Lewisham Council (202220112)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220112

Lewisham Council

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The void process and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. Boiler and water tank repairs.
3. Damp and mould.
4. Kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement.
5. The resident’s requests for a hedge to be replanted.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2 May 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
When the resident’s tenancy started, there was a tank fed boiler in the property, with a cold water storage tank and hot water cylinder.

Summary of events

On 8 April 2022, when the property was void, the landlord carried out a gas safety inspection and noted that the boiler was not safe to use and the gas supply was capped.
The resident attended the property on 27 April 2022 and signed her tenancy to start the following week. During this visit, she said she reported that the ceiling in the hallway was bowed.
Three days later, the resident reported that her decorator had identified there were no floorboards on the upstairs landing, only thin plywood. The ceiling was not attached to the wall properly, which was the reason it was bowed and looked like it was collapsing. On this date, the resident said she fell through the floor on the landing, which resulted in injury.
Over the next 9 days, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 6 occasions asking for an update on the works to the floor and ceiling, as these were preventing her from moving in. On 9 May 2022, the landlord asked its void contractor to inspect the property, as the issues raised were not visible during the post inspection.
The landlord recommissioned the boiler on 16 May 2022, and noted that it was safe to use.
Later that month, the resident reported a big gap in the hedge at the front of the property. She asked for it to be reinstated for additional privacy. The landlord replied that it had passed her request to its environmental services team.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord raised a works order for “post void works to collapsed ceiling”. This was recorded as completed the following day.
On 7 July 2022, the resident reported having no heating or hot water. The landlord noted it attended the following day but was unable to carry out the required works because radiators were off the walls and the property was being decorated.
The resident reported damp and mould on 10 July 2022. The landlord raised a works order to carry out an inspection and said this was completed 3 days later. The Ombudsman has seen no record of this inspection and the resident said she was subsequently told by the landlord that the inspection report was unavailable.
The landlord reattended for the boiler breakdown on 20 July 2022, identified the fault, and ordered a part. It attended again 6 days later to resolve this.
On 26 July 2022, the resident reported that water coming out of the bath taps was brown and the landlord raised a routine works order. It noted that it attended on 8 September 2022 and cleared an airlock.
On 18 September 2022, the resident again reported having no heating or hot water, damp and mould, and dirty water coming from the taps. She explained that her husband was vulnerable because of health issues and her and her son had been unwell with chest infections recently.
Three days later, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she had first reported the damp and mould in July 2022 and while the landlord had inspected, it had not produced a report so the issues had not been addressed. She had since been told she had been added to a waiting list. The landlord replied the following day that it had registered the complaint at stage 0 and would contact her by 26 September 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 September 2022 to discuss her stage 0 complaint. During this call, she reported there was no heating and hot water and raised concerns about the lack of action in respect of the damp and mould. After the call, the landlord updated the resident that it would attend regarding the heating and hot water 2 days later. It had contacted its surveyor regarding the damp and mould to ask when the works could start. It would keep her updated.
On 28 October 2022, the resident reported that brown water was coming from the bathroom taps and the landlord raised a routine works order. It noted that it attended the following month and looked inside the water tank, which was “very badly corroded” and this would affect the water. It was waiting to hear from the heating engineers about upgrading the heating system.
The landlord noted that it attended and identified that a new boiler was required on 28 October 2022. It raised an urgent works order for this job the same day. A week later, the landlord raised a routine works order to change the stop cock and noted this needed to be done before the boiler could be replaced. This order was recorded as cancelled.
On 9 November 2022, the resident reported that the condition of the property was getting worse. The damp and mould was spreading quickly and she asked when the landlord would address this. She had recently reported a job for the bath seal as it was covered in mould. She had reported there was no hedge at the back of the property and had been promised this would be planted in October 2022 but it had not been done. She asked for an update regarding the stopcock. The landlord had advised the residents not to brush their teeth upstairs because of the contaminated water tank. She said she had reported that the water was dirty several times and was very worried about this.
The landlord replied the same day that it would attend the following day to change the stop cock and check the water tank. Once the stop cock issue was resolved, it could replace the boiler, which would help to alleviate some of the damp and mould issues. It would then inspect the property and book in further works to address the damp and mould. From the records provided, it is not clear whether the landlord attended the following day.
On 17 November 2022, the resident asked for an update on the damp and mould and the water tank. The landlord replied asking for pictures of the damp and mould and said she would be contacted by its contractor to arrange to replace the boiler. The resident provided photographs the same day and asked for an update regarding the hedge.
