Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202226474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226474

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

20 December 2023

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 refers to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom; leaks in the bathroom and bedroom; and repairs to the showerhead.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 14 May 2021 until 9 April 2023.
The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat, which the resident occupied with her son.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair obligations, which include the property structure (eg inside walls and flues), and installations for water, hot water, and sanitation (eg sinks, toilets, central heating systems, water pipes, and showers). It commits to do repairs “within a reasonable time” and “to a reasonable standard”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy it will keep properties in “satisfactory repair”, which will put “residents in a safe and secure environment”. It also sets out a repairs timeframe according to the repair type. It states a repair may be an “emergency” if there is potential for “major damage… where a resident is vulnerable and carrying out the works will ensure they are able to remain safely in their home due to their vulnerability”. The policy states a vulnerable person is someone “who would experience a significant impact on their physical or mental health leading to them being unable to remain in the property if works were not completed for them”. It also commits to providing “clear and consistent information” about repairs.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it adopts “a zero-tolerance approach” to it. Depending on the nature of it, its repairs timeframe is from emergency works to a full survey. It commits to keeping residents informed of works and with regular contact. It also has an “after care” process involving contacting residents about “outstanding issues” after the completion of repairs.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process with stage 1 complaints being responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints being responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy set out when it will pay compensation to a resident. The landlord sets out examples of when compensation will or might be paid, and compensation values. In addition, it will consider making discretionary payments of up to £250 in “cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment”.
The resident says her son is autistic and suffers from skin conditions and allergies. She has also stated she has depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, BPD (which is understood to be borderline personality disorder) and is partially sighted. The landlord says while it did not have a record of the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities, it had information about her son’s autism on a management transfer application and “mention” of resident and her son being disabled in her original complaint. The evidence shows the landlord was informed of vulnerabilities on 21 October 2022.

Summary of events

From 21 September 2022 the resident made disrepair reports that included damp and mould reports; leaks in her son’s bedroom and bathroom; and a broken shower head. She said the disrepair caused mould to a cupboard, smells, and her son’s bedroom being uninhabitable. She made the reports by email and phone. She made complaints about the issues to her landlord, councillor, and the local council’s environmental health officer (EHO).
The resident made a report in or around 21 September 2022. The evidence does not show her original report or how she made the report to the landlord. The work orders generated following the report specify:
1. Damp on:

i. Bathroom wall and bathroom cupboard.

ii. Communal hallway wall adjacent to the bathroom.

Blocked bathroom sink and defective taps.
Shower holder has come loose from the wall.

The landlord took the following action:
1. Raised work orders on 21 September 2022 for its plumbing services and a damp proof specialist to inspect the property and report back.
2. On 5 October 2022, replaced both basin lever taps and a leaking flexi pipe to the cold basin tap.
3. On 11 October 2022, a specialist damp contractor attended the property and reported:

i. Latent moisture potentially due to condensation, “infestation by the black spot fungus (aspergillus niger) & associated staining”.

ii. The “extract fan is barely operational” and the resident stated the towels in the bathroom cupboard “regularly grow mould”.

iii. The report recommended replacing the extractor fan with a higher power model with humidistat switching; providing ventilation to the fitted cupboards; addressing any “sources of moisture ingress”; and installing a condensation control unit, to provide filtered positive ventilation.

