Bolton at Home Limited (202308668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308668

Bolton at Home Limited

25 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the resident’s home, and associated repairs.
2. The associated complaint.
3. Its installation of a positive input ventilation system in the resident’s home.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After careful consideration, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the installation of a positive input ventilation system in the resident’s home is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, it referred to a stage 1 complaint response it sent the resident about this issue in January 2023. This complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process and has not been referred to the Ombudsman to investigate, so it is outside our jurisdiction.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a ground floor flat. He lives in the property with his partner and 2 children. 3 members of the family have respiratory conditions. Both the resident, and his representative, have contacted the landlord about the resident’s complaint. Both the resident and his representative are called “the resident” in this report for ease of reference.
On 27 October 2021 the resident reported that there was damp and mould in the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 28 October 2022. It identified mould in the resident’s bathroom, and high humidity throughout the property. It agreed:
1. To replace the gutters at the property.
2. To fit a positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the property. A PIV is a fan that draws filtered air into the property from outside.
3. To re-point areas of brickwork.
4. To change the layout of the downpipe.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord installed the PIV unit in the resident’s home. The landlord installed scaffolding at the property in February 2023. It did a mould treatment at the property on 3 February 2023.
The landlord did a further damp and mould survey of the resident’s home on 4 February 2023. It recorded that there was mould in both bedrooms, the bathroom, living room, kitchen and hall. It recommended:
1. Replacing the window seals and doing a mould treatment around the windows throughout the property.
2. Stain-blocking the ceiling in the kitchen.
3. Stain-blocking the wall in the bathroom and doing a mould treatment to the ceiling and tiles.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 June 2023. He said:
1. The family had been living with damp and mould for over 2 years. The resident said his daughter was constantly ill as a result.
2. There had been scaffolding up at the property since February 2023. As a result, the resident’s young child was unable to use the garden. The repairs had not been completed and since the guttering had been removed, the damp and mould was worse.
3. On one occasion the landlord had failed to complete repairs as it was unable to use the resident’s electricity. The resident believed the landlord should provide its own power to do repairs.
4. The resident asked the landlord to decant him (move him temporarily) or offer him permanent rehousing.
The landlord completed the roofing works, rainwater goods repair, and repointing on 13 June 2023. However, the resident was unhappy with the quality of the repair and said it had not resolved the damp and mould.
The resident reported a suspected leak into their bathroom ceiling on 14 June 2023. He was concerned that the ceiling was unsafe.
The resident said that on 14 July 2023 he gave the landlord a letter written by his GP about the impact the damp and mould was having on the family.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 21 July 2023. It found that the rainwater goods had been incorrectly installed by its contractor, and there were areas of pointing that were incomplete. It recorded that there was no mould in the property but there was a possible leak from the property above. The following repairs were needed:
1. It needed to complete a repair to one wall.
2. It needed to “cavity clean” around the soil pipe from the flat above to check for leaks.
3. It needed to inspect the lintel over the living room window and replace the tile windowsills.
4. It needed to replace the resident’s ceiling and redecorate the bathroom.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 8 August 2023. It summarised the steps it had taken to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s home. It upheld the resident’s complaint, saying:
1. Due to a repairs backlog and the high volume of reports of damp and mould it had received, there was a delay in it doing the repairs to the resident’s home. It apologised for its poor communication about this.
2. It agreed to do the outstanding repairs to the resident’s home on or before 29 August 2023.
3. It said it did not need to decant the resident, as most of the repairs needed were external.
4. It offered the resident £100 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £50 for its failure to complete the work within its service standard timescales.
  2. £50 for poor workmanship.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, saying:
1. The landlord’s pointing repair was inadequate.
2. The resident was left with a hole in his bathroom ceiling for 6 weeks. He felt the landlord’s handling of the repair was inadequate. He had reported that he was worried that the ceiling was unsafe so the landlord should have acted sooner.
3. Some of the information in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not reflect what the resident had been told. For example, the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would repair the ceiling, but the resident was told a ceiling replacement was needed. In addition, the resident was told the landlord needed to do a cavity wall clean, but this was not mentioned in its stage 1 complaint response.
4. The resident denied telling the landlord he knew the cause of the damp and mould, although he suspected the roof was a contributory factor.
5. He was unhappy with the landlord’s communication overall, giving several examples.
6. The resident again asked the landlord if it was standard practice for its contractor to use residents’ power supplies to do repairs.
7. The resident said he was told the landlord could not do a repair as their back gate was locked. He denied that the gate was locked.
8. The resident asked why the landlord’s damp and mould surveyor said that roofs were ‘not their department’ if the roof was the cause of damp and mould.