Eight days later, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she had been told the water tank was contaminated and not to brush her teeth upstairs. The boiler replacement had been delayed because of issues with the stopcock, and the damp and mould was getting worse quickly. She had reported that the bath seal was not attached and had gaps, which meant that water was going down the side when they used the bath or shower. She was told the bath was going to be replaced but this had not happened. There were chips and mould all around the shower unit, tiles and bath.
The same day, the landlord raised a routine works order to reseal around the bath tub. This order was recorded as cancelled.
The landlord replied on 30 November 2022 that it could not escalate her complaint to stage 2 as the original complaint was logged at stage 0. It had logged her complaint at stage 1 and it would provide a response by 14 December 2022.
On 3 December 2022, the resident set out the details of her complaint, which included:
1. Damp and mould throughout the property. A surveyor came in July 2022 but did not submit a report and she asked what happened to this. When she followed up, she was told she had been added to the back of the queue. She had since been told an appointment had been arranged for March 2023.
2. The cold water supply tank was contaminated and she had been told not to brush her teeth upstairs because of this.
3. The internal and external stop cocks were not working and she asked when this would be addressed.
4. None of the seals were properly attached to the walls. Every time they used the shower or the kitchen sink, water ran down the walls. This had soaked the kitchen units, which were now water logged and in disrepair. She had reported this many times and been told a job would be raised. She had also been promised a new bath but this had not happened. She asked for the bathroom and kitchen to be replaced as part of the landlord’s replacement programme.
5. She had reported the missing hedge for security and privacy reason. She had been told this would be replaced in October 2022 but this had not happened.
6. She asked what property checks were done before she moved in and how these repairs were missed or not addressed.
7. She asked why her initial complaint was not logged at stage 1.
The resident reported no heating and hot water on 12 December 2022. The landlord noted it attended 2 days later and completed a temporary repair, until the new boiler could be installed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022, which said:
1. The issues with the stopcocks had been resolved. Now that these were working, it could carry out the works required to resolve the issue with the water tank, and install a new heating system. An appointment had been made for 16 December 2022 to complete this work.
2. An appointment had been arranged for 31 January 2023 to resolve the issue with the bath seal. This did not go ahead as the resident cancelled the appointment due to being unavailable.
3. Further works were required to resolve the damp and mould and it was aiming to carry these out once the new heating system was installed.
4. It had asked its grounds maintenance operatives to inspect the hedge. Once it received their report, it was aiming to resolve the matter urgently and would keep the resident informed of progress.
5. The property was not included in the kitchen or bathroom replacement programme for that year. It may be included in the near future and it would let her know any developments.
6. It apologised for any delays and service failure and acknowledged the inconvenience and distress caused.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day because the stage 1 response had not answered all of her queries, including:
1. What happened to the surveyors reports from the damp and mould inspection in July 2022, and why had she been put to the back of the queue for another inspection.
2. Whether the property was inspected before she moved in. She asked to see a copy of the inspection report, as the property was in disrepair and not fit for occupancy.
3. Why she had not been told her complaint was not logged at stage 1.
4. There were chips on the work surfaces in the kitchen and burn marks on the cupboards and the seal did not stop the water running down the back of the units so these were water logged. The shower leaked dirty liquid and the bathroom was covered in mould. She asked what it meant when it said the property “may” be added to the kitchen and bathroom replacement programme in the future.
The following day, the resident reported no heating and hot water. The landlord noted it attended that day and that a part was needed.
The landlord attended on 16 December 2022 to replace the boiler but this could not go ahead as there were ongoing issues with the stopcock. The resident reported this the same day and said that the information in the stage 1 response was not accurate. The landlord raised an emergency works order to resolve the issue with the stopcock and recorded this as completed the same day. The resident said that the landlord attended 7 days later and repaired the stopcock.
The landlord told the resident on 3 January 2023, that her complaint was at stage 2 and it would respond by 18 January 2023.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord attended and replaced the boiler. This included removal of the hot and cold water tanks and replacement of pipe work.
The next day the resident reported that a recent leak, which had now been resolved, had caused significant damage to the kitchen sink unit. She provided a photo of the contaminated cold water tank that had been removed the previous day. She said she was traumatised because of this as they had been using the water from this to brush their teeth.
On 13 January 2023, the landlord raised a routine works order to regrout and reseal the bath.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 January 2023, which said:
1. It was attending on 10 February 2023 to replace the kitchen sink unit. It had raised a routine works order for this the same day but this was subsequently cancelled and the resident has reported that this appointment did not go ahead.
