Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Slough Borough Council (202119630)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119630

Slough Borough Council

28 June 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 various external repairs and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident moved to the property in 2009 as a council tenant. She became a leaseholder in August 2023. The landlord is a local authority and is the freeholder. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block of three floors. The resident occupies the property with her husband and two sons, one of whom has asthma.
  2. In November 2019, the resident reported an issue with damaged and clogged gutters which dripped on the wall which she said affected external insulation. She also reported water ingress to her property which she believed arose from the balcony above and resulted in damp and mould. In January 2020, landlord operatives attended but no repairs took place.
  3. The resident made an initial complaint on 31 January 2020. She said there were damaged gutters on all sides and water was getting in from the upstairs balcony. She said that repairs had been due to take place on 27 January 2020 and she had taken a day off to provide access but no work on the balcony or guttering had been carried out, simply a partial inspection. The resident was also unhappy as she said the landlord did not inspect her neighbour’s balcony above her nor inform the neighbour about the issue.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 6 February 2020 and issued a stage 1 response on 20 February 2020. It said that the repairs to guttering required scaffolding and apologised that this was not communicated to her and had caused a delay. It promised to update her by 27 February 2020. With regard to the water penetration into her property from the vicinity of the balcony above, it arranged for works to take place on 11 March 2020. It added the resident would need to be present as it required access to her garden to carry out repairs from underneath the neighbour’s balcony. It also stated it had arranged for the damp proof course (DPC) to be repaired on 4 March 2020 but she would not need to be present. It said that once the external works had been completed, it would arrange for any internal works to take place.
  5. On 12 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord explaining repairs to the guttering had not been done and she had had to cancel the 11 March 2020 appointment for the balcony work due to a family emergency. The resident was also unhappy that no work had been done on the DPC on 4 March 2020 as, despite the landlord saying she did not need to be present, she had been left a ‘sorry we missed you’ card. This appointment was rebooked for 24 March 2020. She also said the chimney had been inspected but she had not been given a date for its repair.
  6. The landlord arranged for a subcontractor to attend the property on 10 July 2020 to undertake work on the guttering as the scaffolding had now been erected. However, the resident felt the clearing they carried out was unsatisfactory as the operative had used a short, unprofessional tool, and she said they had not repaired the gutters which were still leaking. The landlord emailed the resident regarding the ongoing issues and said it would chase the repairs. It also said it planned to replace the chimney pot with a rotary cowl to increase the draw on the flue and incorporate a passive vent into the lounge fireplace to improve ventilation to the property.
  7. The landlord provided an update on 7 December 2020 regarding the balcony stating that it had carried out various inspections into what was behind the cladding on the wall adjacent to the balcony, but had not yet established what needed to be done to fix the issue. On 21 April 2021, a cherry picker was used to clear gutters and the contractor replaced 3 tiles. However, its operative said they could not touch the chimney pots as they are asbestos but could not see anything wrong with them. On 22 July 2021, the resident emailed again asking for an update to her stage 2 complaint. She provided the work order numbers of jobs that remained outstanding including repairing leaking gutters and installing a rotary cowl. She said that the water penetration into her property from the above balcony worsened with rainfall and, despite reporting this many times, she had not had any information for 18 months and her living room wall and ceiling were deteriorating. She added that the DPC installed had issues and, following an inspection, she understood that the ground levels were to be lowered and the wall repointed, but no one had attended on 4 March 2020 or subsequently to do the work.
  8. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3 on 16 August 2021. She continued to chase and made a formal stage 3 complaint on 21 September 2021 and subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 November 2021. On 17 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it had cleared the gutters on 21 April 2021 but acknowledged they would likely need clearing again and would raise a new order for this. It noted a repair to the guttering was not previously identified so it would inspect at the same time to check whether a repair was needed in addition to the clearance. As regards the chimney cowl, it said that as this is an external part of the building, it did not pose a health risk to the household and it would not arrange for an asbestos test at this time or consider its replacement as long as it remained intact. With regard to the balcony, it said it had no previous reports in relation to this apart from the initial report. It said it would attend with damp meters to assess the internal area for water penetration and would be able to consider this matter further in light of its findings from the assessment. It said its contractor had advised it had no record of a DPC issue and it said it would investigate this further when carrying out the internal damp assessment and would propose a suitable remedy dependent on its findings. It asked when the resident was available so it could book the inspections and then its contractor would confirm appointments with the resident directly.