9. The landlord had scaffolding up at the resident’s home for 19 weeks. In this time the landlord only did work on approximately 6 days. The resident felt this was unreasonable and said as a result their daughter was unable to use the garden.
10. Overall, the resident said that the delays to the repairs had worsened the health of their family. 3 members of the family had asthma and 1 had eczema that had been affected.
11. The resident wanted the landlord to:
  1. Complete the repairs to an adequate standard and carry out a post-inspection.
  2. Consider either moving the family permanently or extending their home to create an additional bedroom.
  3. Increase its offer of compensation.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident rejecting his request for it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident was unhappy with this. Following a phone conversation with the resident on 25 August 2023 the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint.
The landlord completed a roof replacement at the property on 26 September 2023. It did a further inspection of the property on 29 September 2023 and agreed to do more repairs, including to lintels and windowsills at the property.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process on 3 October 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, saying:
1. It had not initially prioritised the resident’s report of damp and mould as he had not mentioned that the family’s health was affected. When he explained this on 19 August 2022, it prioritised the inspection.
2. There were delays in doing repairs to the resident’s home as it needed to remove asbestos soffits.
3. It had recruited more damp and mould inspectors. It was now prioritising reports of damp and mould and completing inspections within 14 days.
4. It accepted that it had incorrectly installed rainwater goods at the resident’s home which had caused further damp and mould. It said it had raised the issue with its contractor.
5. It accepted that the cosmetic appearance of the pointing repair was below standard and had fed this back to its contractor. However, it said the repair was broadly fit for purpose. 2 areas needed further work.
6. It said its plasterer recommended a roof replacement after it sent its stage 2 complaint response. The information it gave was correct at the time.
7. The resident’s bathroom ceiling was safe. It explained this to the resident on 21 July 2023.
8. It accepted that it had originally recommended a cavity clean. It later concluded one was not needed. It apologised that it had not explained this to the resident clearly.
9. It explained that it had said that the resident believed the roof was the cause of the damp and mould as its call records indicated the resident said this.
10. It apologised if its surveyor had not been clear in their communication about roofing. It said it used a specialist roofing contractor who was best placed to assess roofing.
11. It accepted that its communication with the resident had not always been adequate and had identified 4 instances where the resident had requested an update and it had failed to respond. It had addressed this issue at a senior level.
12. It explained some of the factors which it said had caused it to need scaffolding up at the resident’s property for longer than usual.
13. It apologised for its delayed complaint response. It explained it had unexpected staff shortages. It had recruited more staff to address this.
14. It agreed to do a post inspection when the works at the property were complete.
15. It said the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move.
16. It offered the resident £500 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £50 for the 12-month delay in it inspecting the resident’s property.
  2. £50 for its failure to keep the resident informed of this delay.
  3. £50 for the poor standard of its pointing work.
  4. £50 for overall poor communication.
  5. £50 for the delay in it sending its stage 2 complaint response.
  6. An additional £100 for the impact its handling of the resident’s reports had on the family, given their vulnerability.
  7. £50 for the poor workmanship on the rainwater mechanisms.
  8. £50 for its failure to complete the initial damp works within its policy timescales.
  9. £50 for its failure to complete the subsequent damp works within the timescale it agreed.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He said:
1. The compensation offered did not reflect impact the landlord’s handling of the issues had on the family.
2. He did not accept that a repairs backlog following Covid-19 was a reasonable reason for the delay in the landlord’s inspection following his initial report of damp and mould in November 2021.
3. The landlord said it prioritised the inspection after it became aware of the family’s medical conditions. However, it took a further 2 months to inspect the property from this point. This was not reasonable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of his home impacted her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, particularly for people who have respiratory conditions. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident and his family. If the resident wants to take this aspect of his complaint further, he could consider making a liability claim. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details (if it has one) to the resident now so he can make a claim if he wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his and his family’s health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord had a damp and condensation policy in place during the relevant period of this complaint, but it was under review. The landlord’s damp and mould policy during this time did not align with the best practice outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (available on our website). The spotlight sets out our expectations for landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, including avoiding placing the responsibility for damp and mould concerns on residents. It highlights the importance of taking a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould reports, case ownership, and good communication.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to “life and limb” emergency repairs within 2 hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 working days, and routine repairs within 21 working days. It explains that some repairs, including planned repairs, will take longer than this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial report of damp and mould