2. It did not provide residents with copies of the void inspection report as these were for internal use only.
3. It received a high number of reports of damp and mould and was working through a backlog. A mould wash had been booked for 10 March 2023 and once this had been done it would arrange any other works required.
4. The property was not included in the kitchen and bathroom replacement programme for that year but may be included in the near future.
5. It upheld the complaint as it had failed to fully resolve the issues in a timely manner. It offered £100 compensation for the delays and distress caused.
At the end of January 2023, the landlord provided an internal update that additional shrubs had been planted in the gap in the hedge.
In early February 2023, the resident reported that the damp and mould still needed addressing. The seals around the windows in several rooms were defective as they allowed water in when it rained. The seals around the kitchen and bathroom sinks were not attached to the walls and the kitchen sink unit had not been replaced.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord raised a routine works order to ease and adjust the windows as rain was coming through. This was recorded as cancelled.
The landlord attended on 10 March 2023 and completed a mould treatment. Six days later, the resident reported that this had been unsuccessful and the windows were still leaking.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord attended and resealed around the bath.
On 30 March and 15 April 2023, the resident asked what stage her complaint was at. In addition to the issues already raised, she reported there was no extractor fan in the bathroom and that there was an exposed live wire where this should be. When the landlord had attended previously, it had told her to keep the windows open all the time.
The landlord replied on 19 April 2023 that the complaint had been closed at stage 2 and provided the escalation details for the stage 3 adjudicator.
In May and June 2023, the resident reported that none of the outstanding issues had been resolved. She had spent lots of time trying to resolve them but had now given up and asked to be moved away from the property. The landlord replied and provided details regarding a transfer and mutual exchange options.
On 23 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 as she was unhappy with the stage 2 outcome. She had been left without heating and hot water for 7 months. There was no privacy from the main road because of a missing hedge, which the landlord had promised to replant, but had not done. There was damp and mould throughout and this had negatively affected her health. There was a live wire in the bathroom because of a missing extractor fan. The window seals were defective and water leaked in whenever it rained. She had been promised a new sink unit but this had not been done. It had taken the landlord 4 months to remove the contaminated water tank. When she moved in the ceiling was falling down. They had to move out as it was unsafe and paid rent for 2 places and were not properly compensated for this. She had asked for a copy of the void inspection as she did not believe it had been properly completed before she moved in.
The same day the landlord raised a routine works order to ease and adjust the windows. It noted this job was sent to its contractor but there is no record that this work was completed.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord raised a routine works order to repair broken tiles in the bathroom. This was recorded as completed on 1 September 2023.
On 30 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response, which said:
1. It had no record that the property was inspected against its lettable standard during the void period. Whether it was inspected or not, it was not brought up to the lettable standard before the resident’s tenancy began, as the windows were not weather tight, the landing floor was not safe, the stopcock was not working and there was an exposed wire in the bathroom. It also expected that all seals should be checked and renewed, where required, as part of the void works.
2. The gas safety inspection in April 2022 listed the boiler as unsafe. It would have been sensible for the landlord to replace the boiler at that time, while the property was empty; particularly as this involved removing a water tank and replacing pipework. It understood it was cheaper to repair the boiler than replace it but considering the colour of the water coming from the tank and the age of the boiler, it should have progressed with a replacement, rather than repairs.
3. There was no record of the damp and mould inspection that took place in July 2022. It was unfair to put the resident to the back of the queue for a second inspection, as it was not her fault that it did not have a record of the original inspection. It should have put her at the front of the queue.
4. It should have identified and resolved the issues with the windows and the missing extractor fan earlier, as these would have addressed the most likely causes of the damp and mould. It could also have offered dehumidifiers to alleviate the situation, but failed to do so.
5. There was a delay in the landlord installing the new boiler. The boiler was unreliable from July 2022 and stopped working completely in September 2022, but was not replaced until January 2023. This delay was avoidable as it was a result of a problem with the stopcock, which if the void works had been done properly, would not have been an issue. It did not offer alternative heating until December 2022 and when it did, it told the resident that this would be expensive to run, which was unhelpful.
6. The records were not clear when or if the damaged kitchen unit was replaced. It should have ensured there were not going to be further leaks from the unsealed bath or old pipework, before replacing this.
7. It was acceptable that it logged the original complaint at stage 0 as it quickly picked this up and made arrangements to resolve the issues. While the arrangements did not work, it was trying to do the right thing. The stage 1 and 2 responses were slightly over the committed responses times and when she asked to escalate to stage 3, it signposted her to the adjudicator. It did not agree that £100 compensation was sufficient to address the impact of the service failure.