  9. On 22 December 2021, the resident asked again to escalate her complaint. She said her complaints had been ignored and works had been outstanding for a prolonged period. She said that, given the inspections between August 2020 and February 2021, the landlord was aware of the issue and yet work had not been carried out; she wondered if the contractor and subcontractor reports held by the landlord were lost. She felt it had changed its decision regarding the chimney cowl and added there was still a problem with the wall under the balcony and that necessary work had not been completed including the DPC work originally scheduled for 4 March 2020.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 3 (final) response on 2 August 2022.  It apologised for failing to resolve the issues and acknowledged it should have responded in a more efficient and timely manner. It concluded the delays were due to its contractor failing to report back the complexity of the issues. It acknowledged that the issues with this case had effectively been forgotten and has since identified learning to improve its awareness of longstanding issues. It said it visited the property on 9 May 2022 to understand what issues remain outstanding. It stated the gutters were cleared and repaired in April 2021. It added that replacement chimney cowls had been installed to prevent water ingress. Further, it said the works to investigate the damp on the living room ceiling and wall would be extensive as it would involve removing exterior panels of the wall in the flat above the resident’s to assess what work is needed to prevent water penetration; scaffolding was to be erected on 5 August 2022. As regards the DPC, it said it inspected this and found it was correctly in place and the area was dry, so no further work was required.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and her complaint. As a resolution, she wished for the landlord to complete all the external repair work including repairing the guttering, doing the DPC and resolving the patch of wet wall on her living room resulting from the issues with the balcony above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident expressed that the issues she experienced significantly impacted the health and wellbeing of the household. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy/its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of various external repairs and subsequent damp and mould in the property

  1. The resident became a leaseholder in August 2023, having previously been a council tenant when she made her formal complaint. It is noted she became a leaseholder after the landlord’s final response. This report will refer to a sample tenancy agreement booklet as well as the landlord’s responsible repairs policy. The landlord had an obligation to keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters and external pipes. This would include exterior walls to which the balconies were affixed around 8 years ago. The landlord would not carry out works or repairs for which the resident is liable by virtue of their duty to use the premises in a tenant-like manner, or is liable under an express covenant.
  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that repairs are to be carried out within a reasonable period of time and in line with its published repair priorities after notification of the repair. For all non-emergency ‘routine’ repairs, its service standard is 20 working days from the resident’s request for the repair. The policy notes that appointments can be booked to suit the resident based on their defined preference such as avoiding school runs, and if an appointment is missed by the resident, then its contractor would advise the landlord so it can contact the resident the same day to confirm another appointment. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident is responsible for repairs relating to internal damage caused by condensation while the landlord is responsible for repairs arising from issues with the external wall. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the reports of guttering repairs and water ingress as routine repairs as it gave examples of minor roof works and leaking gutters as routine repairs.
  3. With regard to the guttering, despite the landlord being aware of the issues as early as November 2019, it did not arrange for repairs in a reasonable time. The landlord did not advise until its stage 1 response of 20 February 2020 that scaffolding was needed; it committed to update her by 27 February 2020. It failed to do this and did it carry out the work by then. This led to her chasing the landlord again in March 2020. Although the scaffolding was erected in March 2020, and the resident chased again in May 2020, the landlord did not clear the gutters until 10 July 2020 and it did not carry out any repairs. The landlord’s repair logs note a child’s toy had blocked the rear gutter. This was a considerable time to carry out clearing of a gutter, and the scaffolding taking up space in the resident’s small garden caused her inconvenience for months. The Ombudsman notes that the clearance of the gutter should have enabled the contractor to identify where repairs to or replacement of guttering needed to be made, but this follow up work was not carried out which was a missed opportunity to properly resolve the issue. The landlord failed to carry out a lasting and effective repair. The resident confirmed that when it rained, the gutter dripped in the same place as previously and that, due to the location of the gutter damage, the external wall was affected, resulting in damp. 