The resident made a complaint (complaint A) on 21 October 2022 as follows:
1. She had no response from the emergency team after being on hold for 30 minutes.
2. In terms of background, she states she had made previous reports of damp in bathroom to the landlord earlier in 2022 when it had painted the bathroom and communal corridor. At a second visit, its operative confirmed the air vent was “not working properly left and said he will need to think about it”. The dates are not set out for these visits. She says, the damp and mould issue returned within 2-3 months. Her son had “skin conditions and allergies”, which were affected by the damp and mould. She said she could not use the cupboard due to the mould smells.
3. There were leaks in the bathroom and her son’s bedroom. She had been “tightening the pipes” to stop the leak.
4. She had no contact about the shower head which was a “danger” to her and her son.
5. Both the resident and her son were disabled. Her son had autism. He also had a skin condition and allergies, which the damp and mould were affecting. She had applied for a medical transfer.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord ordered a replacement extractor fan with a higher power model with humidistat switching.
On 3 November 2022, a visit was arranged to fix the shower head to the wall.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident (complaint A) on 4 November 2022 as follows:
1. Both basin lever taps, and basin flexi pipe had been replaced.
2. After the damp inspection, “a new work order has been raised for recommendation” and an appointment would be booked with her directly.
3. The shower head, which was booked in for repair, should have been repaired when it attended in October 2022. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to her and offered her £25 for the service failure.
The landlord says on 16 November and 25 November, the resident did not provide access (for the installation of the fan). The evidence indicates a letter was sent to the resident about the 2 no access visits but we have not been given a copy of this letter or evidence of the original arrangements made for the 2 no access visits.
The shower head was secured by the landlord on 29 November 2022.
On 5 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. The subject of the email was “stage 1 complaint” and the complaint A reference. She stated “following on from my email dated 21st October”:
1. It had not contacted her about the mould. Its previous attempt to paint over the mould had not “removed” it and she attached photos of it inside and outside her property. She said both her and her son regularly went to the doctor and hospital due to “symptoms” from the “black toxic mould”.
2. No action had been taken by the landlord since its operative’s visit about the defective air vent, who she said, “stated he will go back and to think about it”.
3. There was a leak in her son’s room again and she had not contacted about it. She said her son had “hives” from going into his bedroom on that day.
4. The issues had been ongoing since she moved to her property.
5. Both her and her son were under the hospital’s ear, nose, and throat department as they were “breathing this in” and her son was ill “24/7”.
6. Her son’s room was still leaking. She said her boiler was repaired on a previous occasion due to a leak. This service has not been provided with evidence of this previous repair.
7. The ‘fixed’ shower head broke when the water was turned on.
8. Contact with the landlord, including on its emergency number, had been unsuccessful.
The landlord informed the resident on 5 December 2022 (using the complaint A reference) its repairs team had been contacted and she would be updated on 7 December 2022.
On 5 December 2022, a works order for a full damp inspection inside and outside of the property was raised.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord installed a fan with ply humidity and timer.
On 12 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord (using the complaint A reference and “stage 1 complaint” subject) requesting a response to her 5 December email.
After an inspection on 13 December 2022, a job description was created to remove tiles and cut access panels under the sink and next to the toilet for access to ‘find’ the leak. The inspection report has not been provided to us.
On 14 December 2022, when the landlord attended to remove the tiles, it found the concealed cistern was leaking and needed to be replaced. A job description raised on 14 December 2022 stated the shower head was also coming off. The repairs log evidence does not show the arrangements for when this work was to be undertaken or if any works were done on 14 December 2022.
On 3 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord (complaint B) about the mould as follows:
1. It was having an effect on her son’s health, who she said had missed school due to illnesses, including skin rashes, chest infection, nasal congestion, and “wheezing”. He went to hospital twice at the end 2022 due to “wheezing” and was unaffected when he was away from the property.
2. She was also affected due to sleep disruption and a cough for which she was on sleeping tablets and antibiotics.
3. The mould smelt and was increasing in the bathroom.
4. She was taking time off work on 16 January 2023 so the tiles could be removed to access the pipes.
5. Occupational therapy (OT) services from the local council were visiting her on 5 January 2023.
6. She wanted compensation because of the “health, school and work and living” affect.
The landlord phoned the resident on 13 January 2023 when she confirmed the “repair problems”; her bathroom needed to be “fixed”; and there was a leaking pipe in her son’s bedroom. She said OT services said the property was unsuitable for her and her son.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident (complaint B) on 16 January 2023 as follows:
1. After the October 2022 inspection, a job was raised on 4 November 2022, and following 2 no access visits, a fan was installed on 8 December 2022.
2. After her contact on 12 December 2022, it raised a job on the same day, for a full damp and mould inspection. The post-inspection works were booked for 16 January 2023 (to cut access panels to identify the leak).
3. It apologised for the “slight delay” in making the appointment and offered her £25 for its service failure. It reminded her of its £25 charging policy for no access visits and encouraged her to report new and further “jobs” to it.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord cut the access panels in the bathroom.
On 17 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint stating:
1. The repairs from complaint A were unresolved and she had stated this in a phone call to it.
2. The shower head fell off after the repair.
3. There was a leak in her son’s bedroom.
4. 4 tiles had been removed from the wall on 16 January 2023 to “dry” the wall for 2 weeks.
