Southern Housing Group Limited (202229596)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229596

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. a leak, damp and mould in the property;
2. the resident’s reports that the communal door was insecure;
3. the resident’s complaint.

Background

At the time of the events referred to in this investigation, the resident held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord which commenced in September 2022. This converted to an assured tenancy in September 2023. She lived alone in the property, a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat, which was newly built.
The resident’s housing application form stated that she was unable to work because of a long-term sickness or disability. The landlord informed this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but noted elsewhere that it was “aware from very early on that she was suffering from significant personal and health issues (as advised directly by her)”. In numerous communications to the landlord, the resident described herself as “unwell” and “disabled”, and referred to her need to rest and recover.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord discovered a leak to the kitchen ceiling of the property. This occurred after the property was handed over to the landlord by the developer, but before the resident moved in. The resident’s tenancy began on 12 September 2022 and she was aware of the leak from the outset. As the property was a new build, the developer was responsible for carrying out defect repairs.
The landlord shared the resident’s contact details with the developer on 16 September 2022. On 28 September 2022 the developer reported that its site team had been investigating possible sources of the leak and was waiting to confirm the affected area was dry before making good. On 3 November 2022 the resident reported that the leak had recurred and mould was starting to show. The landlord informed the developer of this.
Around this time, the resident was away from the property for several days while she travelled to collect her belongings from her former place of residence. The landlord was not always able to contact her during this period. The resident returned to her property in a hurry in order to move some of her belongings and prevent them from being further damaged by damp and mould.
On 14 November 2022 the developer experienced difficulties gaining access to the flat above the resident’s, whose balcony was the cause of the leak. Access was subsequently gained and works carried out on 17 November 2022.
On 21 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak continued. The landlord informed the developer, which attended on 22 November 2022 and removed plasterboard to find the source of the leak and remove wet materials. The developer also arranged for roofers to attend. On 23 November 2022 the resident reported that her ceiling had been dripping during the rain overnight. Roofers attended and carried out works to address the issue identified by the developer. The roofing company recommended that the exposed area of kitchen ceiling was left open for monitoring.
On 25 and 28 November 2022 the resident reported that the leak was still not resolved. The landlord confirmed that the developer would attend on 28 November 2022. During its visit, the developer inspected the property, dropped off cloths for the resident to clean affected areas, and said it would arrange delivery of a dehumidifier. It subsequently raised the following repairs:
1. Removal of wall and base kitchen units below the leak site to inspect for damp and mould to the plasterboard, with plasterboard to be replaced as required and the wall/base units refitted;
2. Checking of the steel lintel for residual moisture from previous leaks;
3. Cleaning of any rust spots off the lintel and repainting using a rust-resistant paint;
4. Re-plasterboarding of the lintel using fireboard and fire-resistant sealant;
5. Re-plasterboarding and decoration of the ceiling, ensuring no mould spores were left;
6. A full clean of the property once works were completed, to include a fungicidal wash.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident regarding late attendance by the developer, and between 2 and 7 December 2022 it liaised with the resident and developer regarding provision of a dehumidifier. The dehumidifier was delivered on 7 December 2022. On 9 December 2022 the resident agreed for the developer to begin remedial works the following week, but on 12 December 2022 she expressed concern about works being carried out before it was conclusively established that the leak was resolved. She noted that bricks had been removed from her wall, there was a new puddle on her patio, and she did not know whether a flood test had been carried out.
On 15 December 2022 the developer informed the landlord that it had experienced issues gaining access to the property. The landlord liaised with the resident and ascertained that she was not available on 16 December 2022. She agreed to give the developer access on 23 December 2022 and between 26 and 30 December 2022. She raised concerns regarding storage of kitchen items such as plates.
On 19 December 2022 the resident did not allow the developer access to the property when it attended. The landlord contacted the resident and she agreed to let the developer in, but did not. She later agreed to provide access the following day. The developer told the landlord it had sealed both rainwater outlets to the balcony above the resident’s property, water tested the balcony, replaced the cavity trays, sealed the balcony doors, and replaced lead flashing and mastic. It said it now proposed to carry out the internal works previously raised to the resident’s property, and would revisit in the new year to check for evidence of further leaks or mould spores. It also said it would replace any kitchen units if the mould could not be removed through cleaning.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord sent an operative to assist the resident in packing and moving her belongings so that the developer’s works could commence. The same day, the resident noted in an email to the landlord that she had not received any communication about her complaint being opened, and that she had asked for this to be dealt with. The landlord responded to her concerns about repairs, storage of items and the kitchen units, but apparently did not log a complaint or specifically address this query.
Following a proposed appointment on 4 January 2023, which the resident was unable to accommodate, she became distressed during an appointment on 6 January 2023 and told the landlord she “nearly went into a panic attack”. She sent a list of outstanding issues in her property, including a problem with the patio door and lintel, mould behind her washing machine, a low-level draught, gaps under doors, and an issue with trickle vents. She also referred to a number of associated matters that required addressing, including her utility costs, concerns about insulation, a solution for her kitchen goods, her inability to use her kitchen for cooking, and cleaning of her sofa. Finally, she noted that the communal doors locked too quickly and were often left insecure as a result.