The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it completing an initial inspection of the resident’s home. It explained that this was due to a backlog of repairs due to COVID-19, and the high volume of reports of damp and mould it received. It is accepted that during periods of lockdown, landlords were only allowed to carry-out emergency repairs and that therefore there would have been a backlog of routine repairs once restrictions were lifted. However, there was a 1-year delay in the landlord inspecting the property. The inspection took place in November 2022, significantly after all lockdown restrictions were eased. This was an unacceptable delay, which cannot be fully explained by the effect of COVID-19 on the landlord’s service, or the level of damp and mould reports the landlord received. This caused the resident significant time, trouble, and worry. For example, the resident told the Ombudsman that during this period they had a small baby, and due to concerns about the impact damp and mould could have on her health, they wiped down the walls in the property every day. The landlord also accepted that it did not keep the resident updated during the period of the delay.
The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for these failures made up of £50 for the delay and an additional £50 for its communication failures during this period. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportional to the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. It is ordered to pay the resident £200 in compensation, in addition to the compensation it has already offered during its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our webpage, says that awards in this range are appropriate where there the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer of compensation made was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs identified in its November 2022 inspection

After the landlord inspected the property in November 2022 it agreed several repairs. It did not complete them for 7 months. This was not a reasonable timescale. The Ombudsman accepts that planned repairs take longer than routine repairs for a variety of reasons. These include those given by the landlord. For example, it said it needed to issue a legal notice to the resident’s neighbour, put up scaffolding, and remove the asbestos soffits and overgrown vegetation before it could do the repairs. While these are reasons a planned repair could take longer than a routine repair, they do not fully explain the delay in this case.
For example, the landlord’s records suggest that it logged the repairs at the property soon after the inspection, but then cancelled and re-logged the works for a contractor 21 days later. The landlord has not explained why it did not make this decision sooner, so the Ombudsman considers that it caused an unreasonable delay to the repairs.
Although the landlord removed the asbestos soffits on 17 March 2023, its records suggest that the remaining work was done on 13 June 2023. The resident has said that the work only took around 6 days in total, so it is not clear what the cause of the further 3-month delay was. It cannot be wholly accounted for by the reasons given by the landlord, such as not being able to complete works on days where there was poor weather. As the landlord has not explained the delay, the Ombudsman considers it to have been unreasonable.
In addition, the resident raised specific issues that he felt had delayed the scaffolding work. As the landlord did not dispute it, the Ombudsman accepts his account of these issues. They included:
1. Confusion between the landlord and its contractor about its use of the acronym “LHS” to mean left hand side. The resident felt there was a lack of communication between the landlord about the issue and said that he called the landlord himself to ask for the meaning of the acronym. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that landlords should avoid using acronyms in their records, as use of acronyms can cause ambiguity. While “LHS” is a common acronym for “left hand side”, in this case, its use caused a delay to the repairs. The resident said that because of the miscommunication, the scaffolding had to be rearranged. In addition, when it was unclear about its instructions, the contractor should have contacted the landlord directly. This would have minimised the delay. Its failure to do so in this instance caused the resident inconvenience.
2. The contractor told the resident it was unable to work at the property on one date as the family were out and the contractor needed access to their power supply. In its internal records the landlord said its contractors would usually use cordless tools. It is unclear why on this occasion the contractor needed access to the resident’s power supply. As this was not its standard practice, it should have communicated this to the resident. Its failure to do so caused a further avoidable delay.
3. On a third occasion, the landlord gave the resident a date for works, but the resident said it did not attend. As the landlord has not explained why it failed to attend on this date, the Ombudsman concludes that it was unreasonable.
Overall, the delays had a detrimental impact on the resident and his family. He said because of the scaffolding being up for 19 weeks, the family was unable to use their garden. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in it completing the repairs recommended in its initial property survey. This award was not proportional to the avoidable inconvenience experienced by the resident during this time. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for this delay, in addition to the £50 it offered as part of the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our webpage, says awards in this range are appropriate when failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident, but have not had a permanent impact.

The landlord’s handling of further reports of damp and mould, and concerns about workmanship.

