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

Islington Council (202320982)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320982

Islington Council

28 June 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and window repair issues.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. He sublets the property to tenants. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property has 2 storeys and a flat roof above the upper floor.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised on 1 June 2023 for a damp assessment to be carried out. The landlord has advised that there was a no access appointment on 22 June 2023. Following the resident’s reports of a leak through the ceiling of a bedroom, an electrician attended to make safe the electrics on 29 June 2023. The job notes state that the light was not affected by the leak and that there was an appointment scheduled for 12 July 2023 for roofers to inspect.
  3. A survey took place on 10 July 2023 to carry out a damp assessment for the living room and bedroom. The job notes show that there was leak damage to a bedroom and that the location corresponded with a blocked roof gully directly above. In the living room, the resident had also reported ongoing dampness at ground level. The agreed actions were for the blocked outlet to be cleared on the roof, for cement “flaunching” to be installed to the external side wall (impacting the living room), to clear and check the drainage outside the bin storage area and to renew the grate cover. The landlord’s records show that the gully on the flat roof was cleared on 12 July 2023.  
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 31 July 2023. He reported that there was a leak into a bedroom in the property and damp in another bedroom due to issues with the flat roof above. He asked that this was dealt with urgently as the bedroom could not be used by his tenant and this was supposed to have been resolved as part of a previous complaint in 2020. He also reported issues of damp affecting the bottom of an external facing wall in the living room which had been inspected by a surveyor on 10 July 2023, that the windows in the living room were excessively stiff and difficult to lock, and a broken window hinge in a bedroom. He said he had previously reported these, and while the drain on the flat roof had been attended to, no other issues had been resolved.
  5. The landlord has advised that a survey took place on 7 August 2023 and the surveyor reported that there was a leak into a bedroom from the roof and this was still leaking despite previous works to clear the gutter and that there was defective “poring” on the external left of the property which was causing water ingress. They also noted that the internals were to go through insurance.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023. It outlined its actions since 1 June 2023. It noted that the surveyor who had attended on 10 July 2023 had reported leak damage from a blocked gully above the roof and work had been scheduled for 22 August 2023. It had asked for an assessment of the windows in the living room and bedroom. It partially upheld the complaint as there had been no access to an appointment but the surveyor who attended on 7 August 2023 had not raised any follow on works. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation.
  7. The resident asked that the complaint be escalated on 15 August 2023 as it had been 8 weeks since he had reported a leak through the bedroom ceiling and this needed emergency attention. He had also reiterated the urgency of the situation to the landlord over the phone as damage was being caused to the property and had been told the leak had been fixed before being put on hold and then cut off. He said that all of the other issues had been reported on 1 June 2023, including that windows in the living room were stiff, there was a broken hinge in a bedroom and mould and damp in another bedroom due to the water penetration. He had been informed following an inspection on 7 August 2023 that works would be raised to repair the roof and flaunching to the external wall which was causing damp and a further surveyor had confirmed this was needed.
  8. The landlord’s records indicate that work to the windows was completed on 17 August 2023. The records also show that work to clear a blocked outlet on the roof was reportedly completed on 22 August 2023.
  9. A survey took place on 29 August 2023 which noted a blocked outlet affecting the property. The surveyor met the caretaker of the block on site who did not know about the leak into the resident’s flat. They noted that there were parts of the roof around the gutter which were not felted and suggested work to erect scaffolding, unblock the outlet, and prime, bandage, repair and liquid coat areas, including up the front parapet wall. A work order for pointing to the left hand side of the building was raised on 30 August 2023.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023.
    1. It acknowledged that his main concern was that surveyors had inspected the property but no works were carried out. He had also confirmed that an appointment had been booked for 15 September 2023 for works to the roof and it said it would ask that he was contacted following the appointment to be advised of any follow-on work if the roof could not be repaired that day. It also provided a point of contact.
    2. It noted that the resident had raised concern that the wooden floors had buckled as a result of the leak and damp and it had agreed to inform its repairs team of the new issue. It also acknowledged that the resident had been using a dehumidifier in one of the rooms due to the damp caused by the leak, and that the room could not be used for this reason. It confirmed that the resident would need to go through his insurance provider for this.
    3. It understood that 2 surveyors had inspected the external wall where there had been damage to the property as a result of a leak. Both had confirmed the course of action to be taken, however nothing had been done. It confirmed that the report following an inspection on 30 August 2023 had been passed to contractors to be booked in.
    4. It apologised for the longstanding issues the resident had suffered and acknowledged that the matter had not been easy to deal with as a result of the length of time and lack of action. It offered £450 compensation comprised of £250 for the time taken for works to be carried out and £200 for the inconvenience caused.