  4. In September 2020 the landlord explained it would arrange for scaffolding to rectify issues with roof and gutters. It is unclear when the scaffolding erected in March 2020 was removed. The landlord even stated that it seemed like it was “going backwards”. The resident emailed again in February 2021 explaining the gutter repairs had not taken place and clearly explained that she did not need to be present for guttering repairs to take place due to the works being external. Almost a month later, the landlord raised a work order on 10 March 2021 and carried out an inspection on 15 March 2021. Subsequently, it carried out clearing of the gutters by way of a cherry picker on 19 April 2021.
  5. The resident emailed again in July 2021 requesting the landlord repair the gutters as they were damaged and leaking. She also asked for the rotary chimney cowl to be installed in order to increase the ventilation of the building. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response of 17 December 2021 that the gutters had been cleared and at the time no repair was identified. However, it would raise a new order to clear out the gutters as it was likely it would be needed again and would check whether repair was needed in addition to the clearance. It said it would not replace the chimney cowl as it was intact and did not pose a health risk. This would have been frustrating and confusing for the resident as the landlord’s contractor had attended in August 2020 and raised a work order to “replace the chimney pot with a rotating chimney cowl to increase the draw on the flue and ventilation to the property”. The resident responded by pointing out that the landlord had not inspected its own records properly as the work order to replace the chimney pot was outstanding, but it took the landlord a further 7 months to remove and replace the cowls which it did in July 2022.
  6. This was a significant amount of delay which may have exacerbated damp conditions in the property. The landlord should have acted with more urgency and been more proactive in resolving the matters with the guttering and chimney pot. Indeed, it was unclear as to whether a repair of the gutters was found to be required, and whether the landlord actually assessed this, or whether it simply assumed a clean would suffice on each occasion. While the landlord did replace the chimney pot, the resident continued to email in September 2022 and January 2023 requesting repair of, the gutters which she said were damaged and leaked at the joints. The landlord did not carry out gutter clearances and fascia cleaning and water testing of the gutters until 5 June 2023 despite promises that this would be undertaken sooner. There were repeated failings on the part of the landlord which caused avoidable delays.
  7. The resident provided to this Service screenshots of the number of appointments dated between November 2019 and July 2020. It is concerning that some of the job numbers do not feature in the repairs logs provided by the landlord to this Service and the jobs often lacked sufficient detail and were unclear. Moreover, the work order for the replacement chimney cowl was noted as completed on 17 September 2020, which was not the case as confirmed by its stage 2 response of 17 September 2021 which declined to replace the cowl. The landlord on a number of occasions relayed incorrect dates to the resident. This may suggest underlying issues with the landlord’s record keeping which may have led to a breakdown in communication between various parties. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s inability to effectively co-ordinate its contractors and probe its own records led to the inordinate delays and would have eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord’s capability to resolve the matter satisfactorily.
  8. The Ombudsman recognises there were periods of time where the resident had no updates and had to chase the landlord for progression. It seemed the landlord put the onus on the resident to keep track of repairs and chase matters. This was inappropriate and again may suggest underlying issues in the landlord’s record keeping. In line with our Spotlight Report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. In view of this, a recommendation has been made.
  9. The resident first reported the balcony issue along with “black mould and damp on ceiling” in late 2019. In the resident’s view, when there is rainfall, a damp patch appears on her living room ceiling during the winter months. Following further reports from the resident, an inspection took place on 27 January 2020 which was already past the landlord’s 20-working day policy aim to carry out routine repairs; the inspection simply stated that further investigation was needed. The resident made a formal complaint on 31 January 2020.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it had arranged for work to take place on the balcony on 11 March 2020. While the resident said she had to cancel this appointment due to a family emergency, when she initially informed her neighbour about the planned date, the neighbour said they had no idea about repairs being needed to the balcony despite the resident’s original report in November 2019 and her formal complaint in January 2020. Indeed, the landlord did not appear to arrange a new appointment with the resident after the resident’s cancellation, which was contrary to its policy. She also said that she had advised the landlord that she and her neighbour with the balcony above were both available on 7 April 2020, yet the landlord did not act on this information.
