveyor had provided an update regarding repairs it would pass this onto the resident.
16. On 16 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to set out works to be carried out in the communal area. This included replacing damaged plasterboard to the ceiling and replacing the entire roof.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 April 2023 confirmed when the works were scheduled to take place.  The evidence shows they could not go ahead as planned and that the landlord failed to update the resident accordingly.
18. We expect landlords to track outstanding actions and complete them in a timely manner while providing updates to residents. That the landlord did not do so was a failure. 
19. The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they were of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where the failure had a relatively minor impact.  

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its sustainment and support officer. 

20. On 2 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had supported her with her benefits migration on 6 February 2023. She said that since then her payments had been affected and she had to seek additional support from a welfare rights advisor to resolve the matter. She was generally dissatisfied with the level of support she received.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 17 March 2023 appropriately acknowledged the detrimental impact on the resident caused by the change in support officer. It provided an explanation and apologised for the inconvenience.
22. Furthermore, a file note dated 27 April 2023 appropriately identified its learning and what it would do differently. It said it “hardly ever” needed to change a support worker but when it did “more conversations” should be had with the resident to ensure they were happy with situation.  
23. The landlord’s response was appropriately in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right.
24. The resident also stated that her support worker had failed to progress her concerns about damp and mould. In its stage 1 complaint response of 17 March 2023 the landlord demonstrated that it had investigated her complaint. Its records showed that the SSO raised an inspection about mould in the communal areas on 15 February. Although again, we have not seen ‘live evidence’ relating to this point. As set out above the landlord attended on 27 February 2023.
25. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision of emergency food supplies and migration of benefits was reasonable. However, it has not provided ‘live’ file notes of the evidence it relied upon which is a record keeping failure. This includes the SSO’s communication with the resident about the appointment on 8 November 2022.
26. In her email to the landlord of 17 March 2023 the resident maintained that she was offered a food parcel that never came. While we do not doubt the resident’s account there is no independent evidence to corroborate events.
27. On 28 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the SSO had also not progressed her request for additional locks on her windows and doors. During a call with the resident on 3 April the landlord confirmed it would progress her request. The resident replied to say she was pleased with the outcome and thanked the landlord for “putting things right.”
28. The landlord’s complaint responses set out its response to the resident’s request for emergency food supplies in detail. They also confirmed that it appropriately reviewed the support provided regarding migration of benefits. We have not seen any independent evidence that challenges the accuracy of the information provided.
29. As set out in its stage 2 complaint response of 24 April 2023 the landlord was satisfied that it appropriately followed the correct procedure and had no control over the resident’s UC payments. It appropriately signposted the resident should she require further specialist advice on the matter. We have not seen any independent evidence that shows there was maladministration in its handling of the residents migration of benefits. Its stage 2 complaint response also appropriately confirmed that it had made an appropriate referral for additional locks.
30. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures
31. There were short comings in the landlord’s record keeping. However, it is acknowledged that in this case it did not prevent us from making a determination regarding the substantive issue. This investigation therefore concludes there is no evidence of maladministration.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

32. The landlord’s Customer Feedback (Complaint) Policy says that it will respond to all complaints within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. It also says that stage 2 complaint reviews will usually be led by a Director or Senior Manager.
33. The landlord’s policy was not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time. This is because it required the timescale for the response to be taken from the date the complaint was logged, not from when the acknowledgement was issued.
34. The resident made her stage 2 complaint on 17 March 2023. The landlord issued its response on 24 April, 25 working days after the complaint was received. Its response was unreasonably delayed and outside of its timescales.
35. The Code requires landlords to respond to all points of the complaint. It is acknowledged that the landlord progressed the resident’s request for extra locks. However, it failed to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint of 28 March 2023 that the support worker had failed to progress her original request. This omission was a complaint handling failure.
36. Both complaint responses were issued by Customer Care Co-ordinators. The landlord did not comply with its Complaint Policy because the stage 2 review was not carried out by a more senior member of staff. However, it is noted that this may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.
37. The landlord’s current Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s current Complaint Handling Code therefore it is not necessary to make an order on this point.
38. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its Sustainment and Support Officer. 
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation comprised of:
       1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area.
       2. £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
43. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, also within 4 weeks.