8. It did not respond to the issues regarding the promise of a new bath and the hedge. It would have been reasonable to check the bath to see if it needed replacing. The relevant team had since December 2022 to consider the issue of the hedge so there was no reason to delay this and in the absence of a fence, the hedge was necessary to provide privacy.
9. It listed the specific ways these matters had impacted the resident and her family and noted these were “considerable”. The complaint was upheld and it recommended the landlord do the following:
  1. Apologise to the resident.
  2. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of £500 in recognition of the service failure and £400 for the financial impact (£200 decorating costs and £200 for additional expenses over 4 months she was without heating and hot water).
  3. Reimburse the rent balance for the 3 week period it took to repair the hall ceiling at the start of the tenancy.
  4. Complete all outstanding repairs and reports within 4 weeks and arrange to plant the hedge before Spring 2024. Once the leaks had stopped and property dried out, it should refit the kitchen and bathroom with new units, worktop, tiling and sanitaryware.
  5. Review its void and damp and mould procedures.
In September 2023, the landlord raised a works order to carry out a damp and mould inspection. It recorded this was sent to its contractor but there is no record this was completed.
In December 2023, the resident told this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs and void works before she moved in. The outstanding issues included damp and mould, kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement and the hedge.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported other issues to the landlord relating to asbestos in the property, its removal and subsequent remedial works, pest infestations, the property being excessively cold, the front door lock, cracks and the meters being painted over. These issues fall outside of the scope of this investigation as they have not been assessed or responded to by the landlord as part of its formal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). A recommendation is made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if she wants these issues raised as a complaint and if so, to progress this through its formal procedure.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord carried out extensive works to the kitchen in September 2023, but these were part of separate remedial works in relation to the asbestos. Therefore, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs and replacement up until August 2023 only. Any works completed after this date relate to its handling of the asbestos, which falls outside the scope of this investigation for the reasons set out above.
The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of the void process and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

The landlord’s void maintenance procedure at the time said that a post inspection would be carried out on completion of the void works, to approve the standard and quality. Once the works were completed a ‘void handover certificate’ should have been signed and returned along with photographs. All documentation and certificates would be saved electronically.
From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a post inspection of the works or that a void handover certificate was ever completed. While internal communication refers to a post inspection having been completed, it does not appear that any formal record of this was made. This means that the landlord cannot evidence that it carried out the required checks to ensure the property met its lettable standard at the start of the tenancy. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on its void management procedure, which should include the importance of keeping detailed records and what action should be taken if residents raise concerns about the condition of the property after the start of the tenancy.
At the point of sign up and during the first few weeks of the tenancy, the resident raised concerns about the hallway ceiling and landing floor. The landlord’s lettable standard says that it will ensure the property is structurally sound and that floors are safe and level. The landlord said in internal communication that the concerns raised by the resident were not obvious during the post inspection, but there is no formal record to confirm this was the case.
While some of the issues may not have been immediately obvious, the resident reported that the ceiling was bowed prior to the start of the tenancy. This was a clear indication that something was wrong and should have prompted the landlord to investigate further, before letting the property. Its failure to do so resulted in the resident moving into a dangerous property and falling through the floor.
It is not clear from the records provided how long it took the landlord to carry out the works to resolve this issue. However, had the landlord been more thorough in its void management process, these additional works could have been identified and completed during the void period, prior to the resident moving in. The landlord’s failure to identify and complete the works during the void period meant that the resident was delayed in being able to move into the property, despite her tenancy having started.
The resident said she did not move into the property until August 2022, although the records show that she reported repairs in July 2022 which indicates she was making use of the property during this period. It is not clear form the records when the works to the ceiling and floor were completed, but the landlord has reversed rental charges for a 3 week period to account for this. As the records are unclear, the Ombudsman is unable to make a further order for compensation based on rental charges, for the period the resident was away from the property.
The landlord carried out a gas safety inspection during the void period, which was in line with its void maintenance procedure. The outcome of this was that the boiler was deemed unsafe to use, but the landlord took no action, other than to cap the supply.
The landlord’s lettable standards says that gas systems will be checked and a valid safety certificate issued, which was done. However, it would have been sensible to carry out the required works to ensure the system was safe to use, prior to the resident moving in. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported issues with the boiler and less than 6 months later, it had stopped working altogether. Had the landlord taken steps to address the issues during the void period, it may have been able to avoid the further difficulties the resident experienced after moving in. These issues and the landlord’s handling of this are assessed later on in this report.