  11. Between April and June 2020, there was no progress on the repairs and there appeared to be no communication with the resident during this time. This lack of engagement from the landlord would have caused distress to the resident who may have felt that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and had no interest in resolving the matter. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment in this case given the repeated reports of damp and mould and the fact the resident occupied the property with her two sons, one of whom had asthma, but this did not appear to happen.
  12. The landlord’s contractor attended the property in August 2020 and noted the extent of the water ingress from the balcony which it suggested was a result of either the external wall insulation (EWI) or the exoskeleton retro-fitted balcony. It said it was either an issue with cold bridging or a structural fitting issue. Considering the landlord was first aware of this issue as early as November 2019, this was a substantial delay before it established what the likely cause of the problem was. However, the landlord emailed again in December 2020 stating it had not satisfactorily concluded what was required to fix the problem; it said it had obtained drawings of how the building and balconies had been constructed. It added it had removed external cladding pieces to compare them with a product that may be needed. While these efforts are noted, the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to resolve the water ingress; the landlord recorded that the balcony interior above the resident was ‘bad’ all the way across with a noticeable corner where water was likely tracking down from the top flat balcony. The landlord said it would request its contractor to scrape the wet area and tidy up as a temporary job. However, this did not appear to happen.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response was inappropriate as it stated it had not received any further reports in relation to this issue apart from the resident’s initial report. This was inaccurate as the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of the issue in its stage 1 response and the resident continued to email throughout 2020. The landlord specifically contacted the resident in December 2020 about the balcony and she emailed again in February 2021. This inaccurate information would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Throughout 2021 and 2022, the resident continued to chase the landlord and engage with its complaint progress as regards the balcony issue.
  14. The landlord erected scaffolding in August 2022 in order to remove cladding panels on the external wall on the flat above to again assess what work was needed. Although some panels were removed in mid-August 2022, the resident was told further scaffolding was needed. It was not until 20 October 2022 that the landlord attended to remove further panels on the external wall and cut out a small section underneath in order to check for the passage of water, and refit them. Subsequently, on 28 November 2022, the landlord attended again and repeated the process. The next day the landlord emailed the resident explaining the water ingress was more significant than anticipated and explained it may have to remove the whole balcony and refit it, and apologised for the delays. In January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord pointing out that the landlord had said it reviewed the drawings in January 2023, yet it had been aware of this issue for 3 years and it had previously said it obtained the drawings in December 2020. This highlights the excessive delays that arose because the landlord failed to control the processes that were necessary to establish the root cause of the water ingress and to deal with it.
  15. At the beginning of 2023, the landlord explained it was more complex than originally thought, and that it was having difficulties locating suitable materials as they would have changed from those initially fitted. In 2023, it offered a mould wash to the resident. The resident explained the landlord had undertaken mould washes/clean of the wall since around mid-2020. While mould washes are useful, this approach simply treated the symptoms of damp and mould, rather than the root cause, particularly before all recommended remedial works had been completed.
  16. In the resident’s view, the damp in the property was caused the combination of the leaking gutters, leaking from under the balcony, a lack of ventilation from the chimney, and an ineffective DPC. A landlord should take proactive action to identify homes that have issues with damp, mould and condensation, and if the problem persists or is too serious for residents to deal with themselves, it should log a repair for a property inspection. If the damp and mould occurred as a result of condensation, landlords should work with residents and take appropriate measures such as providing advice about how to control moisture levels. If the problem is related to damp caused by issues such as poor mechanical ventilation or structural defects, the landlord had a responsibility to carry out recommendations actions identified in a property survey.