After the repairs were completed, the resident continued to experience damp and mould into his home. He reported this to the landlord, and it arranged an inspection within an appropriate timescale. The landlord accepted that the repair it did to the rainwater hopper was inadequate, and this was the cause of the ongoing water ingress into the resident’s home. The landlord’s internal records indicate that the landlord’s contractor had incorrectly interpreted the landlord’s instruction and fitted a larger hopper, rather than 2 hoppers as the landlord had intended. With the information available the cause of the misunderstanding is unclear. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the repair to the hopper was completed. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord should have clear and accurate records of all repairs, including where these are completed by a contractor, so its records are robust.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with other workmanship carried out by the landlord, including the quality of the pointing. The landlord inspected the pointing. It found that 2 areas of pointing needed further repair. It accepted that the cosmetic appearance of the work was inadequate, but said that other than the 2 areas identified, it was functional. It was not required to carry out any further work to improve the cosmetic appearance of the repair, so this was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
The landlord accepted that it did not repair the pointing by 28 August 2023 as it had agreed. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the contractor re-did the pointing. This is a further record keeping failure. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear records of all repairs. However, the pointing was done before the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 October 2023. This means that the delay in re-doing the pointing could not have been longer than 5 weeks. While any delay will have cause the resident inconvenience, a delay of this length is not excessive.
The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for its poor workmanship, made up of £50 for the rainwater hopper, and £50 for its inadequate pointing repair. This did not reflect the impact of the ongoing issues these errors caused. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for this error, in addition to the £100 it has already offered as part of its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident but have not had a permanent impact.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the bathroom ceiling

The resident reported that his bathroom ceiling was cracked and he was worried it could collapse. The landlord inspected the property 5 days later. This was not appropriate. Where a potential ceiling collapse is suspected, it should be treated as an emergency. This is because a ceiling collapse can have serious safety implications. As such the landlord should have inspected the property within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy timescale for emergency repairs. Its failure to do so will have caused the resident avoidable worry about their family’s safety. To put things right, the landlord should consider enhancing the training it provides to its repairs staff to ensure they are equipped to identify potential safety risks.
The resident felt that the ceiling repair took too long after the landlord’s initial inspection. The ceiling repair was completed on 22 September 2023. While this 1 month after the landlord agreed to do the repair, the Ombudsman did not see any evidence of an avoidable delay in completing the repair. The landlord needed to establish the cause of the water ingress, which involved inspecting a neighbour’s property. It also needed to allow time for the property to dry out before it could do redecoration work. After investigating, the landlord concluded that there was no leak coming from the resident’s neighbour’s property, and the water ingress had been solved by the work it had done to the property earlier in the year. It said in internal communication that the water had taken time to pass through the building. While the delay appears to have been unavoidable, it should have communicated the delay in the repair clearly with the resident when it became aware it. There is no evidence it did so. This was inappropriate. The landlord awarded the resident with £50 for its failure to complete the repairs within the timescale given in its stage 1 response. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been a failure by the landlord but this did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
Following further inspection of the property, the landlord decided that some of the works it had initially suggested were not required, including a cavity clean. This was reasonable, as it can be difficult to establish the extent of the work needed when a leak is ongoing. The landlord should have clearly communicated the reasons it changed the scope of works to the resident, but it did not. It apologised for this failure in its complaint response, which was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs after the complaints process had been exhausted

The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the roof replacement on 26 September 2023 in an appropriate timescale. However, there were some failures in internal communication about the re-roofing work, and the leak through the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s surveyor and contractor appear to have become aware of these only when visiting the property for unrelated reasons. This was not reasonable. Landlords provide more effective services when information is shared appropriated with staff. Its failure to share information in this case will have affected the resident’s trust in the landlord’s services.
The landlord awarded the resident £50 for its communication failures. While there were communication failures throughout the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, the Ombudsman has considered this in the compensation awarded for these issues. As such, no further compensation has been ordered for the landlord’s inadequate communication with the resident. In addition, the landlord has made changes to improve its communication going forward. This has been addressed later in the report.
When the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in September 2023, he agreed to repair the windowsills and tiles, and repair the pointing in another area. It is not clear from the information available if the condition of the pointing or windowsills had deteriorated since the landlord’s previous inspection, so the Ombudsman cannot say whether the landlord should have identified these repairs earlier.
The pointing repair was completed at the same time as a repair to the lintel and windowsills. It was reasonable for the landlord to do the repairs at the same time as it may have needed specialist equipment. However, the repairs were completed around 6 months after the landlord’s target date, in April 2024. As the landlord has not explained the delay to these repairs, the Ombudsman concludes that it was inappropriate.
After the inspection, the landlord discussed each of the resident’s ongoing concerns. This was appropriate. However, on 27 September 2023, following a call with the landlord, the resident asked the landlord to confirm its position on his outstanding concerns in writing. The landlord agreed to re-secure the brick tiles underneath the resident’s windows in response to the resident’s concerns. However, it did not respond to his email, although it said in internal correspondence that it would discuss the issues with him as works in the property progressed. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have responded in writing. Its failure to do so may have led to the resident feeling he was being ignored.
During the complaints process, the resident asked that the landlord arrange a post-inspection of the repairs when they had been completed. The landlord agreed to this. However, the resident told the Ombudsman that while the works are completed, no post inspection has been done. This was not appropriate, as the landlord’s failure to do what it agreed to will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord. The landlord is ordered to carry out a post inspection of the repairs and confirm the outcome to the resident in writing. It should specifically address any concerns about workmanship raised by the resident.