On 9 January 2023 the developer confirmed to the landlord that it had instructed a cleaning company to arrange an appointment with the resident. On 10 January 2023 the landlord visited the property and documented that all leak repairs had been completed, and only replacement of the kitchen units remained outstanding. As the company supplying the units had ceased trading, the new units had been ordered from abroad, resulting in a longer lead time.
On 12, 16 and 19 January 2023 the resident expressed her concern regarding further mould, a washing machine issue, the kitchen unit replacement, and cleaning of her mattress. The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 23 January 2023, explained the position regarding her concerns, and followed this up with an email on 24 January 2023. It confirmed that the kitchen cupboards would not be fitted until the resident and developer were both satisfied the area was fully dry.
The landlord replied to a further email from the resident on 8 February 2023. The developer also responded to contact from the local authority regarding the condition of the resident’s property on 16 February 2023. The local authority later confirmed it was satisfied the matter was in hand and no further action was needed.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord contacted the resident after being advised that she declined an appointment offered by the cleaning company. The resident replied that the developer had not given the cleaning company appropriate instructions. She said that cleaning of her sofa was not acceptable, and a replacement was required. She also said she was out of pocket as a result of items she had had to throw away and meals she was unable to cook at home. She told the landlord she had kept receipts as the developer advised.
On 1 March 2023 the landlord proposed visiting the resident with the developer to go over her concerns. The resident initially did not agree to the visit, saying the landlord already knew her concerns. She subsequently agreed to a visit on 8 March 2023, but this could not go ahead due to weather conditions.
On 3 March 2023, following contact from this Service, the landlord logged and acknowledged a complaint by the resident. It issued its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023, stating:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had spoken to its new homes aftercare liaison manager and looked at the repair history for the property. It had also reviewed the resident’s calls and notes on its systems.
2. It provided a summary of events between September 2022 and January 2023. Following the leak noted on 9 September 2022, the developer completed works to the ceiling and replastering at the beginning of January 2023 once the property was dry and the weather enabled external repairs to resolve the cause of the leak. The only outstanding item was new kitchen cupboards, which had been ordered.
3. The ceiling had not collapsed, as suggested in communication from this Service.
4. Since becoming aware of the leak it had reported the defect to the developer, shared further information with the developer when necessary, passed on advice relating to dehumidifier use, assisted with packing of belongings and cleaning, and visited on 10 January 2023. During this visit it did not note any mould apart from “a few very minor spots”.
5. It had also responded to contact from the resident’s MP and council. In connection with this, it requested details of locations and photos to pass on to the developer, which agreed to return and carry out whatever works were necessary. The resident replied with no specific locations and older photos.
6. White marks mentioned by the council officer were efflorescence. This was common in new brickwork less than a year old, and occurred when water evaporated after construction.
7. When the resident raised a new concern about the amount of condensation on her patio door metalwork, it explained that this was likely due to the metalwork being cold and the amount of moisture in the property following the new plasterwork. It advised the resident to wipe up condensation, ventilate and heat the property regularly if possible, and let it know if the issue recurred after this.
8. The resident had referred to a visit on 19 December 2022. On this date, the developer’s operatives attended the property, but the resident said she could only allow access at certain times in the afternoon. The operatives waited in their van until this time, and the works were completed.
9. The resident did not agree to a visit it offered on 8 March 2023 to investigate her reports of further mould. When it offered further appointments with its housing services manager and area service manager, the resident felt it would be “ganging up on her” by visiting with multiple people. It had explained that she could be accompanied on the visit by a friend or relative.
10. It reminded her that it was important for her to allow access. If it could not agree access and had concerns about the maintenance and upkeep of the property, it could apply for an injunction as a last resort. It needed to ensure its properties and residents were safe.
11. The developer had received 2 reports relating to the communal front door. The first was on 20 December 2022, and it did not note any issues when it visited on 10 January 2023. The second was on 23 January 2023. It had asked the developer for closure/adjustment details, but noted that no other residents had reported the issue. It continued to monitor the door.
12. The resident had raised a further query regarding her washing machine. It had advised that if this was an installation issue, the developer would rectify it. If the appliance itself was at fault, the resident would need to address this with the manufacturer under the warranty, as the washing machine had been gifted. It had informed the developer of this possible issue and it was agreed that as the machine was next to a cupboard due to be replaced, the developer would check the installation of the washing machine when the replacement cupboards were fitted.
13. It did not have any concerns about the quality of works completed by the developer. While repairs had been required, this occurred in any home, even new builds. Other than the issues discussed, it had no confirmed building defects for the property, and none had been reported to it. All works were checked prior to handover by the National House Builders Council (NHBC), the developer, and its clerk of works.
14. Going forward, the kitchen units would be installed as soon as they arrived (expected to be in late April 2023); the washing machine would be checked; and assessment and confirmation of outstanding works was required by way of an inspection. It asked the resident to let it know when she was available for a visit, or otherwise provide clear and dated photos, by 31 March 2023. Any issues found would be logged and addressed by the developer according to the defects process.