Events following the internal complaints process

  1. Between September 2023 and October 2023, the outlet on the roof was attended to (on 15 September 2023) and reportedly cleared, the resident continued to pursue his concerns regarding damp and damage to the property and he was informed that he would need to raise a claim via his home insurance provider. Work to carry out pointing to the external wall was raised again on 19 September 2023. The quote for work to the roof was approved on 2 October 2023 following an inspection of the property on 25 September 2023.
  2. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2023. He said that the landlord had not confirmed whether repairs carried out on 15 September 2023 had resolved the leak into the third bedroom. Damp in the first bedroom had not been resolved and the broken window hinge in the same room had not been repaired. No work had been completed to the external wall causing damp in the living room. He wanted the landlord to resolve the issues, including repairs to damaged internal plaster and buckling floor, and compensate him for remedial works to replaster and decorate, and the costs of purchasing and running a dehumidifier. He also noted that his tenant in the third bedroom had not been able to use the room and was due additional compensation.
  3. Works to the roof were carried out on 9 November 2023. The leak was reported as ongoing on 4 December 2023 and further works to liquid coat the roof were carried out on 21 December 2023. These works were successful. Works to repair the broken window hinge in the bedroom took place on 26 May 2024.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord on at least 20 occasions regarding the roof and damp issues between September 2023 and December 2023. He has also provided a timeline of his further communication with the landlord following this. The work to complete pointing was carried out on 14 March 2024. In this time, the work was re-raised on at least 3 occasions.
  5. The resident has advised that the issues affecting the living room wall remain outstanding and the area in question was not repointed during previous works. He has advised that a surveyor established that further investigation was needed on 12 June 2024 as there were gaps where the wall met the ground, a large section of wall had not been repaired, sections had not been repointed, a nearby drain could be blocked or damaged, and an inspection of adjoining garages below the property was needed as well as the incoming mains supply to the property. He has since advised that works to clear a blocked external drain took place on 20 June 2024. The resident advised that further pointing and sealing works were booked for 26 June 2024, however, when he attended the property that evening, the works had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within his complaint, the resident expressed concern that repairs carried out as part of a previous complaint in 2020 had been unsuccessful. While we appreciate that this was likely to be frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of ongoing reports of leaks from him between 2020 and his reports in June 2023. The historic issues have not been considered as part of this assessment and focuses instead on events from June 2023 onwards.
  2. The resident has asked to be compensated for damage caused to the property and personal items, cost of works to redecorate and replace the flooring which buckled, the cost of running the dehumidifier, and travel costs associated with being available for multiple appointments, among others. In line with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to determine liability for damages to property or additional related costs as these are best suited to be dealt with under an insurance claim or through the courts.
  3. The resident said the landlord’s delay in resolving the water ingress caused a bedroom to be unusable by his tenant, adding that the ongoing damp issues caused his tenants to end their tenancy which led to a financial loss. A claim for loss of rent is something better suited for consideration by an insurer via a landlord insurance policy or rent guarantee policy. If this type of insurance was not held by the resident in his capacity as a landlord, he would need to seek independent or legal advice to see if there are other options available to him.
  4. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with relevant information regarding its buildings and liability insurance so that he can make an informed decision about making a claim should he wish to do so. Our investigation will consider whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  5. The resident has also asked that his tenants are compensated by the landlord for the inconvenience caused to them as a result of the issues affecting the property. The resident’s tenants have a legal relationship with the resident and this relationship does not extend to the resident’s landlord. Therefore, this Service will not consider how the landlord’s resolution of the repair issues within the property affected the resident’s tenants. Any award of compensation is made to the resident to reflect any general distress and inconvenience experienced.