  17. The resident’s continued reports of damp and mould should have prompted the landlord to carry out a damp survey of the property sooner. From the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, while inspections took place it is unclear if a qualified surveyor from the landlord attended, and no surveyor reports from the landlord have been seen. Due to the landlord’s inaction, the resident chose to commission a private damp survey in January 2023, the report of which she provided to the landlord and has provided to this Service. The report stated that damp conditions were found within her property. It stated that due to the renovations around 8 years ago, further invasive surveys would be necessary to determine what upgrading measures are needed to rid the flat of penetrating damp and condensation; it noted additional background and fabric ventilation was required.
  18. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord carried out investigations, albeit significantly later than it should have, to find the source of the water ingress, including erecting scaffolding to enable removal and replacement of sections of the steel balcony and cladding panels, the investigations do not appear to have established without doubt the cause of the water ingress.
  19. The resident was frustrated when, having taken time off work to accommodate contractors, found either that no work took place or they did not show up. The Ombudsman appreciates the frustration caused as this was clearly a resident who wanted to engage and work with her landlord to resolve the issues. This Service’s remedies guidance states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation, for example, in recognition of the inconvenience caused where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or have failed to resolve the issue.
  20. The landlord has contacted this Service and explained that, since August 2022, it carried out numerous visits to the property and telephone discussions with its contractor director. The landlord acknowledged it took a significant amount of time to carry out work and said that it was a complex issue. The landlord said there was a small patch of wet wall in the living room near the ceiling, roughly the size of a palm of a hand. It said there could be a small amount of water tracking through the steel balcony and it considered the water ingress minor as it had found no significant damage to the building. Considering the high cost associated with removing and then replacing the balconies above the resident’s property, which would likely fall under major works with costs that may be apportioned to leaseholders within the building, its present view is that it would not be prudent to carry out such work in an attempt to resolve what it considers is a minimal adverse effect on the resident, with no guarantee that such work will resolve the issue. While not diminishing the effect the damp on the ceiling has on the resident, it is noted that the resident said there is currently no visible damp present. In the landlord’s submissions to the Service, it said it was willing to install an environmental sensor, which will monitor the temperature, humidity and carbon dioxide levels within the property, and also a positive input ventilation system (PIV).
  21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to coordinate necessary remedial works satisfactorily. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant given the fact she occupied the property with her two young sons.
  1. As emphasised in our Spotlight report, ventilation, together with sufficient heating and appropriate mould treatments where necessary, is essential for the prevention of mould in properties. During the repair and complaint process, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord offered temporary measures such as dehumidifiers or PIV. Indeed, it appeared only to offer PIV in October 2023 following the Ombudsman’s intervention, a considerable amount of time after the resident’s formal complaint of January 2020. This would have been a suitable approach while it took steps to identify the root cause of damp and mould and to resolve it.
  2. In correspondence with this Service in April 2024, the resident advised that the guttering still needs repairing and the balcony issue was unresolved. The resident appreciated that cleaning the wall and mould washes would help, but had understood that the landlord wished to undertake external works prior to internal. The resident also confirmed that there was no visible damp and mould presently, but said this was due to her running the dehumidifier frequently and airing the property. She said that the issue was still not resolved and, despite the fact she had removed plaster from the wall bordering the external communal corridor and treated it with chemicals and installed new plasterboard at her own expense, the damp patch on the ceiling recurred after rainfall, particularly in the winter months. Although the resident explained to the landlord she ran a dehumidifier, the landlord did not offer to contribute towards the utility costs of running it. This would have been appropriate considering the length of time it took to resolve some of the issues in the property. This was unfair and a recommendation has been made.