15. It was unable to uphold the complaint. It could see that the resident had been kept up to date on repairs and other details. The repairs were responded to in good time, and usually on the same day.
16. It recognised that it was a difficult time moving into a property that required a leak repair, and as such, it offered a goodwill gesture of £50 for the inconvenience caused. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for situations where there is disruption but no long-term impact.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord and developer visited the resident. During the visit, the resident became upset and the landlord was unable to clarify her current concerns. After asking the officers to leave, the resident emailed the landlord indicating her intention to move out of the property. She agreed to a further appointment the following day, but when the landlord and developer attended on 24 March 2023, they found a note stating that the resident was unwell and could not answer the door. The landlord was unable to contact her.
Between 13 April 2023 and 9 May 2023, the landlord liaised with the resident regarding an appointment to carry out repairs to her doors and mastic. By the time the resident confirmed she would be available on the proposed date of 22 May 2023, the developer no longer had availability on this date. The developer initially offered an alternative date of 25 or 26 May 2023, but subsequently informed the landlord that it would not offer any further repair appointments. The resident told the landlord she was not available for the kitchen units to be installed by the kitchen fitter on 25 May 2023 as she had already arranged for her friend to be present with her on 22 May 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident regarding the outstanding works on 23 June 2023. She replied that she was still awaiting a date for cleaning by mould removal specialists. The landlord said it would arrange an internal meeting to consider how it could best address her concerns.
The resident sent a number of emails to the landlord, expressing concern about her property and the developer, on 14 July 2023. The same day, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to escalate her complaint. The landlord held an internal case conference on 25 July 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 2 August 2023, stating:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had met with its new homes aftercare liaison manager and a senior manager who had been involved in resolving the issues at the resident’s property.
2. As confirmed at stage 1 and by its visits, neither the developer nor the landlord had been able to evidence continued damp and mould in the property.
3. Also as confirmed at stage 1, the ceiling had not collapsed. A section was cut out by the developer to resolve the leak, and this was then left open to dry out the ceiling before repairs could be completed.
4. Its inspections had not evidenced any concerns regarding the quality of work carried out by the developer.
5. Until it was given access, it was unable to carry out repairs. Once the resident provided access it would be able to progress the kitchen unit replacement.
6. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 regarding the communal door. Following 2 instances of reports, adjustments were carried out by the developer. Since then it had received no further requests for repairs. It had also confirmed during its visits that there were no issues with the communal door.
7. The resident disputed its claim that she had refused access for repairs. It provided a timeline which contained 14 instances of access issues. It hoped this clarified why it stated access had delayed the repairs.
8. It did not uphold the complaint. While it appreciated there had been inconvenience associated with the repairs required, it was confident these would now have been completed if it had been able to gain access.
9. It needed the resident to work with it to allow it to complete the remaining works, and it asked her to contact its officer to arrange this.
10. It had previously offered £50 for inconvenience. It recognised that there had been an impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her new home, and that she had had to be available for various visits to enable repairs so far. It therefore offered increased compensation of £125 for inconvenience, time and trouble, in line with its compensation framework.
On 24 October 2023, after receiving no further contact from the resident, the landlord visited and found the property in darkness with the curtains drawn. It subsequently sent a letter to the resident, but received no reply.
The landlord had some contact with the resident in January 2024 and offered to meet with her to try to resolve the issues “once and for all”. During correspondence between January and March 2024, the resident raised some new issues and made a subject access request (SAR), but declined the offer of a meeting. She continued to pursue her complaint with this Service and moved out of the property on or around 29 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement sets out the duties of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s duties include letting the property initially in a reasonable state of repair, and keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property (including the roof, walls, doors and ceilings). The landlord will also take reasonable care to keep the common entrances in reasonable repair. The tenant’s duties include paying the rent, reporting repairs to the landlord, and allowing the landlord and its agents access to the property at reasonable times of day to inspect its condition or carry out repairs.
The landlord’s aftercare procedure confirms that, during the 1-year defect liability period (DLP) following practical completion of a property, the developer is liable to rectify defects. Defects are defined as “faults or breakdowns caused by faulty design, workmanship, or materials”. The landlord will monitor rectification of defects by the developer.
The landlord’s damp and mould framework divides damp and mould into 4 categories, according to the level of hazard. Where damp and mould is present, the landlord will intervene within 28 working days and manage the issue via its standard operating procedure (SOP). Category 2 and 3 damp and mould can be managed with the tenant in situ, whereas category 1 damp and mould – “where damp and mould presents an immediate health risk to residents due to vulnerabilities, mobility issues or support needs” – requires immediate temporary relocation and/or intervention.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that, when it fails to meet its standards and commitments to its customers, it will put this right by apologising. It will also consider offering financial redress in the form of a goodwill gesture or compensation. It may pay compensation for quantifiable loss, or make a discretionary payment to recognise the inconvenience of a service failure. The policy does not set out a tariff for compensation payments.