Policies and procedures

  1. The lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure of the building, including exterior walls, roofs, foundations, gutters, drains, rain water and soil pipes, and the frames of windows. The leaseholder is responsible for repairs needed to the internal parts of the property, including plastering to internal walls and ceilings, decorations and floor boards.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger or risk of serious damage, would be attended to within 2 hours and made safe; urgent repairs would be attended to within 24 hours; routine repairs should be attended to within 20 working days, and planned repairs within 60 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and window repair issues

  1. Within his complaint, the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling in one of the bedrooms and damp affecting the corner of another bedroom, damp affecting the internal living room wall, and faults affecting the living room and a bedroom window. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that follow on works were not raised by a surveyor who attended on 7 August 2023, the length of time repairs had been outstanding, and a lack of progressive action. It offered the resident £450 compensation through its internal complaints process.
  2. As part of our investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information related to the resident’s complaint, including communication and the repair history. Some of the job numbers provided by the landlord do not appear in the corresponding repair logs for the property. In addition, the repair logs provided do not always show a completion date or notes of what work was undertaken on each visit.
  3. The repair history provided was also seemingly for the entire block or scheme rather than for the repairs relevant to the complaint. It is of concern that the landlord’s record keeping processes may contribute to its lack of oversight of repairs as identified within the report. The Ombudsman was able to reach a determination with the information to hand, however, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Leak and damp in bedrooms

  1. In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021), the Ombudsman expects landlords to take a zero–tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses to reports of damp are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. It would also be expected to communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys and act on recommendations by surveyors in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a work order was raised on 1 June 2023 to complete a damp inspection following the resident’s reports of damp affecting a bedroom. The landlord has advised that there was a no access appointment on 22 June 2023, which does not appear to be disputed. However, it has not provided evidence confirming that the resident was made aware of the appointment to arrange access or evidence confirming that there was no access on the day.
  3. Following reports of leak into a bedroom from above, the landlord acted reasonably by attending on 29 June 2023 to ensure that the electrics were safe. On 10 July 2023, a surveyor established that there was a leak into the bedroom and the location corresponded with a blocked gully which was subsequently cleared on 12 July 2023, within a reasonable timescale. However, the leak continued, and a further surveyor noted that another inspection of the roof was needed. It is evident that the landlord did not have clear oversight of the works as it then arranged for the blocked outlet to be cleared again on 22 August 2023 when this had already been completed according to its records.
  4. It is of concern that the landlord did not arrange for a roofer to attend until 29 August 2023 despite the resident’s reports of the leak from above 2 months prior. While a blocked outlet may have been contributing to the water ingress into the property, this was apparently not the only cause and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have diagnosed how the water was getting into the property at the earliest opportunity given the damage that was reportedly being caused. The resident had also reported that the room was unable to be used by his tenant due to the ongoing leak as early as 31 July 2023 and this should have prompted the landlord to act more urgently.
  5. It is noted that the roofing surveyor who attended on 29 August 2023 was instructed to clear a blocked outlet on the roof, which had already been attended to twice at this stage. Their notes from the inspection state that they met the caretaker for the block on site and needed to arrange an appointment with the resident. There is no evidence to confirm that the resident was made aware of the appointment in advance so that he could be present which was likely to have contributed to the overall delay in completing works. The roofer noted that work was needed to erect scaffolding, felt the roof near the guttering, and liquid coat some areas. The roofer also noted that the outlet was blocked and needed clearing, indicating that either the previous 2 appointments to do so may not have been completed effectively by those who attended, or that this work had been completed and the roofer had not been given adequate information about the works that had already been carried out.
  6. It is of concern that the landlord said (within its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023) that it hoped the issues would be resolved during an appointment on 15 September 2023 without specifying what work would be completed. It had not yet approved the quote for works recommended by the roofer at the time and the evidence shows that the gutter outlet was cleared for the third time on the day. This demonstrates a lack of oversight by the landlord and an overall disjointed approach between departments in handling the resident’s concerns.
  7. While the evidence provided shows that the landlord had attempted to chase works with its contractor following contact from the resident, this was not effectively managed. It is evident that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the repair issues and asking that the matter was dealt with urgently. This likely caused additional inconvenience to him.
  8. Following the complaint, it is evident that the resident needed to pursue the repairs directly with the roofer due to a lack of information provided to him by the landlord. The resident informed the landlord on 20 September 2023 that he was now aware of the roofers inspection in August 2023, and that the surveyors had not been given his number to contact him for an inspection of the internal parts of the property, which further demonstrates a failure to provide a resolution focused approach to the resident. He then informed the landlord on 31 October 2023 that the works had been booked in to erect scaffolding and complete the required works. He also informed the landlord that works had been unsuccessful on 4 December 2023 and when the follow-on works were booked in for following his own communication with the roofers.
  9. In its communication with the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that the works to the roof were completed “in November 2023”. However, it has not provided any further evidence in the form of repair logs or its own records outside of the resident’s communication with it. There is also little evidence that the landlord sought to differentiate between the resident’s reports of a leak into one bedroom and the damp affecting another bedroom on the other side of the property. The resident has advised that the damp in the other bedroom was also resolved as part of the roofing works following his use of a damp meter. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took any further steps to post inspect the works or liaise with the resident to understand whether the issue had been resolved which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. 
  10. The internal parts of the property fall under the resident’s repair responsibilities as a leaseholder. However, the landlord’s delay in resolving the roof leak likely contributed to the damage caused to the property internally. As such, an order has been made below for the landlord to assess the internal damage and confirm whether it will carry out, or fund, remedial works needed. 