The landlord’s lettable standards commits that:
1. All stopcocks are labelled and working.
2. Window and frames are free of rot or decay.
3. Electrical wiring is checked and safe.
4. Kitchen worktops, tiling, units and drawers are clean and functional.
5. Bathroom tiles/ splash backs will be clean and sealed.
Due to the lack of records of the post inspection, it is not possible to know whether these issues were checked at that time, and whether the property was deemed to have met these standards at the start of the tenancy. However, the records indicate that within a year of her tenancy starting, the resident reported issues with the kitchen, bathroom, windows and wiring and the landlord identified issues with the stopcocks. The resident has indicated that a number of these issues were present from the start of the tenancy but without contemporaneous records of the void inspection, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on this issue. This is a significant concern and highlights the importance of the void maintenance procedure and thorough record keeping.
The records indicate that the landlord asked its contractor to reattend to inspect after the resident raised concerns about the condition. However, there is no record of this inspection. Considering the serious nature of the concerns raised, the landlord should have attended to assess the condition. Its failure to do so shows a lack of care and that it was not taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
This is further supported by a comment made in an internal email by a member of landlord staff in a management position, which said “this sounds like a classic case of getting a painter and decorator in who goes around the property and scrutinises everything. Most of these issues are opinion based and do not jeopardise letting standards.” This dismissive attitude further confirms that the landlord did not take this matter seriously, despite the fact that the resident had fallen through the floor and injured herself.
When the resident asked the landlord to see a copy of the void inspection report, it declined and gave the reason that this was for internal use only. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of this report to its stage 3 adjudicator or the Ombudsman, indicating that it does not exist. Whether it exists or not, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and provided a more detailed and robust response. It did not do this at any stage, which was dismissive and upsetting for her.
The significant failings by the landlord in its handling of this matter amount to severe maladministration. While it recognised its failings in the stage 3 response and some redress was recommended, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient to address the level of service failure and detriment caused. Therefore, an order is made for a senior director of the landlord to provide an in-person apology to the resident.
The stage 3 response recommended £500 compensation in recognition of the service failure, however, this was for all issues. In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and considering the significant failings by the landlord in the handling of this issue alone, this amount is insufficient to address even this issue. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation for its handling of this issue, inclusive of the £500 already offered.

Handling of boiler and water tank repairs

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the boiler and water tanks under the terms of the tenancy agreement. This says it will repair and keep in good working order installations for the supply of water and space heating. When the resident reported no heating and hot water in July, September and December 2022, the landlord attended, or offered to attend, within 1 to 2 days. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy to attend emergencies within 24 hours and urgent repairs within 3 working days. Its repairs policy says that the total loss of heating in the winter was considered an emergency and for other times of year, it would be an urgent issue.
While the landlord attended promptly, any repairs carried out did not resolve the issues in the long term and by October 2022, the landlord had identified that the boiler needed to be replaced. It raised an urgent works order for this to be done in October 2022, but it did not complete the replacement until more than 2 months later. This was over the committed response time of 3 days set out in its repairs policy. This meant that the resident and her family, including her vulnerable husband, were left for many months, some of which were during the winter, with no heating and hot water.
The stage 3 complaint response said that temporary heating was offered to the resident in December 2022, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. While sensible that it offered this, it was around 2 months after the boiler stopped working and should have been offered sooner. This was particularly important because the resident had told the landlord that her husband was vulnerable.
The delay in replacing the boiler was caused by issues with the stopcocks. The landlord initially raised a routine works order for this; however, considering this issue was preventing the installation of the boiler and the property was without heating and hot water, it should have prioritised this as an urgent repair. The landlord told the resident it would attend 8 days after the works order was raised, but from the records provided, there is no evidence that it did and this order was subsequently cancelled, with no record of why.
The landlord raised an emergency works order on 16 December 2023, which was sensible considering the urgency of the repair and the fact it was preventing the replacement of the boiler. This was recorded as completed the same day, which was in line with the landlord’s committed response time of 24 hours. However, the resident has told this Service that the repair was not carried out until 7 days later, which was over the committed response time.
The stage 1 response said this issue had been resolved, but this was incorrect and it was not resolved until 23 December 2022. This was 36 working days after the initial works order was raised and unreasonable, considering the urgency of the repair required. The delay in the landlord carrying out this repair directly contributed to the delay in the boiler being replaced.
When the resident reported her concerns about the cold water tank in July 2022, the landlord attended but there is no evidence that it inspected the tank. This is a concern as it did not properly investigate the matter at that time and was a missed opportunity to identify the issues with the tank at the earliest chance. When it reattended 4 months later and inspected the tank, it noted that some concerns were identified. Despite this, it did not take any action to address these concerns for a further 2 months.