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 41b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints concerning matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The Ombudsman therefore cannot assess the actions and omissions of the developer, which is not a member of the Scheme.
Under paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters which do not cause significant adverse effect to the complainant, or where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s wider concerns about the developer and/or the landlord, which do not relate directly to her case. The resident has the option of complaining to the developer and/or of reporting her concerns to the relevant regulatory body.

Leak, damp and mould

The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns with regard to the repair of a leak and subsequent remediation of damp and mould in her property. The distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of these protracted works, including the impact on day-to-day activities like cooking and sleeping, is not underestimated. It is also appreciated that the resident found accommodating visits disproportionately difficult as a result of her individual circumstances and vulnerability.
As outlined above, the current investigation is limited to the sufficiency of action taken by the landlord, including its communication with the resident and developer. As the property was a new build, the landlord was not responsible for carrying out repairs itself and was obliged to follow its usual process in respect of defects in properties less than a year old. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to respond promptly and proactively to any issues, take steps to address barriers in completing works, and be mindful of an affected resident’s specific needs.

Damp and mould

When the landlord discovered a leak affecting the property, it correctly identified this as a defect and logged it with the developer the same day. This was a swift and appropriate response. The resident was aware of the leak at the point of accepting and moving into the property, although she would have had no reason to suspect that the repairs would take months to conclude.
It is unfortunate that the initial repair was ineffective in resolving the leak, and that the issue turned out to be more complex than first anticipated. This necessitated an exploratory approach involving a process of elimination. It also involved arrangements for access to the property above, sometimes simultaneously. The resident’s reports of recurring issues were instrumental in the developer’s ability to identify and treat the cause. There is evidence of effective communication between the landlord, developer and resident in November 2022, following the resident’s trip to collect her belongings from another area some distance away. This trip was obviously necessary, but it is apparent that the resulting stress and impact on communication had a bearing on the resident’s wellbeing and perception of the situation.
The resident was also understandably worried about mould and dust on her belongings – particularly kitchen items such as plates, which needed to be kept clean, and her sofa and mattress, which were fabric and exposed to damp. Some actions by the landlord and developer were appropriate, such as provision of cloths and a dehumidifier, assistance with packing items, arranging of professional cleaning, and advice and assurance regarding risk and spread of mould. However, delivery of the dehumidifier was delayed by at least a week (from 28 November 2022 to 7 December 2022), and it appears the resident was not given clear instructions on its positioning and use. On 14 December 2022 the developer advised that the dehumidifier should be kept on as long as possible, but the resident was required to press a button every half-hour to ensure its continuous operation. This placed an unreasonable demand on her, which the landlord did not address when she referred to it.
There is also no evidence that the landlord took sufficient steps to prevent any financial detriment to the resident, or to resolve this matter when she later expressed concern about being “out of pocket” on 24 February 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have explored financial impact at an early stage and considered whether advance payments to cover things like additional electricity and takeaway food were appropriate. When it became apparent that the works would take a number of weeks or months to fully complete – including a period of drying out – it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer temporary accommodation to the resident, and also to make arrangements for storage of her belongings. This would have allayed her worries about damage and food, particularly over the Christmas period.
As the landlord expected the resident to remain in the property, it should have carried out an assessment of the mould and any associated risk or hazards. In order for it to conclude that the damp and mould could be treated with the resident in situ, it would need to have identified this as category 2 or 3. However, there is no record of such an assessment. There is also no indication that the landlord completed a risk assessment in relation to the resident, taking her individual needs and circumstances into account. This was unsatisfactory, particularly given the resident’s distress, isolation, references to friends and family being unavailable or far away, and potential need for extra support.

Ceiling repair

While the resident’s kitchen ceiling did not collapse, this is clearly something she was concerned about. In fact, a section of ceiling was removed by the developer in order to identify and access the possible source of the leak, with the area then kept open to facilitate drying and monitoring. Therefore, while the hole in the resident’s ceiling was not caused by collapse, it was unsightly and affected her enjoyment of her property for an extended time.
It is apparent from the correspondence reviewed that the condition of the kitchen impacted the resident’s ability to socialise. Her concerns about mould also led her to store items in other areas of the property, which in turn affected her use of those areas. Some unexpected events during the drying and monitoring process, such as persistent mould in certain low-level areas and dampness in the coldest locations, caused the resident to be concerned about the developer’s reliability and ability to resolve the issue. More detailed information and explanations, provided pre-emptively rather than reactively and perhaps in writing rather than verbally, may have served to reduce these concerns.

Kitchen unit replacement

It was reasonable for the developer and landlord to initially propose cleaning the resident’s kitchen units, and subsequently, when these were found to have been irreparably damaged, to agree to replace them. The resident was clear that she did not request or expect a full kitchen replacement, and like-for-like replacement of the affected units constituted an acceptable solution. However, it is possible that communication between the landlord and developer could have been clearer, as the resident repeatedly said she had been told the units were “shot” before their replacement was confirmed.
It is unfortunate that the original supplier of the kitchen units ceased trading, which prevented matching replacement units from being sourced quickly. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to support the developer’s proposal for the replacement units to be ordered from abroad. The delay caused understandable frustration to the resident, but this was outside the landlord and developer’s control. There is evidence that the landlord shared information regarding anticipated lead times with the resident when this became available, which was helpful and served to set realistic expectations.

Concerns about quality of works

Perhaps as a result of the duration of the repairs and her deteriorating relationship with the developer and landlord, the resident developed concerns about the quality of works carried out by the developer. Some of these concerns related to experiences of neighbours and articles published in the media, rather than the resident’s own property. At other times the resident questioned whether aspects of her property met the necessary standards or specification, such as the brickwork, mortar, fireboard, and insulation.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord responded appropriately by providing detailed descriptions of repairs raised, explaining its decision making, confirming the requirements with regard to insulation, and giving assurance that the items had been signed off by the NHBC. It also cooperated with the local authority’s investigation, which concluded that the developer had responded correctly to the leak in the property. The resident’s concerns about the local authority’s knowledge of efflorescence and associated issues fall outside the scope of this investigation.
When discussing the resident’s concerns about the developer, the landlord maintained an appropriate level of neutrality and professionalism, while assuring the resident that it wanted to inspect the property for itself “so I can assist you, not [the developer]”. It acknowledged the resident’s feelings by stating: “I appreciate your opinion of [the developer], however on working with [it] we have found [it] to be very helpful”. It also sought evidence, such as clear and up-to-date photos, to “assess how [the developer is] performing and if there is anything we need to pick up”. This, together with the landlord’s offer of a joint visit with the developer to discuss the resident’s concerns, further indicated an unbiased and evidence-led approach.