Damp affecting living room

  1. It is evident that the resident first reported damp affecting the living room external facing wall in June 2023 and the issues remain outstanding to date, a year later. The overall length of time taken for the landlord to resolve works to the external wall is significant, and the evidence provided demonstrates a lack of oversight by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records from 10 July 2023 show that the agreed actions following a damp assessment were for cement “flaunching” to be installed to the external side wall, to clear and check the drainage outside the bin storage area, and to renew the grate cover. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted on the recommendations made by the surveyor at the time which was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
  3. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concern regarding damp in the living room in its initial complaint response on 14 August 2023. There is no further evidence that work to the pointing of the external wall was raised until 30 August 2023, over a month later (following a further inspection), and no evidence to suggest that the previous recommendations regarding what could be the cause of the issue were taken into consideration. The resident has advised that the drain was recently inspected on 20 June 2024, a blockage was found, and this had now been cleared which he hoped would partially resolve the issues. The delay in carrying out this action was a further example of a missed opportunity to put things right. 
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged that 2 surveyors had inspected the external wall where there had been damage to the property. Both had confirmed the course of action to be taken, but nothing had been done. However, it failed to proactively manage the repair issue following the complaint or take steps of learning to avoid similar failings occurring. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to monitor the repairs through to completion given the previous delay.
  5. Despite works being recommended to complete pointing works to the external wall, these works were re-inspected and re-raised on at least 5 occasions between 20 September 2023 and 27 December 2023 and were not completed until 14 March 2024. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with an explanation for the delay. However, it is noted that the works were passed to several different contractors during this time, and different suggestions for the cause of the water ingress were made at various stages.
  6. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp, leaks and water ingress as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, in this case, there is no evidence to suggest that any work to the wall or surroundings were completed until March 2024, which was 9 months following the resident’s initial report. This was an unreasonable timescale and demonstrates a lack of ownership or understanding of the issues affecting the property.
  7. The resident has since advised that the pointing did not resolve the problem as it was completed in the wrong area and that there have been further investigations and inspections in June 2024. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to have acted proactively and attempted to resolve the issue following the initial inspection in July 2023 which would have allowed it to confirm whether the repairs had been successful at the time and prevent any avoidable inconvenience to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted for these failings, as well as the evident time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the repairs. Several orders have been made below for the landlord to address the resident’s ongoing concerns.