  3. Regarding the DPC, the resident disagreed with the landlord’s final response in which it said it had inspected it and found it in place and completely dry; it said this was not a contributing factor to damp in the bedroom. This corroborated the resident’s own damp survey of January 2023 which said that while damp readings were higher than usual, this was not indicative of rising damp as the masonry behind could not be tested. The resident’s surveyor found that both the internal and external faces of the original load-bearing external wall have been covered with PIR insulation boards and so damp readings of the masonry could not be taken. The surveyor suggested an invasive survey would be necessary to check this by way of using bore holes or stripping back the covering insulation. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on its inspection as well as that of the resident’s damp survey and therefore there does not appear to be a need for any further work on the DPC. Having said this, given the resident’s assertions that the landlord’s contractors did not check the correct wall and that there is no evidence of any invasive surveys being undertaken by the landlord, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to check the DPC in the wall bordering the external communal corridor as part of its ongoing checks on the block.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its response to damp was extremely poor. It should have taken more robust action at an earlier stage to try and identify the cause of the damp. There were a series of failures that had a detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord did attempt to put things right by apologising, identifying that there were failures in its service delivery and communication, and promised to learn from outcomes. However, despite the resident continuing to engage with the complaint process, the balcony issue was not resolved. Given the delays and its lack of communication, the landlord did not act fairly or seek to put things right. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, but it did not offer any redress for the distress and inconvenience of living with damp and mould for a prolonged period, nor did it consider the potential health implications of mould given the resident occupies the property with her two sons. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £600 to £1,000 should be considered where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. In this case, there was long-term detriment to the resident caused by the landlord’s repeated failings which also served to undermine the landlord/resident relationship. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made orders and recommendations in recognition of this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy explains how a complaint can be made and the timescales for responding. It also states the landlord has a three-stage process for complaints. At stage 1 it aims to provide a response within 10 working days of receipt of complaint. At stage 2 it aims to provide a response by a senior manager also within 10 working days. With respect to stage 3, the complaint may be reviewed by the Resident Complaint Panel and response sent within 10 working days. However, if more time is required this would be agreed with the resident.
  2. The resident made an initial complaint on 31 January 2020. The landlord initially acted appropriately acknowledging the complaint on 6 February 2020 and provided its stage 1 response on 20 February 2020. This was within 14 working days and outside its policy timescale. While a minor failure, the landlord should have identified that there was delay in providing the stage 1 response and apologised for this. Following the resident’s email of 12 March 2020 and further emails of dissatisfaction where she explained the situation had not been resolved and she was still unhappy and wanted information about dates of works, the landlord acknowledged a separate complaint on 13 March 2020. This was inappropriate as it should have escalated the original complaint to stage 2 at this point.  Not doing so would have caused confusion to the resident, and it is noted that the landlord received a call from the resident “extremely frustrated”. Its subsequent inaction resulted in a protracted complaints process.
  3. The resident continued to chase and as this was unsuccessful, she asked on 22 July 2021 for a “final and unambiguous” answer regarding her complaint. The landlord said on 23 July 2021 that as it was a separate complaint but the issues were previously the subject of a stage 1, this complaint was now logged as stage 2. Confusingly, the landlord’s rationale appears to have been that a significant period of time had elapsed since the initial complaint’s stage 1, so it had been closed off and a new stage 1 was needed. Yet, contrarily, it stated that the later complaint comprised the same subject matter which the landlord had yet to resolve. This raises the question of why the initial complaint was closed if the matter was unresolved.
  4. While a landlord is entitled within reason to choose how it governs its processes and hence when to suggest closing a case, it should have recognised that closing the complaint at this point would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident. Indeed, the resident explained that she had felt powerless as a result of the misunderstandings by the landlord and its contractors. It would have been reasonable to leave the case open until it was satisfied the matter was resolved or had been escalated as necessary. Indeed, internal notes state “23/6 – complaint closed in error – repairs still outstanding”. In this respect, the landlord should have taken adequate steps to reassure the resident that, despite the complaint having been closed, it was committed to any outstanding actions. A recommendation in relation to this has been made.