It is noted that any works to the tank would have been delayed due to the issues with the stopcocks in much the same way these delayed the works to the boiler. However, the landlord should have taken steps to provide an alternative water source during this period, if it was unable to progress the removal of the tank. The resident said she was told by the landlord not to use the water in the bathroom, but this was insufficient to address the concerns as it should have provided an alternative water source.
The Ombudsman has seen photographs and a video of the inside of the cold water tank that was removed in January 2023. These are alarming and along with the resident’s reports about brown water coming from the taps and the landlord’s inspection note, indicate that there was a serious problem with the tank. This went unaddressed for 2 months after the landlord confirmed there was a problem, which was a significant failure, as it had identified that the corrosion would affect the water. Despite this, it took no action to provide an alternative water source for the period of delay.
The discoloured water from the taps was understandably worrying for the resident. Seeing the inside of the tank was very distressing as the family had been using water from the contaminated tank to wash and brush their teeth for around 8 months. The resident has said that since the tank was removed and they saw the inside, her son now refuses to drink water from the taps. The landlord’s failure to properly investigate this matter or take timely action to address this has, understandably, had a significant impact on the resident and her family.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the boiler and water tank repairs amounts to severe maladministration. While it recognised its failings in the stage 3 response and some redress was recommended, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient to address the level of service failure and detriment caused. Therefore, an order is made for a senior director of the landlord to provide an in-person apology to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for the financial impact in relation to additional expenses incurred and decoration costs, which was appropriate. However, the amount of compensation offered for distress and inconvenience was insufficient. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, in addition to the £400 for the financial impact, that was recommended at stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Handling of damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
When the resident reported damp and mould in July 2022, the landlord inspected the property quickly, which was appropriate. However, it failed to properly record the inspection, which resulted in no action being taken until 2 months later, when the resident chased this up. The landlord has subsequently confirmed that it has a procedure in place to ensure all damp and mould inspections are properly documented and staff training on this has been provided, which is positive.
When the resident made further contact about this in September 2022, and the landlord identified what had happened, it put her to the back of the queue for a second inspection. This was unfair, as it should have prioritised the second inspection, considering this was needed because of its own error.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that the damp and mould was worsening and that it was negatively impacting her and her family’s health. These were further reasons it should have prioritised a follow up inspection and action. Despite saying it would reinspect and raising a works order for an inspection in September 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord did this.
The landlord carried out a mould treatment, but it did not do this until 8 months after the resident first reported this issue. It said it was dealing with a backlog of damp and mould cases, but considering the impact on the family, it should have prioritised this relatively straight forward action. Its failure to do so meant the resident and her family were left living in a property with worsening damp and mould for an extended period.
While appropriate that the landlord treated the mould, it should have taken steps to identify and treat the underlying cause. In some correspondence, it refers to the lack of heating and hot water as being a potential cause, which was reasonable. However, its failure to carry out the second inspection, meant it did not identify or address any other issues that were contributing to this. An order has been made for the landlord to provide staff training on a best practice approach to damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this subject.
The resident has reported issues with the windows and a missing extractor fan in the bathroom, both of which may be contributing to the damp and mould. While the landlord raised 2 works orders regarding the windows, there is no evidence that any works were ever completed. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord has done anything regarding the missing extractor fan. The resident said she was told by the landlord’s surveyor to keep the window open all the time. This was inappropriate and insensitive as it suggested the damp and mould was something solely for the resident to manage, rather than being the landlord’s responsibility to address.
The resident has recently told this Service that there is still damp and mould in the property. This is particularly concerning, considering the impact she said this is having on her and her family’s health. An order is therefore made for the landlord to arrange an independent damp and mould survey to identify works required to address this, as well as the underlying causes. A written update is to be provided to the resident confirming any works that will be carried out and a timescale for these to be completed.
The resident has been living in the property for over 2 years and the records show that she has raised this issue with the landlord on at least 15 occasions. Despite this, the landlord has taken very little action to investigate or address this, which resulted in the resident giving up and asking to be moved. The landlord’s response to this request was to provide rehousing options, but there is no evidence that it followed up regarding the outstanding repairs to address and resolve these. This showed a lack of care and accountability, or any desire to put things right for the resident.
The landlord’s multiple failures in its handling of this issue amount to severe maladministration. While it recognised its failings in the stage 3 response and some redress was recommended, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient to address the level of service failure and detriment caused. Therefore, orders are made for the landlord to provide an in-person apology to the resident and pay her £1,000 compensation for its handling of this issue, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the kitchen and bathroom, in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including installations for the supply of sanitation.