Window repair issues

  1. The resident advised the landlord that he had initially reported the french windows in the living room being stiff and a broken hinge to one of the bedroom windows on 1 June 2023, alongside other repair issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments but has not seen evidence that these concerns were raised prior to his complaint on 31 July 2023.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s complaint by attending to the windows on 17 August 2023. This was within the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. The job note from the appointment states that the patio doors (french windows) were adjusted and the bedroom tilting window was left working well. However, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that he was informed that repairs needed to be carried out following the appointment.
  3. When he initially referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2023, the resident informed us that the window hinge was still broken in the bedroom. In his further communication in October 2023, he confirmed that the issue remained unresolved. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the resident’s communication with the landlord following its final complaint response but has not seen evidence that any further concern regarding the window was raised directly to the landlord.
  4. In the information request made to the landlord as part of this investigation on 26 February 2024, the Ombudsman made the landlord aware of outstanding issues, including the broken hinge in the bedroom. In response, the landlord initially advised on 12 March 2024 that no further service requests had been made regarding the windows since the repair in August 2023. Following this, the resident has confirmed that the window hinge was repaired by the landlord on 26 May 2024. It remains unclear as to whether the landlord was aware of the outstanding window fault prior to the Ombudsman’s communication and it was ultimately reasonable that the landlord believed the issue had been resolved and no further action was taken at the time of the complaint.
  5. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out its understanding of whether the repairs had been addressed within its final complaint response on 13 September 2023, especially as this issue had been raised as part of the complaint. This would have prompted the resident to raise any concern that the window repair issue remained outstanding at the time.

Summary

  1. It is evident that the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing the repairs and updates on what the landlord understood the damp to be caused by. He needed to pursue updates directly with operatives and the roofers to progress works which was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to him. Failings continued following the complaint and there were significant delays in resolving the issues reported, causing the resident additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution. 
  2. There were delays and a series of ineffective appointments with multiple inspections but limited work completed. In addition, due to a lack of oversight or ownership on the part of the landlord, repairs to clear the roof gulleys and outlets were completed multiple times despite this not being effective at resolving the leak. This demonstrates failings in the landlord’s knowledge and information management in that it did not, or was unable to, review its own records to progress repair recommendations or make informed decisions regarding the next steps.
  3. Despite the resident’s multiple requests that the matter was dealt with urgently in view of the impact and damage being caused to the property, the landlord did not act proactively in its handling of the matter or complete adequate repairs within its policy timescales. The delay in completing works ultimately led to a delay in the resident being able to put right any damage caused to the property.
  4. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the property. While the landlord somewhat acknowledged the delays in works being arranged and the inconvenience caused to the resident within its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023 and offered a total of £450 compensation, this is not considered proportionate in view of the additional failings identified.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said he is seeking approximately £27,000 compensation. As set out above, the majority of the costs listed by the resident are best suited to be dealt with as insurance claims as it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to establish liability in this regard. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we consider figures between £600 to £1,000 to be proportionate in cases where there have been failures which had a significant impact on a resident, and where the redress needed to put things right is substantial. In view of this, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.
  6. Several further orders have been made below for the landlord to put right the matters raised through the complaint. The Ombudsman published a special investigation report into the landlord in October 2023 which highlighted similar failings regarding a lack of ownership for repairs and made a series of recommendations which are either in progress or have been completed in the time following the resident’s complaint. As such, we have not made any specific learning orders in respect of the failings identified in this case. However, we have ordered the landlord to review its handling of this case to establish whether the service improvements it has put in place since the complaint are likely to be successful in preventing similar failings occurring.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s responses at each stage of its complaints process were issued within a reasonable timescale. However, the Ombudsman has found failings in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord failed to comment on or acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding damp affecting the external facing living room wall. While it commented on the works recommended by the surveyor on 10 July 2023 in relation to the roof, it failed to address that they had also recommended work to complete external cement flaunching and inspect the drain in the adjacent area.
  3. The response also failed to acknowledge the resident’s report that damp was also affecting another bedroom or consider that the roof gulleys had already been cleared on 12 July 2023 and that the survey on 7 August 2023 had established that there was defective “poring” which needed to be addressed. While it confirmed that work to clear a blocked outlet had been booked for 22 August 2023, it failed to demonstrate that it had adequately investigated its records or sought to put right the complaint.
  4. In addition, the response included the surveyors’ notes indicating “internals to go through insurance”, but failed to provide any meaningful guidance about what the surveyor meant, or provide relevant insurance details to the resident should he wish to make a claim. While apologising for the inconvenience caused, it failed to provide reassurance to the resident as to how it would resolve his concerns or monitor these through to completion which was likely to have caused frustration and uncertainty.
  5. In his escalation request to the landlord, the resident raised specific concerns about the urgency of the situation, the damp affecting the living room, being told that the leak had been resolved over the phone and subsequently being cut off, the delay in works being carried out to the roof and external wall despite multiple surveyor visits, and damage caused to the property.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023, while acknowledging the time taken for the issues to be resolved and the inconvenience caused, failed to comment on the resident’s concerns regarding the urgency of the situation or about how a phone call was dealt with. The response acknowledged what the resident had said about his experience, including that there was now an appointment for the roof on 15 September 2023, but failed to demonstrate that it had explored its own records when addressing the complaint.
  7. As above, at the time of the stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023, the landlord should have been aware of the outcome of the roofer’s inspection and the repairs that were needed. It had not yet approved the work as this was completed on 2 October 2023. If it did not have this information, it should have sought this in order to provide a full response and demonstrate that it had a clear understanding and oversight of the issue. While it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to the issue of the resident’s wood floor buckling as a result of the damp, there is a lack of evidence to show that it followed through with this commitment following the complaint.
  8. While the response acknowledged what the resident had said about appointments being booked, inspections taking place, but no work being completed, there is a lack of explanation or reasoning for the repeated ineffective appointments. The landlord’s failure to establish points of learning from the complaint ultimately led to continued delays following the complaint and multiple further ineffective appointments which was likely to have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
  9. In addition, as the landlord was evidently aware of the damage the resident said the ongoing leak was causing to the property, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided relevant information regarding its building and liability insurance provider at the time so that the resident was able to make a claim should he wish to do so. Within its communication to the Ombudsman in March 2024, the landlord said that any internal remedial work would be the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder and that it encouraged him to make a claim via “leaseholders” and it would reimburse any insurance excess. It is ultimately of concern that the resident was informed that he would need to raise a claim with his own home insurance and that this information was not provided to him at the time of the complaint.
  10. The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord refers to compensation offers being made as “full and final settlement of the complaint”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should avoid using such wording within its responses. A resident will ultimately have the opportunity to pursue their legal options should they remain dissatisfied with the compensation offered within the landlord’s complaints process, regardless of whether they had accepted the compensation offer or not, and the current wording may cause confusion as to whether they are able to do so. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review this.
  11. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. While its responses were issued within relevant timescales, it failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns, adequately identified and put right its failings, taken sufficient learning form the complaint, or monitored complaint commitments through to completion within a reasonable timescale.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and window repair issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident additional compensation of £900. This is comprised of:
    1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing repairs to the property.
    2. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord’s previous compensation offer of £450 should also be paid if it has not done been already.
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Appoint a senior member of staff within its repairs service to monitor works through to completion and coordinate the required repairs. They should review the repair history of the external facing living room wall.
    2. Complete a full survey of the affected wall. It should fully assess all issues that have been suggested to contribute to the damp, including but not limited to arranging for the garages to be accessed to a allow a full assessment, assessing the damp proof course, and any possible further causes. It should ensure that the locations of any specific repair concerns are clearly documented.
    3. Inspect the internal parts of the property and consider what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage to the resident’s property that was contributed to by its delays.
  5. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident with the outcome of the survey. It should confirm its understanding of any previous works undertaken to resolve the issues, the further works required and the timeframes for any additional works needed. It should confirm its decision as to whether it will complete, or fund, works to put right the internal damage to the property. If it decides not to complete any internal works, it should provide assistance to him with making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers should the resident wish to do so.
    2. Provide the resident with information regarding its insurance processes for both its buildings and liability insurers so that he is able to make an informed decision on making a claim for the damages he has raised.
    3. Commit to inspecting the property 2 months following completion of works to ensure the damp has been resolved.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team, the Ombudsman, and the resident within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should:
    1. Consider the evidence available to it both during and following the complaint and identify issues that gave rise to the service failures that occurred in order to establish points of learning.
    2. Reference its response to damp and mould, its knowledge and information management processes, its approach to complaints, and its contract management processes.
    3. Explain the changes it has made to its service delivery since the complaint with regard to the failings identified and consider whether any further changes need to be made to prevent similar failings occurring in the future.
  7. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the wording used within its complaint responses and removes reference to compensation offers being made as “full and final settlement” to avoid any misunderstanding for residents.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the situation at the property after 3 months and considers paying further compensation if the damp and window problems have not been resolved by that point.
  3. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendations above within 4 weeks.