  5. As explained above, the landlord acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 23 July 2021. However, the landlord failed to provide a response within its policy timescales. It took the landlord almost 5 months to issue the stage 2 response on 17 December 2021, despite its aim to do so within 10 working days. The resident continued to chase during this period on 16 August, 31 August, 8 September and 21 September 2021. This was a significant failing that would have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to resolve her issues and may have made her feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident spent much time and trouble posting letters to the landlord via special delivery. However, often the resident did not receive any response to these letters which should have been scanned and dealt with in the same way as an email or phone call.
  6. In August and September 2021, the resident stated to the landlord that, as she had not heard back, she wished her complaint to be escalated to stage 3. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, a Resident Complaint Panel should have convened and reviewed the complaint, issuing a stage 3 final response within 10 working days. However, this did not happen. Rather, despite being aware of the request for stage 3, the landlord, as noted above, proceeded to issue its stage 2 response on 17 December 2021. Not only was this significantly outside its timescales, but it resulted in an overall delay in the complaints process. It was apparent the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s complaints process despite making numerous efforts to progress her complaint. Indeed the day after receiving the stage 2 response, she explained that her complaint should be at stage 3 and that she wished for the chief executive officer to review her case. The landlord acknowledged this the same day.
  7. In late January 2022, this Service asked the landlord to provide its final response. Despite the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord failed to provide its final response within 10 working days. This Service emailed the landlord again about this on 14 March 2022. The landlord appeared to blame the delays on a number of structural changes. While this may be the case, the landlord had an ample amount of time to provide its final response before the Ombudsman was obliged to issue a complaint handling failure to the landlord on 14 July 2022. The landlord issued its final response on 2 August 2022. This was almost 12 months after the resident’s stage 3 escalation request after the landlord’s failure to provide a timely stage 2 response.
  8. The landlord’s communication with the resident was a clear failing in its service delivery. Evidence showed that the resident regularly contacted the landlord for updates to the repairs and for a response to her complaint, but the landlord often failed to respond in a timely way which led to unnecessary delays. The landlord should have sought to keep the resident updated regularly, but it failed to do this and as a result the resident had no effective or open dialogue with the landlord. The fact that the landlord seemed to raise multiple complaint references for the same issue, leading to multiple complaints whose progress was difficult to follow in the landlord’s records, may partially account for the poor communication by the landlord. Possible underlying issues with the landlord’s record keeping have been referred to above and a recommendation made below.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s inaction caused great problems for the resident when trying to progress her complaint. The landlord delayed for months before providing a final response. Indeed, in internal correspondence, the landlord acknowledged “this wouldn’t read well if the Housing Ombudsman were involved”. Further, when the landlord did issue its final complaint response on 2 August 2022, although it acknowledged the resident’s complaint had not been dealt with in accordance with its target timescales, it did not attempt to put things right by apologising for this or by offering redress to the resident for the inconvenience its failings had caused her or by demonstrating that it had learned lessons from its handling of the repairs. It is also of concern that its complaint response did not include any signposting as to how the resident could escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman or any next steps. An order and recommendation have subsequently been made to recognise this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various external repairs and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Arrange for a surveyor with expertise in diagnosing the causes of damp to carry out a survey of the property, using appropriate equipment, in order to establish where and how water ingress is occurring, and form an action plan to carry out their recommendations within an acceptable timescale. The landlord must provide a copy of the survey report and action plan with its proposed timescale to both the resident and the Service. 
    3. Arrange for a contractor to water test all the guttering in order to establish if there are any leaks and, if so, to repair/replace the guttering.
    4. Pay the resident a total of £1,200 made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the failings identified in its handling of various external repairs and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
      2. £200 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Carry out checks on the damp proof course (DPC) in the wall bordering the external communal corridor as part of its ongoing checks on the block.
    2. Consider reimbursing the resident for the cost of the surveyor who carried out a damp survey in January 2023 and for a reasonable proportion of the cost of running the dehumidifier between November 2019 and August 2022.
    3. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    4. Carry out further training and refresher courses for its staff and contractors regarding their application of its repairs, complaints and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to ensure that repairs such as this resident’s are completed within policy timescales and fully remedied, and that complaint cases are not closed without outstanding actions having been committed to.