The landlord’s response to the family’s health circumstances

Throughout its handling of the case, the landlord failed to show consideration of the family’s health conditions. In this case the resident had disclosed that 3 members of the household, including a young child, had respiratory conditions. While it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine a causal link between the damp and mould in the resident’s home and the family’s health condition, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a detrimental impact on health, and in particular on the health of people with respiratory conditions. As such, the landlord should have considered this and taken appropriate steps. For example, it could have considered giving additional priority to the resident’s repairs.
There is no evidence the landlord prioritised the resident’s repairs. Although the landlord said that it became aware of the family’s health conditions at the end of August 2022 and prioritised its inspection of the property as a result, it took the landlord a further 2 months to inspect the property. It took around 8 months to complete the repairs from this point. This did not demonstrate that the landlord was treating the resident’s repairs as urgent.
The resident asked the landlord to consider decanting the family until the repairs were completed. The landlord said it would not decant them as the works were external, not internal. Although the repairs were mostly external, the damp and mould was internal and should have been considered when assessing a possible decant. In some circumstances a landlord may consider it to be appropriate to decant a household to mitigate any impact on their health. This would be in line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our webpage. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the family’s health conditions in its decision. This was not appropriate.
The landlord told the resident that the family did not meet its criteria for a permanent move as this was only considered in exceptional circumstances. This is common practice for landlords. Landlords’ policies sometimes allow additional rehousing priority for residents where repairs to a property are so significant that a temporary decant would be impractical and disruptive, due to the length of time residents would need to be decanted for. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the repairs met these criteria. However, if the landlord had explained this in detail it would have been clearer for the resident.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it has separate records for different parts of its business. While the family’s health conditions were recorded on its repairs records, they were not recorded against the resident’s tenancy information. This was not appropriate. Landlords should make sure that information about resident vulnerability is available to relevant staff throughout the organisation. This enables it to make appropriate reasonable adjustments to its service.
At the beginning of August 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman that on 14 July 2023 he gave the landlord a copy of a supporting letter written by his GP. He said he took the letter to the office in person where it was scanned by the landlord. On the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman accepts that the resident did provide the letter to the landlord. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the information in the letter, and it did not provide a copy to the Ombudsman. This was not appropriate, as it was a further indication that the landlord did not properly consider the resident’s personal circumstances in its handling of the case.
The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for the additional impact its handling of the case had on the family, given the health conditions they had disclosed. Considering the length of time it took the landlord to complete all of the repairs, and the failures discussed above, this level of compensation was inadequate. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the avoidable worry caused to the family by the landlord’s handling of the case. This is awarded in addition the £100 offered as part of the landlord’s complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above.