It is reasonable that the landlord would repair kitchens and bathrooms, before replacements are considered. Where repairs cannot resolve the issues, the landlord should take steps to include these within its planned replacement programmes. The decision on if and when to include kitchens or bathrooms into replacement programmes is for the landlord to make and should be informed by any relevant data, in addition to inspections.
The 2 works orders raised to reseal around the bath were categorised as routine repairs. However, as the water was leaking down the side of the bath and considering the potential damage this could cause, it would have been appropriate to categorise these as urgent repairs.
The records indicate this repair was completed 78 working days after the first works order was raised. This was more than double the committed response time of 20 working days for routine repairs set out in its repairs policy. Some of this delay was not attributable to the landlord as the resident had to cancel an appointment scheduled for January 2023. However, considering the relatively straight forward nature of this repair and the potential for further damage from the water going down the side of the bath, the landlord should have done more to ensure this was completed sooner. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the tiles in the bathroom in November 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to investigate of address this until 9 months later. When the works order was raised in August 2023, the landlord categorised this as a routine repair, which was reasonable, considering the nature of the works. The records indicate this was completed in 6 working days, which was in line with the 20 day committed response time for a routine repair. However, as there had been a significant delay in the landlord raising this order, the overall response to this issue was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration.
From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord did anything in response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen raised in December 2022. After a leak in January 2023, the resident reported that the kitchen had deteriorated further and the records show that a works orders was raised at that time for an inspection. However, there is no record this went ahead.
Similarly, a second works order was raised in May 2023 for an inspection of the kitchen, but again, there is no record that this went ahead. It is reasonable that the landlord would want to attempt repairs in the first instance. However, there is no record that it did this or that it even attended to assess the condition. This was despite the resident raising her concerns on numerous occasions over a 6 month period. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel ignored and meant she was left living with a damaged, waterlogged kitchen for many months.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that the property was not included in the replacement programmes, but it gave no detail about how or why it had reached this conclusion. It committed that the property “may” be included in the future, which was vague and caused confusion for the resident. When she queried this at stage 2, the landlord failed to address this or clarify its position, and simply reiterated its stage 1 response. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident and made her lose faith in the landlord.
The landlord carried out extensive works to the kitchen in September 2023 but, as this was in relation to asbestos removal, this falls outside the scope of this investigation. In recent contact with this Service the resident has raised concerns about the standard of these works and, while the Ombudsman is unable to assess this, an order is made for the landlord to inspect the kitchen to identify any works required. A written update is to be provided to the resident confirming a timescale for any works to be completed.
The landlord’s stage 3 response recommended that the bathroom be replaced. The landlord has told this Service that this was completed but has provided no evidence of when this was done and the resident has told this Service that the bathroom remains in a poor condition. An order is therefore made for the landlord to arrange an independent survey of the bathroom to identify whether it requires repairs or replacement. A written update is to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this and a timescale for any repairs or replacement works to be carried out. If replacement is required, but this cannot be done within the next 3 months, the landlord is to identify any remedial repairs it can carry out and provide written confirmation of these, including a timescale for them to be completed.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. An order is made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £700 compensation, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Handling of the resident’s requests for a hedge to be replanted

The landlord’s website confirms that it is responsible for grounds maintenance in communal areas, including hedges. It is understandable that the landlord may not agree to plant hedges or shrubs in new areas. However, where there is a gap in an existing hedge, the landlord should carry out replanting works to fill this gap. This is particularly important where the hedge provides privacy or additional security for properties. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to replant the hedge in the gap.
The landlord said it would refer the hedge to its environmental services when the resident first reported this in May 2022. However, there is no evidence that it did this until 7 months later and only after the resident had raised this on at least 3 more occasions, including as a formal complaint. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel ignored.
In an internal update in January 2023, the landlord said that it had replanted the hedge, but there is no record that it updated the resident on the action it had taken, as it agreed to do in its stage 1 response. The resident later raised this issue as part of the stage 3 escalation request, stating that nothing had been done, so it is not clear what action was actually taken in December 2022/ January 2023.
The landlord recognised in its stage 3 complaint response that it had not responded to the resident regarding this issue and recommended the planting works be carried out. In an update to this Service in July 2024, the resident has confirmed that the landlord has recently completed the planting works to fill the gap. While positive that it has done this, it has not provided any redress for the more than 2 year delay in its handling of this matter. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its handling of this issue.

Complaint handling

When the resident initially complained in September 2022, the landlord treated this as an informal (stage 0) complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time did not encourage the use of informal complaint stages, as these could cause confusion for residents. However, the Ombudsman encouraged the early resolution of issues and recognised that there were times when actions could be immediately agreed.