5. The mould had not been “cleaned”.
6. She attached a photo to show “how my bathroom has been left knowing I have a autistic son with health conditions” after the 16 January 2023 visit.
7. She asked how drying the wall would resolve the issue of her and her son breathing in the mould.
The landlord has provided a document with a header which indicates the damp and mould case was opened on 17 January 2023.
In an internal email on 17 January 2023, a request was made by the landlord to raise a job to replace the cistern stating it had identified the toilet tank was leaking on 14 December 2022. This was raised in a completion report on 19 January 2023.
The landlord identified the following works on 19 January 2023 in a “general plumbing services” form:
1. Replace pop waste & basin mixer tap.
2. Re-attached loose shower head to wall.
3. Inspect and repair leak from a main water pipe in son’s bedroom and bathroom.
The landlord has provided details of an internal note from its damp and mould team confirming the works were due to start on 1 February 2023. We do not have the contemporaneous note or evidence showing the works scheduled.
On 26 January 2023, further to complaint B, the resident emailed saying the leaks, shower head, and mould issues were unresolved. She requested more than £25 compensation due to the landlord’s inaction and the damage to her son’s health. She set out a safety concern about her son slipping in the bathroom.
On 27 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 outcome as follows:
1. The stage 1 decision was upheld, but also complaint B had been partially upheld due to delays raising works resulting in an offer of £25.
2. It confirmed works replacing the extractor fan, basin taps and flexi pipe.
3. The December 2022 inspection found damp around the ‘boxing in’ (toilet and sink pipework). On 14 December 2022, it found the concealed cistern had a leak so needed to be replaced. It temporarily “fixed” the leak. Two access holes were cut to “air and dry out the boxing in” on 16 January 2023. An order to replace the cistern was raised on 19 January 2023 and the works booked for 1 February 2023.
4. Other than replacing the cistern all works had been done to stop future leaks. The cistern and flexi pipe leaks within the boxing had caused damp.
5. It followed its processes once repairs had been reported to it.
6. The offer of £25 still stood.
7. It had learnt lessons and would raise “follow on” more quickly.
The landlord has provided non-contemporaneous details of a call from the resident on 27 January 2023 when she reported that her bathroom and bedroom ceilings leaked when using her radiator. A works order was raised to inspect the radiators, replace leaking fittings, and do a test on completion of the repair.
On 30 January 2023, the resident email her local councillors and MP about the mould, outstanding repairs, and her compensation request.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord visited the premises, and a completion report confirmed no leak at the time. The resident said the leak happened when the boiler was on. It gave her a leaflet about the bathroom mould and recommended she get a dehumidifier. It identified a broken shower rail, and difficulties with opening and shutting the basin taps. The resident’s councillor was present during the visit.
The councillor emailed the landlord on 1 February 2023 asking for a repairs completion update and timeframe.
While the evidence does not show a visit took place to replace the cistern on 1 February 2023 in line with the stage 2 outcome, it is noted in the landlord’s summary, which it sent to us, it says a visit did take place on this date.
On 2 February 2023, after the council emailed the resident to confirm it an inspection by its EHO would be undertaken, she set out her concerns about the “electrics in the ceiling” due to the leaks and putting on her heating even though she was cold. She said the landlord had “used my sons painting tray” for the leak in his room.
On 7 February 2023, the council’s inspection found damp and mould. The landlord has provided a non-contemporaneous note, with no information around who it was sent to, dated 9 February 2023, which was sent internally confirming the inspection found severe damage (with a checklist attached).
On 13 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord asking for a timeframe for outstanding works on her showerhead, basin taps, leak in bathroom and bedroom, and the damp and mould. The landlord has provided a note of the email, but the contemporaneous email and any response has not been provided to us.
The landlord has provided details of an email sent by the resident on 15 February 2023 requesting urgent contact due to the leaks, which prevented her putting on her heating. We do not have the contemporaneous record of the email and to whom it was sent.
On Saturday 18 February 2023 the resident called the landlord’s emergency out of hours (OOH) service due to the boiler leaking. She was told it would visit again over the next couple of days. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the emergency call out visit.
The resident emailed the council on 19 and 20 February 2023 stating the damp, mould and leaks were still outstanding. She said:
1. She called the landlord’s emergency OOH number on 18 February 2023 and after the visit, she says it left a “bucket for me to keep emptying”.
2. She was stressed and had concerns about the effect of the mould on her son as his allergies were “flaring up” and he was getting headaches.
3. She was spending a lot of time having to “chase up” the repairs, including booking time off work to deal with it.
4. She “couldn’t bare to breathe the mould in” and therefore, cleaned “pure black mould off” the bathroom cupboard stating, “I know it will come back”.
5. Her basin taps had been replaced and a leaking valve was due to be fixed on 28 February 2023. She said was having to empty a container and was concerned about the delay of 3 weeks to resolve the issue.
6. She was using her son’s “painting tray” to contain the leak in his bedroom.
7. In a call with the landlord on 20 February 2023, she was told the leaks in had been “rectified”. She said she rang it again to speak to a different person who said it would look into the matter and update her with an email. We have not been provided with the record of these calls or any follow up email sent to the resident by the landlord.
8. The issues had “disorientated my mental state” and she should not be “suffering like this for any longer”.
The landlord has provided a summary note describing events on 20 February 2023 when the resident chased the boiler repair. The note sets out the call along with an internal discussion around the OOH report and follow on works as well as an email asking the recipient to contact the resident to inform her the contractors would be in touch with her. The contemporaneous calls and the email have not been provided by the landlord.