Summary

For the reasons discussed in this report, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s home.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that since it responded to the resident’s complaint, it has made several changes to its processes to improve the service it delivers to residents. These changes include:
1. Reviewing its approach to damp and mould to improve the timescales of its interventions, its communications with residents, and the range of interventions it can offer. It has also implemented a separate damp database, in which it considers resident vulnerabilities.
2. It has created a vulnerability working group to look at how it records resident vulnerabilities and implemented a vulnerable residents policy. It is currently working on a reasonable adjustments policy.
3. It now asks key questions on customer vulnerability at the first point of contact.
4. It is currently working with its training team to improve its communication with customers.
5. It has fully restructured its property maintenance team and is recruiting additional staff to its repairs team.
6. It is also undertaking a full review of its subcontracting processes and says it has made improvements to its internal communication with contractors.
The changes made by the landlord are appropriate as they reflect the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. They demonstrate that the landlord has insight into where it has gone wrong and is committed to improving the service it provides. As such, no further orders have been made in this respect.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints handling. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. This is appropriate, as it is in line with the Code. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge resident’s complaints within 5 working days at both stages of its complaints process. It says the landlord will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 of its complaints process and within 15 working days at stage 2 of its complaints process. These are appropriate timescales that either align with or are shorter than those set out in the Code.
However, the landlord failed to meet its policy timescales. At both stages of the landlord’s complaints process it took around 2 months to respond. This was inappropriate. While the landlord did acknowledge that there were delays in its response, and contacted the resident to request an extension, the delays still extended the duration of the complaints process and will have caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it has employed additional complaint handling staff since it responded to the resident’s complaint. This is an appropriate step to help it meet the demands on its service, so no further recommendations or orders have been made in this respect.
The landlord initially rejected the resident’s request that it escalated his complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. It said that the repairs had been agreed so escalating the complaint would not change the outcome. This was not appropriate. Even where a landlord has agreed to complete repairs, a review of the complaint at stage 2 of the complaints process may result in other outcomes, including points of learning and/or an increased offer of compensation. Not escalating the complaint when the resident first asked meant he had to raise the matter again, causing him inconvenience.
The Ombudsman updated the Code in April 2024. The current version of the Code says that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Landlords must clearly set out these reasons, and they must comply with the provisions set out in section 2 of the Code. The landlord’s reasons did not comply with the reasons set out in section 2 of Code.
Overall, the landlord’s complaints responses were thorough and specific. This was good practice by the landlord, which aligned with the Code. However, there were some issues raised by the resident at both stages of the complaints process that the landlord did not respond to. For example:
1. The resident asked the landlord to consider extending their property. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. This was frustrating for the resident. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident confirming whether it will consider extending the property. If it will not consider an extension, it should explain its reasoning for this.
2. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the scaffolding at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did later acknowledge and apologise for this, but the omission will still have caused the residents inconvenience and frustration.
3. There were several specific incidents the resident raised with the landlord to explain why he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and general handling of the repair that it did not address in its complaints responses, including but not limited to:
  1. The landlord asking to use the resident’s power, and whether this was standard practice.
  2. The resident’s report that a contractor had said they could not do a repair because the resident’s gate was locked, which the resident disputed.
  3. The resident’s concerns about the landlord attending the property without prior notice.
The landlord’s failure to consider all the issues raised by the resident was inappropriate and will have undermined the resident’s trust in the complaint handling process. The landlord should consider additional training for relevant complaint handling staff, so that it can ensure it addresses all issues raised by residents in future.
In addition, on 13 June 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the landlord’s contractors, who he said put building waste in their recycling bin and spoke to him inappropriately. The Ombudsman defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents”. In this case the resident was clearly expressing dissatisfaction with the service provided so the landlord should have offered to log the issue as a complaint. There is no evidence it did so, or that it investigated the issues. This will have led to the resident feeling that the concern had been ignored.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did accept complaints handling failures and offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response. This offer was not proportionate to the landlord’s failings in this case and did not reflect the level of detriment caused. The landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is awarded in addition to the £50 it offered the resident during the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42 a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of its installation of a PIV unit in his home is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. In its apology it should consider its failure to consider the health conditions disclosed by the family and the overall impact of the delays.
2. Directly pay the resident £700 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience and worry caused by the delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the avoidable inconvenience caused by the delay in it completing repairs to the resident’s property after its initial inspection.
  3. £100 for the detrimental impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s inadequate repairs to the rainwater hopper and pointing.
  4. £200 for the avoidable distress and worry caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the family’s health conditions
  5. £100 for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. This compensation has been awarded in addition to the £500 the landlord has offered the resident as part of its complaints process. This should also be paid now if it has not been paid already.
3. The landlord is ordered to carry out a post inspection of the repairs and confirm the outcome to the resident in writing. It should specifically address any concerns about workmanship raised by the resident.
4. Write to the resident confirming whether it will consider extending the property to create an additional bedroom. If it will not consider an extension, it should explain its reasoning for this.
5. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that is has complied with the orders made within the given timescales.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider additional training for relevant staff to ensure they are able to:
1. Identify and address all issues raised by residents during the complaints process.
2. Identify and respond appropriately to potential emergency repairs.
The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details (if it has one) to the resident now so he can make a liability claim if he wants to for damage to his and his family’s health.