Access issues

Though the reasons for this are appreciated, it is apparent that the landlord and developer’s inability to access the property was a recurrent factor in the overall timescale of the repairs. The records provided to this Service contain evidence of at least 14 occasions on which access presented a barrier to progress.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and reasons for feeling unable to allow access. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, it should have been more proactive in resolving the issue, either by creating conditions in which she felt more able to grant access, or (as discussed above) by offering temporary alternative accommodation. This would have resolved a number of issues and given the resident assurance that she was receiving the same service as other similarly affected residents. Instead, repeating the same cycle of arranging appointments which were later unfulfilled resulted in no progress being made, and further frustration and relationship breakdown for all parties.

Level of compensation

Given the level of impact and detriment experienced by the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer financial redress. However, it was confusing for this to be presented as a ‘goodwill gesture’ at stage 1, and ‘compensation’ at stage 2. The stage 1 offer referred to this Service’s guidance, whereas the stage 2 offer referred to the landlord’s compensation framework. The latter was presumably not accessible to the resident, as it was not provided to this Service for inspection. This, together with an absence of breakdown of the amount offered, created a lack of transparency in the landlord’s calculation.
Had the landlord not offered financial redress, a finding of maladministration would have been made. This is primarily due to the landlord’s failure to consider offering temporary accommodation and storage to the resident, and also its failure to satisfy itself and the resident that it was safe and practical for her to remain living in the property.
The landlord’s offer of £125 falls within the range recommended by the Ombudsman for maladministration. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. Mitigating factors, such as the landlord’s efforts to minimise delays, challenges it faced, and the circumstances of the resident moving out of the property, have also been taken into consideration in making this finding.