On 20 February 2023, the council told the resident that in response to a “schedule of works” sent to the landlord, it said the works would start on 20 February 2023. The schedule of works or the communication between the landlord and the council on this matter have not been provided.
A works description on 20 February 2023 stated an OOH report of the visit on 18 February 2023 was needed, which was then was set out in a completion report on 21 February 2023. It said the “condense” was blocked under the floor and had left the “condense in bucket for now so she can still use it”.
The resident rang the landlord on 21 February 2023 after which it sent an internal email seeking an update. The landlord has provided a note of an internal email on 21 February 2023 about the damp and mould. It confirmed the bedroom leak was being reviewed with the boiler repair completion report as it was linked to the heating. The basin taps were being addressed as it meant there was no hot water. The landlord asked its repairs service for “next steps” about the damp in the corridor (outside the property) and the bathroom cupboards. The contemporaneous email and response have not been given to us.
On 22 February 2023, a works order for another inspection and a mould wash was raised after the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and damp smells.
The resident emailed the council on 26 February in the absence of an update about her leaking boiler from her landlord and said she was sharing a bed with son due to it. She said she spent most days phoning the landlord about the repairs and had “had two mental breakdowns due to this flat”. She said despite her regular reports, the only issue resolved had been the new taps, but they had been leaking for 3 weeks. She said she would “happily make myself homeless then live in this flat due to the mental impact it is having on me”.
The landlord has provided details of an internal note dated 28 February 2023 setting out a call from the resident asking for a boiler update and a later email sent internally about this. It confirmed the assessment took place on 22 February 2023, but the report was awaited and had been chased. We have not been provided with the contemporaneous call records, the email and any response, and any follow up to the resident.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 28 February 2023. Its completion report indicated it had renewed the pop up waste and shower holder. It also said the ceiling leak was from the boiler flue.
In a second completion report on 28 February 2023, the landlord indicated:
1. Damp and mould in the bathroom, communal area bottom wall, and the skirting and wall by the bath was water damaged also.
2. The bathroom and bedroom ceilings leaked when the heating was on.
3. During an earlier visit, it said the cistern needed to be replaced due to a toilet tank leak. The resident indicated its plumber on another visit had not found a leak and the cistern had not been replaced at that visit. It reported the cistern issue again and made calls to arrange the cistern replacement.
The landlord has provided details of an internal note dated 1 March 2023 when the resident called for a boiler update and a later internal email was sent about this. While we have not seen the contemporaneous call record, email and any response, the landlord has provided a copy email sent to the resident on the same day, when it confirmed it had chased its repairs team about a timeframe for a visit and it would update her when a response was received.
A job description was raised by the landlord on 1 March 2023 to investigate the boiler flue. Its contractors visited on 2 March 2023 and found the condensing pipework was blocked; the flue and seal needed to be replaced; and moving the boiler to the bedroom would minimise the flue run.
A works order was raised by the landlord on 3 March 2023 to investigate the leak from the toilet water tank.
The landlord has provided an internal note dated 8 March 2023 setting out a call made to the resident about it chasing the boiler update and that it would contact her with an update. The contemporaneous call record or its communication with the repairs team has not been provided to us.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord gave the council a timeframe for works:
1. Toilet repair scheduled on 24 March 2023.
2. Boiler repair – its contractors had recommended installing the boiler in the bedroom. It was due to speak to the resident on 16 March 2023 to discuss the works prior to its contractors doing the work.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord raised a job description for its contractors to move the boiler to the bedroom. This was to be booked after 16 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023, the landlord emailed its contractors and said the resident agreed to the boiler being moved. A completion report of the visit with the resident of the same date indicated the flue was leaking into the bedroom and the “condense discharged into a bucket”.
The resident’s tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. The resident’s moved following a management transfer. The landlord has informed us the resident was transferred to a property, which was “more suited to her needs”, including school reasons for her son. The landlord has not provided evidence of repairs works from 16 March 2023 to the tenancy ending.
The landlord has provided an internal note dated 24 April 2023 stating, “internal flat leak issue – case closed”.
The resident has described the effect of the disrepair on her and her son. She says her son has had skin rashes, chest infections and nasal congestion, and she had to attend hospital twice with him at the end 2022 due to him “wheezing”. She says she had to share her bed with him due to the leak in his bedroom. The resident states the issues affected her sleep and caused a cough for which she was prescribed sleeping tablets and antibiotics. She says she was seen by the mental health team due to depression. She told the council she would “happily make myself homeless then live in this flat due to the mental impact it is having on me”. Finally, the resident told the landlord she spent a considerable time reporting the repairs and requesting updates from it, including booking time off work to do this.
The resident informed this Service the resolution she was seeking was compensation and completion of all repairs.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the leak, damp, and mould has been distressing for the resident. It is also accepted it can take more than one attempt to resolve such issues due to difficulties identifying the causes and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
The resident’s reports concerned 3 elements of disrepair based on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom; leaks in the bathroom and bedroom; and repairs to the showerhead.