In this case, the resident was clear that she wanted to make a complaint and so the landlord should have progressed this to stage 1 of its formal process. The records show that the use of this informal stage, did cause confusion for the resident at a later stage, when she asked to escalate her complaint.
In its handling of the informal complaint, the landlord contacted the resident within the committed timescale and agreed actions to resolve the issues, which was positive. However, there is no evidence that it followed up to ensure the issues were fully resolved, as it said it would. This meant that the informal stage did little to resolve the issues and did not prevent the complaint being escalated to its formal stages.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 14 working days and the stage 2 response in 23 working days. These were slightly over the committed timeframes of 10 and 20 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time. As these were only a few days over the target timescales, they were minor delays. The landlord provided its stage 3 response in 48 working days, which was more than double the committed timeframe of 20 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its stage 3 response, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were brief and while the complaint was upheld at stage 2, there is no detail given about the landlord’s assessment of its handling of the issues. This is a concern as this is a primary purpose of the complaints process and gives the landlord opportunities to put things right for residents and identify learning. The lack of analysis or proper investigation of the issues in this case, meant that the landlord missed opportunities to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.
It is positive that the landlord identified service failure at stage 3 of its process and made recommendations to put things right. While the landlord has told this Service that it has carried out the recommendations, the resident has reported that a number of the issues remain unresolved. This is a concern and indicates a lack of adequate follow up with the resident to monitor the actions and ensure all the issues were resolved.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Considering the significant failings in its handling of several of the substantive issues, the landlord’s failure to properly handle her complaint would have been particularly upsetting. These failings only furthered her loss of faith and trust in the landlord. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £400 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The void process and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. Boiler and water tank repairs.
3. Damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement.
2. The resident’s requests for a hedge to be replanted.
3. The formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its void management procedure and cannot evidence that the property met its lettable standard at the start of the tenancy. When the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, the landlord did not take appropriate action or provide an adequate response.
The landlord missed an opportunity to identify the issues with the water tank. When it reattended 4 months later, it identified the issues but delayed a further 2 months before doing anything to address this. This resulted in the resident and her family using water from a badly corroded tank for 8 months. The landlord was delayed in installing the new boiler, which was a result of it not properly prioritising or completing repairs to the stopcocks.
The landlord has taken little action to investigate or address the damp and mould. Two years on, the resident is still living in a property with damp and mould. It failed to prioritise the follow up inspection or the works, despite knowing that the resident and her family’s health was being negatively affected.
The landlord did not do enough to investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen and bathroom and its communication regarding this was poor.
The landlord delayed in taking action regarding the hedge for 7 months and failed to provide any updates to the resident, despite committing to do so. The landlord has now completed the planting works but this took more than 2 years and it has not provided any redress to the resident to acknowledge the delay.
The landlord’s stage 3 response was delayed and it missed opportunities to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Give an in-person apology to the resident, from a senior director, in relation to its handling of:
  1. The void process and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
  2. Boiler and water tank repairs.
  3. Damp and mould.
2. Pay the resident £4,900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,000 for its handling of the void process and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy (this includes the £500 recommended in the stage 3 response, if not done so already).
  2. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of boiler and water tank repairs.
  3. £400 offered at stage 3 of its complaints procedure in recognition of the financial impact, if not done so already.
  4. £1,000 for its handling of the damp and mould.
  5. £700 for its handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement.
  6. £200 for its handling of her requests for a hedge to be replanted.
  7. £400 for its complaint handling.
3. Arrange and carry out an independent damp and mould survey to identify any works required to address this, as well as the underlying causes. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming any works that will be carried out and a timescale for these to be completed.
4. Apologise to the resident for its handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs and replacement and the formal complaint.
5. Inspect the kitchen to identify any works required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming a timescale for any works to be completed.
6. Arrange and carry out an independent survey of the bathroom to identify whether it requires repairs or replacement. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this and a timescale for any repairs or replacement works to be carried out. If replacement is required, but this cannot be done within the next 3 months, the landlord to identify any remedial repairs it can carry out and provide written confirmation of these, including a timescale for these to be completed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. Its void management procedure, which should include the importance of keeping detailed records and what action should be taken if resident’s raise concerns about the condition of the property after the start of the tenancy.
2. A best practice approach to damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this subject.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

Contact the resident to confirm if she wants the additional issues raised as a formal complaint. If so, these issues to be progressed for investigation through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
The landlord to confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendation, to this Service, within 4 weeks.