Communal door

In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that 2 reports had been raised to the developer regarding the communal front door, which the resident said was insecure. The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect any report or contemporaneous record relating to the first report on 20 December 2022. However, no reference was made to the resident’s email to the landlord on 6 January 2023, which listed a number of outstanding issues. These included the fact that “the main doors to the block lock so quickly that there’s not time to get through the door without it locking, meaning visitors cannot ensure the doors close behind them properly”. The landlord’s response should have incorporated reports made to itself as well as the developer. It should also have specifically addressed the issue described by the resident, as while the door could be observed to be functioning correctly, the locking mechanism and/or closure may have been a separate issue. If the landlord had investigated this and satisfied itself that the doors were closing and locking as they should, it would have been appropriate for it to confirm this in its response.
The stage 1 response went on to say that, although the landlord noted no issues with the door when it visited on 10 January 2023, a further report was raised with the developer on 23 January 2023. The repair was later completed by the developer, and the landlord itself noted no issues during subsequent visits. Despite identifying no issues with the communal door, the landlord demonstrated thoroughness by asking the developer to provide closure and adjustment details. While it was relevant to note that no other residents had reported the issue, this was not evidence of there being no issue, as residents’ individual use and level of concern regarding the door may vary.
A finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to the communal door repair, as while no issue was identified by the landlord or developer, the landlord responded proactively to the resident’s concerns on each occasion it was made aware of them. It also took opportunities to check the operation of the door even at times when it was not in regular communication with the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy adopts the definition of ‘complaint’ used by this Service: “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It is evident from the records provided that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the leak repair from 17 November 2022. However, her concern related primarily to the developer’s advice, actions, or contact. In some emails the resident explicitly stated that she was not unhappy with the landlord: “I am getting majorly fed up, not with you” (7 December 2022); “Not angry with you” (14 December 2022). It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to log a complaint at this stage, although it would have been good practice for it to signpost the resident to the developer’s complaints process.
On 20 December 2022 an email from the resident to the landlord ended with the words: “I didn’t get any communication about my complaint being opened with the housing association. I asked it to be dealt with.” There is no earlier reference to a complaint within the documentation provided to this Service, so it is unclear whether the resident had raised this in prior written or verbal communication. Nevertheless, the landlord should have established at this point whether the resident wished to make a formal complaint to it, and if so, what the key points of this were.
It is noted that the term ‘complaint’ was used elsewhere in communication by the landlord and resident to refer to other processes. For instance, in internal correspondence the landlord described the resident’s MP enquiry as a complaint, and the resident also said she had complained to the local authority. It is therefore possible there was some confusion or misaligned expectations regarding which process the resident wished to follow, and this has been taken into account in assessing the landlord’s response.
When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, both to log a complaint on 24 February 2023 and to escalate the complaint on 14 July 2023, it responded promptly. At stage 1 it issued its formal response within 10 working days, and at stage 2 it did so within 13 working days. This was within its policy timescales of 10 and 20 working days. However, while it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 3 March 2023, there is no evidence that it acknowledged the escalation (to the resident). While the stage 2 response was prompt, and there is no evidence of significant additional detriment as a result of the omission, acknowledging the escalation request and providing an anticipated response date would no doubt have reassured the resident that her complaint was being dealt with appropriately.