Damp and mould in the bathroom

The landlord’s damp policy states it will carry out a property survey if a report of damp is not easy to identify. Therefore, after the resident reported damp in her bathroom in or around 21 September 2022, it appropriately raised a works order for an inspection, which took place on 11 October 2022. In further compliance with its policy timeframes, the inspection was completed 11 working days after the report.
The inspection made recommendations including, replacing the extractor fan. The evidence indicates the extractor fan was replaced on 8 December 2022. While we have not seen the evidence, the landlord’s position is that 2 no access visits on 16 and 25 November 2022 led to a delay in the fan installation. There was an expected month’s delay before the first planned visit, so the no access visits would only have added a delay of 9 working days but would not have been the main delay factor. Its initial delay in replacing the extractor fan was unreasonable, even taking into account any access issues, and in breach of its policy timeframes and tenancy obligation to do repairs “within a reasonable time”.
The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding necessary works. However, the evidence does not show it gave full consideration to all the inspection recommendations (eg providing ventilation to the fitted cupboards or installing a condensation control unit). This omission was a failing as it prevented a comprehensive approach to dealing with the damp issue. Had it done so, it would have been able to assess the appropriateness of all the recommendations even if it then went on to confirm they were not needed. This failure was unreasonable and breached its policy commitment of “adopting a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”.
After the resident’s email of 5 December 2022, the landlord raised a second inspection, which took place on 13 December 2022. The evidence does not show the reason for a second inspection as recommendations after the first inspection, which had taken place only 2 months before, had not been carried out. There may be valid reasons for another inspection. For example, consideration of the first inspection recommendation to address “sources of moisture ingress”. If this was an aim of the second inspection, the delay of 2 months to consider” ingress” was unreasonable. The stage 2 complaint B response states the second inspection found damp in the boxing area, where the toilet and sink pipework was. This delayed second inspection indicates an ineffective repairs system. Clear record keeping is a core repair function and essential so landlords can proactively monitor works done and outstanding works. There may have been valid reasons for the second inspection, but the evidence does not clearly set them out. So, the resulting delays identifying the damp was unreasonable and suggests an inefficient repairs system that failed to consider its own relevant records that related to the damp and mould.
The evidence does not show the second inspection findings, but the works are set out (removal of tiles to create “access panels”) to investigate the leak. The stage 2 complaint B response explained the “access panels” were intended to “air and dry out the boxing in”. When the landlord visited on 14 December 2022, it found a leak in the cistern and this newly identified fault created a further delay to the cutting of the panels, which was postponed until 16 January 2022. The stage 2 response explained leaks from the cistern and flexi “within the boxed in area… contributed to the forming of the damp”. The evidence fails to explain why the leak in the cistern caused such a significant and unreasonable delay to the works as the cistern was still an issue when the panels were eventually cut. It breached its damp policy which aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days and emergency repairs within 24 hours, and its tenancy obligation to complete repairs “within a reasonable time”. The purpose of the panels was to air the damp area and the month’s delay was unacceptable in the absence of other more proactive works to complete the repair urgently.
After the panels were cut on 16 January 2022, there is little evidence of the landlord proactively addressing the damp issue aside from the works order of 19 January 2023 and visit on 31 January 2023 when it gave the resident a leaflet for mould and recommended she buy a dehumidifier herself. The leaflet has not been provided, but it does not reflect meaningful engagement to resolve the issues, which the resident had been reporting for 4 months. The situation must have been distressing for her as she continued to contact the landlord, including by escalating complaint B, about the damp and mould.
After the resident’s referral, the local council’s inspection on 7 February 2023 found damp and mould. While the evidence shows reports and complaints by her to the landlord prompted some action by it, the evidence does not show proactive pursuit of a remedy. Rather its actions were piecemeal and reactive to the resident’s reports to it. This was unreasonable and a breach of policy commitments to take a “a zero-tolerance approach to damp”.
The resident’s email of 5 December 2022 is concerning as says she had not been contacted about the mould. It is also unclear from the evidence if she was aware the extractor fan installation was a damp inspection recommendation (due to be fitted on 8 December 2022). Aside from a reference to it in the complaint A response of 3 November 2022, we have not seen evidence of the October 2022 inspection report, or its recommendations being communicated to the resident. The landlord’s damp policy states, it will have “regular contact” and will share inspection reports with residents when doing works. Its lack of communication was unreasonable and a breach of its policy. Its ineffective communication meant the resident was inconvenienced by having to chase it for updates and chase the repairs.
While it is accepted a resolution could take time to identify, there were interim measures the landlord could consider. Its damp policy says it may “carry out damp and mould washing”. There is no evidence of it considering a mould wash for the resident after her September 2022 report. We note its compensation policy says it will pay “running costs” when “a de-humidifier is provided to dry out a property following a leak”, but provision of a de- humidifier is not set out in its damp policy or repairs policy. At its 31 January 2022 visit, the landlord recommended the resident got a dehumidifier, but the evidence does not show it considered providing one to her. This was a missed opportunity given the vulnerabilities and health concerns she had repeatedly informed it of, and a chance for it to rebuild its relationship with her. This failure was unreasonable and a serious breach of its policies by it not considering all options available to it to alleviate the impact of the damp.
The evidence does not show the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities being taken into account or how the landlord ensured they remained “safely in their home” in line with its repair policy. While there is no evidence of the resident’s initial report, she raised health concerns in October 2022 in complaint A. Thereafter, the evidence shows she regularly repeated her concerns for her and her son’s health due to the impact of the damp. The landlord’s only reference to vulnerabilities is in the complaint B stage 1 letter when the resident was signposted to its insurance team. The landlord breached its policy and was unreasonable when it failed to consider vulnerability, which should have prompted it to be proactive, when dealing with the repairs.
The resident says the mould caused a smell, especially in her bathroom cupboard. She also says the damp and mould affected her and her son’s health, who both leading to regularly visits to the doctor and hospital’s ear, nose, and throat section. The resident said she experienced sleep disruption and a cough due to the damp for which she had sleeping tablets and prescribed antibiotics. She has described being stressed and how the disrepair impacted her mental health. She has said her son had “skin conditions and allergies”, which were affected by it, and he missed school due to illnesses, including chest infections and nasal congestion. She says she went to the hospital twice at the end 2022 with her son due to his “wheezing”. She has informed us since leaving the property, her son has not been ill.
The Ombudsman has identified the following failings by the landlord:
1. Delays in carrying out works.
2. The October 2022 inspection recommendations were not fully considered.
3. It was reactive to the resident’s regular reports and not proactive in trying to resolve the damp and mould.
4. It did not update the resident of progress or share information.
5. Interim measures (eg mould washing) were not considered when a resolution for the damp and mould issue was still being investigated.
6. Vulnerability was not considered when dealing with repairs.

Leaks in the bathroom and bedroom

The landlord’s tenancy obligations are to repair installations for water. After the resident’s reports of leaks, it appropriately addressed the bathroom basin leak on 5 October 2022 in line with its tenancy obligations, repairs policy and timeframes. However, it breached its policy and tenancy obligations when it did not deal with the bedroom leak on this visit, which was unreasonable of it.
After the resident’s complaint on 21 October 2022 about “constant leakage” in the bathroom and bedroom, there was no proactive exploration of the leaks, which was unreasonable. In an email on 5 December 2022, she again reported the leaks and mentioned a boiler leak had been repaired in the past. She said she had not been contacted about the leak in her son’s room, which had caused him “hives”. It was given another chance to fix breaches of its tenancy obligations and its policy by progressing the repair. It had been 10 weeks since she first reported the leak in her son’s room, so the delays were unsatisfactory and serious failures given the vulnerabilities set out by her.
The landlord appropriately inspected the resident’s property on 13 December 2022 and raised works to cut access panels, which it attempted to do on the following day when it found a cistern leak. A cistern order was only raised on 19 January 2023, which was 5 weeks after it was identified. On 28 February 2023, on a visit for a separate repair issue, the landlord noted the cistern still had not been replaced, which was 11 weeks after it was initially identified. The evidence does not confirm when the cistern was replaced but does show it was in place when the new tenant moved in. The lengthy delays in processing this repair were unreasonable and a serious failing, which meant not only did it breach its obligations to do repairs “within a reasonable time” and its repairs policy timeframe, but the resident and her son had to continuing living with the issue for months. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
From September 2022 to January 2023, the resident informed the landlord of the leaks in her son’s bedroom 8 times. The evidence shows a works order to inspect and repair a leak in her son’s room on 19 January 2023. This was 4 months after it was first reported and was unreasonable and a serious failure to comply with its repair obligations to keep properties in “satisfactory repair” and “residents in a safe and secure environment”.
On 31 January 2023, the resident told the landlord leaks occurred when the boiler was on. On 2 February 2023, she said to it the ceiling electrics presented a safety issue due to the leaks and she had concerns turning on her heating even when it was cold. By not treating the issue as an emergency repair given the “unsafe electrical fittings” and her reluctance to turn on her heating due to concerns about further leaks, the landlord was unreasonable. This was a serious breach of its tenancy obligations and its repairs policy.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord another 2 times in February 2023 about the leaks before making an emergency ‘call out’ about a boiler leak on 18 February 2023. The landlord had had chances to fix the leaks and this situation, which would have been distressing to the resident, could have been avoided. After the call out, the evidence shows it proactively took steps to identify and address the issue, which was identified as a blocked condensing pipework on 2 March 2023. Following the resident’s agreement on 16 March 2023 to the boiler being moved on, the boiler repairs were resolved on a date which has not been confirmed with us in the evidence. While identifying the cause of a leak can take a number of attempts to resolve, the evidence shows significant delays, the leak only being actively progressed after the call out, and a serious failure by the landlord to comply with its tenancy obligation and repairs policy.
The evidence shows the resident contacting the landlord repeatedly to ask for updates and report the issues. She told the council on 19 February 2023 about the time she was spending contacting it, including her having to book time off work to deal with repairs. The evidence does not indicate the resident was being kept fully updated of the repairs progress. This was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s policy commitment to do so, which would have caused the resident to feel distressed, ignored, and inconvenienced.
The resident had stated on a number of occasions that she and her son were vulnerable and had health conditions, which were affected by the leaks. The evidence does not show the landlord took into consideration these vulnerabilities during the repairs. This was unreasonable and a serious breach of its policy. The landlord should have prioritised the leaks to minimise any impact on the resident and her son, both in terms of their health, but also the distress caused.
The resident has said the leaks impacted her and her son:
1. On one occasion giving her son “hives” from going into his bedroom.
2. Making her hesitate before putting on her heating when she was cold.
3. Having to share a bed with her son due to the leaks in his bedroom.
4. Using a bucket and containers to ‘catch’ the leaks in the bathroom and her son’s bedroom.
5. She told the council the issues had “disorientated my mental state” and she told the landlord she would “happily make myself homeless then live in this flat due to the mental impact it is having on me”.
The Ombudsman has identified the following failings by the landlord:
1. Significant delays in identifying and addressing the leaks and replacing the cistern.
2. Considering the leak as an emergency repair given the “unsafe electrical fittings” and the resident’s reluctance to use the heating due to leaks.
3. It did not update the resident of progress or share information.
4. It failed to consider vulnerability when dealing with repairs.

Repairs to the shower head

The landlord had an obligation to maintain and repair installations such as showers in line with the tenancy agreement and its repair policy. Its repair policy gives a timeframe of 20 working days to “attend and complete all non-emergency repairs”.
The resident reported the shower head repair on 21 September 2022, but it was not fixed until 10 weeks later on 29 November 2022. This was an unacceptable delay, and in breach of the landlord’s obligations and its 20 working day repairs policy timeframe. The resident had to make a formal complaint on 21 October 2022 for the repair to be dealt with which is unsatisfactory. Given that she had expressed the loose shower head was a “danger” to her and her son in complaint A, it is unreasonable that it then took the landlord another 41 days to complete the repairs. It is noted the landlord says a no access visit took place on 25 November 2022, but this would have been a minor postponement only to what was already a significant delay. In its complaint A response, it appropriately offered compensation, apologised, and recognised a missed opportunity to address the repair on 5 October 2022, which would have been in line with its repairs timeframe.
On 5 December 2022, the resident told the landlord the shower head repair had not fixed it. Up until mid February 2023, she contacted it 5 more times. When the landlord visited to remove tiles on 14 December 2022, while it noted the shower was coming off the wall, there was an unacceptable delay of 4 weeks before a works order was raised on 19 January 2023 to fix the shower head. It was eventually fixed on 28 February 2023, which was 12 weeks after she reported it had broken again. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable and again significantly in breach of the landlord’s policy obligations for repairs.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities and the potential “significant impact on their physical or mental health” in line with its policy. As early as 21 October 2022, the resident told the landlord she and her son were disabled; her son had a skin condition; and the loose shower head was a “danger” to both. She continued to inform the landlord regularly of their vulnerabilities. There is no evidence the landlord considered proactively repairing the shower head due to her son’s skin condition, her safety concerns, and the potential impact on their health. Therefore, its actions were unreasonable and unfair, and in breach of its repair obligations.
Its failures around the damp and mould, leaks in the property and the showerhead repair meant the resident felt ignored, distressed, and was put the time and trouble of chasing the landlord. It has also not considered compensating her for distress in line with its compensation policy. While the landlord had apologised, offered £25 compensation, and says it has learned from some failings, its response has not been proportionate to the distress and detriment to the resident and her son, or the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord’s repeated failures had a seriously detrimental impact on her. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping had significant issues. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, visit records, repair requests after the original reports, and inspection reports. The landlord’s evidence contained omissions including:
1. The resident’s original report in September 2022, and records of damp and mould works done earlier in 2022.
2. Correspondence to the resident informing her of works and inspection findings.
3. The contemporaneous records, emails and contact notes highlighted in the summary.
4. Repairs records from 16 March 2023 to the resident’s tenancy end date.
We have identified calls, visits and emails from references made to them in notes provided by the landlord or contemporaneous emails from the resident. While the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand, the missing information indicates poor record keeping by the landlord and meant we could not consider the completion of repairs before the resident left the property. A landlord must keep a clear and accurate record of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude an action took place or the landlord followed its own policies.
The missing information contributed to the landlord failing to deal with the resident‘s update requests. For example, she says she rang the landlord on 20 February 2023 and was told the leaks had been “rectified”. After this call, she said she phoned again to speak to a different person for an update. The evidence does not show if the calls took place, but neither do we have reliable and comprehensive records to indicate it did not. Had a complete and clear set of records been available to the landlord to view, it would have been able to inform the resident of the status of her repair and works due. It is unacceptable for residents to make repeated calls, within a short time, for an update. This was a serious failure of information management. It would have been distressing for the resident to be told it was “rectified” when it was adversely affecting her and still required need attention.
The missing records contributed to the landlord’s failure to follow up outstanding repairs. For example, its officer noted on 28 February 2023 a leaking cistern identified by him at an earlier visit was still outstanding. This was originally identified on 14 December 2022 and only followed up on 17 January 2023, so a works order was not raised until 19 January 2023. While this works order was delayed by 5 weeks, it gave the landlord another opportunity to resolve the issue. However, it was not until the officer visited again 5 weeks later, on 28 February 2023, that the oversight was identified. The evidence shows this repair were initiated when its officer ‘recalled’ it and took the initiative to progress it. A reliable and efficient repairs system relies on good record keeping and effective use of held records. The landlord’s failure to maintain good records resulted in repairs being inefficiently identified and resolved, and therefore, subject to delays. Consequently, its failures in information management meant it breached its tenancy and policy obligations and timeframes.
While the landlord informed us, it did not have a record of vulnerabilities for the resident, it acknowledged her son’s management transfer application said he had autism and complaint A set out that both she and her son were disabled. The resident repeated details of her household vulnerabilities in complaint B. Both complaints A and B detail the effect of the disrepair on their health and wellbeing. It is vitally important a landlord keeps accurate information about vulnerabilities, and it unacceptably failed to do so at the earliest opportunity in October 2022 when it had sight of complaint A. This meant it also breached its repairs policy, which says vulnerabilities are taken into consideration when repairs are carried out or prioritised. The omission of the resident’s vulnerabilities in its records is a serious failing.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for poor record keeping. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of vulnerabilities, repair reports, responses, inspections, and work done. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates its repair processes are not operating effectively. An efficient and accurate record management system would have avoided the need for the resident to make repeated contact with it, which would have caused her inconvenience and frustration. The landlord has not acknowledged its failings or the resulting detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says after its mistakes, it “welcomes the opportunity to investigate, apologise, put them right and learn”. It commits to understanding the complaint, outcomes sought, reasons for decision, remedy, actions, and “follow up aftercare”. Its stage 1 response to complaint A apologised for not dealing with the shower head repair and offered £25 compensation. It addressed the leak from the bathroom basin, but not in her son’s bedroom. This was a missed opportunity to proactively investigate the leak and put things right. This omission was unreasonable and a failure to comply with its policy to understand the complaint and provide a remedy.
The landlord’s complaint A stage 1 response on 3 November 2022 to the damp and mould issue was inadequate. Its explanation that works had been “raised for recommendation” was vague and failed to give the resident a proper response about “actions to be taken and by when” in line with its complaints policy. Instead of letting the appointment be booked at a future time, it could have proactively arranged an appointment to minimise further delays. The inspection took place on 11 October 2022, which was 24 days before the stage 1 response and this length of time should have prompted a more engaged approach especially given the resident’s concerns about her son’s vulnerability. The landlord could have reinforced its complaints outcome by putting in place a future review of any works in line with its policy statement to “follow up aftercare”. Therefore, it acted unreasonably, failed to take responsibility, and breached its policy commitments.
The resident’s email of 5 December says, “following on from my email of 21st October” and both 5 and 12 December 2022 emails set out the complaint A reference. The evidence suggest she was making a formal complaint. While the 5 December email may have been outside the timeframe for escalating the stage 1 response, the evidence does not show it considered treating the complaint as either a new complaint or a stage 2 escalation. This was unsatisfactory. Further, the landlord failed to update her by 7 December 2022 after it said it would be unacceptable. The complete lack of response to the 12 December 2022 email was unreasonable, a serious failure of its complaints management oversight, and a breach of its policy. Again, this was another opportunity for the landlord to engage with the issues, rebuild its relationship with the resident and put things right. Its failure meant she was being put to the time and trouble of chasing repairs again and causing her distress by feeling ignored given the ongoing health concerns she had.
The resident made complaint B to the landlord on 3 January 2023 about the mould. While the resident was complaining about issues already raised in complaint A, the landlord proceeded with a separate complaint B process. An effective complaint management approach should have identified the complaint overlaps. The evidence does not show the landlord considered re-opening complaint A and addressing the resident’s email of 3 January 2023 as a continuation of it. Failing to do so, resulted in an ineffective and unreasonable approach to its complaint handling. Having a second complaints process did not add value to its complaint handling but rather added a delay to the matters being resolved and the resident being able to bring the matter to this Service.
Following her complaint B, on 13 January 2023, the landlord rang the resident, who clarified other outstanding repairs, including issues in her bathroom and the leak in her son’s bedroom. It is acknowledged the landlord engaged with the resident on 13 January to understand her complaint in line with its policy. Its stage 1 response appropriately apologised for delays in making an appointment and offered compensation of £25. However, its stage 1 response did not set out any meaningful “follow up aftercare” given the issues dated back to September 2022. Complaint B was made 2 months after complaint A concluded, so should have prompted it to put reviews in place to monitor the repairs. By not doing so it missed an opportunity to meet its value statements and build its relationship with the resident. Its stage 1 response also unreasonably failed to consider the issues raised in the 13 January call, so did not address the leak in the resident’s son’s bedroom, which was unacceptable, a breach of its policy so it failed to achieve its stated aim of putting things right.
In the resident’s complaint B escalation request, she mentioned the call with the landlord stating complaint A had not been resolved and she set out the outstanding issues, including the broken shower head and leak in her son’s bedroom. It is acknowledged its stage 2 response reoffered the £25 compensation and it had learnt lessons as it would raise “follow on” more quickly after completion of works. However, it failed to address the shower head or the leaks in her son’s room despite the resident stating her son was vulnerable. This was unreasonable and a serious failing of the landlord’s complaints management. This failure would have meant further distress for the resident by feeling ignored along with inconvenience at having to continue to chase up repairs and seek updates.
While the landlord had apologised and acknowledged some failings, it has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It had repeated opportunities to make things right in line with its policy by addressing all the resident’s complaints, taking a proactive approach to progressing them and putting in place “follow up aftercare”. The effect of its failures meant the resident felt ignored, distressed, put to the time and trouble of making complaints to progress her repairs and concerningly, the repairs issues continued to be unresolved. The landlord’s response has not been proportionate to the distress and detriment experience by the resident due to its failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom, leaks in the bathroom and bedroom, and repairs to the shower head.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould, leaks in the property and the showerhead repair breached its own policy. Its repairs were delayed and at times, reactive to the resident’s contact with it rather than proactive. It failed to keep the resident updated or consider vulnerabilities when dealing with the repairs. This meant the resident felt ignored, distressed, and was put to the time and trouble of chasing the repairs. Its repeated failings had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. While it has apologised, acknowledged some failings and offered compensation, its response was not proportionate to the detriment to the resident and her son, or the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor and contributed to its failure to understand the status of outstanding repairs and to appropriately follow then up. The omission of the resident’s vulnerabilities in its records is a serious record keeping failure and meant it did not act in line with its policies. Its poor record management also led to the resident being inconvenienced, distressed, and her repairs not being properly prioritised due to vulnerabilities.
The landlord breached its own policy and did not address all the resident’s complaints. The landlord displayed a lack of complaints oversight and management. While it has apologised for some failings and offered compensation, this does not reflect the detriment to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 5 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £3750. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. The compensation comprises:

i. £ 3000 for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom, leaks in the bathroom and bedroom and, repairs to the shower head. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience.

ii. £250 for the landlord’s poor record keeping.

iii. £500 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of inconvenience, and time and trouble.

The chief executive to meet with the resident to apologise for the failures in its service.

Review the learning from this case and write to this Service within 10 weeks setting out how it will:
1. Review its damp and mould operational practices to ensure the supply of dehumidifiers to residents in cases such as this.
2. Review its process for ensuring vulnerabilities are recorded.
3. Ensure its management of damp and mould cases are managed in a cohesive manner, in line with its policy aims and with due reference to this Services spotlight report on Damp and mould.
Undertake and complete a review of its services and practices on this case within 10 weeks against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation. The web link to the report is KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The report has recommendations, which it should consider incorporating into its policies for accurate record keeping.