The landlord’s responses at both stages were detailed and addressed all points raised in the complaint. This included where there may have been some misunderstanding of the reported issues, such as in relation to a report of a collapsed ceiling. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was responding to a summary of the complaint supplied by this Service, which was in turn based on the resident’s description of the issues, and finds that it made appropriate efforts to clarify the situation and engage with the matters complained about.
A number of issues are noted with regard to the stage 1 response. On 3 occasions the wrong year was used in dates (2023 instead of 2022 and vice versa), which made the sequence of events less easy to follow. The wording in relation to an appointment on 19 December 2022 – which stated “the operatives waited in the van … while this was inconvenient for them, this is not your or my concern” – came across as abrupt and had the possibly unintended effect of conveying a lack of altruism by the resident. It also did not recognise that she may have found operatives waiting outside her property for a number of hours oppressive. Finally, in explaining their offer of a goodwill gesture, the stage 1 responder said there was “no long-term impact, but it is recognised that this was not disruptive to you”, with the word ‘not’ presumably included in error.
The response also referred to the possibility of an injunction application; this is the first time court proceedings had been explicitly referred to, and it would have been preferable for the landlord to explain the position and possible legal consequences to the resident before mentioning them in a formal letter. It is noted that, on 6 March 2023, the landlord’s internal summary of email correspondence with the resident had stated: “Highlighted that as a tenant, she is required to allow access as per her lease.” However, the email in question actually read: “As a rule tenants will have a lease clause that states access needs to be provided for works. If this isn’t possible the works could remain unfinished and there is the possibility of further charges if the condition worsens.” The Ombudsman accepts that the wording of the landlord’s email was sensitive and appropriately empathetic, but the result of this was that the resident was likely unaware of the specific condition in her tenancy agreement and the options available to the landlord in enforcing it. In fact, the email indicated that if the resident continued to refuse access, the consequence would be unfinished works or additional costs rather than forced access.
Like the stage 1 response, the stage 2 response demonstrated that the landlord had carried out appropriate investigation by liaising with relevant staff and consulting its records. However, its response to many of the complaint points was overly brief and simply restated the stage 1 findings. While it is accepted that there may have been no significant developments in some areas, it would have been helpful for the landlord to show a deeper understanding of the resident’s concerns – for example, with regard to quality of works, it could have provided dates of inspections and explained its performance criteria with regard to monitoring of defect rectification. Similarly, the timeline provided under the heading ‘dispute regarding access’ was lengthy, and the landlord could have either included it as an enclosure, summarised the events, or drawn the resident’s attention to the occasions on which access issues were referred to.
In summary, while many aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were positive, a finding of service failure has been made due to the landlord’s omission to identify a potential complaint on or before 20 December 2022, its apparent lack of acknowledgement of the escalation request, and wording choices within the complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of a leak, damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that the communal door was insecure;
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in handling her complaint.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling service failure. This should be paid to her as a distinct payment and not offset against any arrears or other financial arrangements.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, in addition to the £100 ordered above, the landlord pays the resident the £125 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response (if it has not already done so). It is further recommended that, when the landlord apologises to the resident for its complaint handling failures, it reiterates its apology for the inconvenience, time and trouble she expended in connection with the repairs to her property. It should also consider apologising for its omission to offer temporary accommodation and/or storage of her belongings.
It is recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for items that were irreparably damaged by mould (subject to her providing details of these within a reasonable period). For any older items or those for which approximate costs cannot easily be provided, it should consider making a contribution towards the overall cost. It should confirm its intentions with regard to these recommendations to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks.