Dacorum Borough Council (202327719)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327719

Dacorum Borough Council

29 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and his request for insulation.
2. Repairs to the resident’s property involving the condition of his bathroom, rust from pipes and a hole in the ceiling following a leak.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is an end of terrace house with 3 external facing walls. The resident has 2 young children. The landlord has confirmed that the property is system built and has no cavity wall insulation. The Energy Performance Certificate for the property expired in May 2019 and the property was rated as E.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that he has experienced condensation running down the internal walls of the property since moving in. He said that he treated subsequent mould and redecorated the property himself for a number of years before involving the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord in March 2023 about its poor communication and failure to complete repairs. He said that no amount of heating or mould treatment would resolve the issues he had reported. The repair issues involved condensation and mould due to a lack of insulation. He did not believe the property was fit for habitation and asked that the landlord insulate the house, repair the bathroom tiles or replace the bathroom, repair a hole in the living room ceiling following a historic leak, replace the iron pipes which were causing rust to come out of the taps in the bathroom, and treat the mould and redecorate. He advised that another solution would be for it to move his young family to a more suitable property.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023, the landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that repairs were recorded but not followed up. It acknowledged that work orders described issues involving rust from taps in March 2019, the porch that needed replacing in order to assist in resolving damp issues in August 2020, tiles falling off the walls in the bathroom and the bathroom being in a bad state of repair in December 2022, no cavity wall insulation which was causing condensation in January 2023, and works undertaken to resolve a leak through the living room ceiling in February 2023 (which confirmed that follow-on works were needed but required an asbestos survey). It arranged for an inspection to take place on 17 April 2023 to assess the works needed and monitor these through to completion. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint within 28 days if he was dissatisfied.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 9 May 2023 as there had been a lack of progress. He asked that if the landlord was not willing to complete repairs, his family be moved. On 15 May 2023, the landlord said it would not escalate the complaint as more than 28 calendar days had passed since its stage 1 response. The resident asked that a new complaint was raised as there had been no action to resolve the previously upheld complaint. He was dissatisfied that he was paying full rent for the property which in itself was a health hazard. He asked the landlord to help.
The landlord issued another stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It apologised that he had cause to raise concern about the lack of action taken following its previous complaint response and upheld the complaint due to “works”. It confirmed that following a survey on 2 June 2023, it had arranged to:
1. Repair torn felt and lead flashings around the chimney breast, remove ivy from the external walls, clear guttering, and inspect the condition of the roof on 22 June 2023.
2. Complete a mould wash and stain block of the bedroom, utility area, landing and upstairs toilet on 10 July 2023.
3. Inspect the loose rendering around windows at the rear of the property and where the ivy had been removed (following those works). It said it would inform the resident of a date for this within 7 days of the 22 June 2023 works.
It had also asked that an inspection of the loft insulation was arranged within 7 days and that an urgent inspection take place with a view to prioritise the bathroom for replacement within the next 6-8 weeks. It confirmed that a staff member would meet with the resident on 26 June 2023 and be responsible for communicating the next steps and timelines involved. The iron pipework would be replaced as part of the bathroom renewal.
The inspection notes from 26 June 2023 indicate that the landlord was aware that the property did not have wall insulation and that while the loft insulation fell short, and works were required to re-lay and fill gaps, this was not the cause of the wall issues. It noted that the resident had reported condensation running down the walls and that the property did not reach above 22 degrees, with the windows needing to remain open all year to tackle the mould issues. The surveyor identified that the main issue was the hallway and stairs with only 1 radiator, and that a mould square on the wall was in an unheated utility room. There was also no bathroom extractor fan.
The landlord’s records show that some work to treat the mould and paint the walls took place between 26 June 2023 and 10 July 2023. Work to clear the ivy and guttering was completed on 12 July 2023.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 19 July 2023. He said that while some repairs had been completed and the bathroom was due to be replaced, the landlord had only painted over the mould which it had done multiple times before. He expressed concern that this would continue unless the structural issues were resolved. He had also not had a response to his request that the property was insulated.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023, the landlord upheld that the resident had not been provided with follow-on information related to the insulation of the property and asked him to be contacted by its repairs team. It confirmed that an appointment to install insulation in the loft would be arranged with him directly. It said that the surveyor had contacted the resident that day regarding his bathroom installation and an appointment was arranged for 14 August 2023 to complete a further inspection. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as the surveyor had now updated the resident and the matter was in hand. It apologised that the resident was not kept informed about the loft insulation inspection and advised that the resident could refer his complaint to either the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) or this Service within 12 months of the complaint he had made to it.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and failure to resolve the ongoing condensation issues in the property. He advised that if any piece of clothing or furniture was against a wall, it would be ruined by mould growth and that the issues now impacted his health. He wanted the landlord to insulate the property and resolve the ongoing issues, or move his family to a more suitable property given his concerns and that his children now needed separate bedrooms.
The landlord’s records show that work to the external render was scheduled to take place in August 2023. Work to relay the existing loft insulation, fill gaps, and draughtproof the loft hatch was completed on 11 September 2023. A request for scaffolding was made on 19 September 2023 in relation to a roof inspection and works required around the chimney. The bathroom renewal was carried out in December 2023 and signed off as completed on 3 January 2024.
The landlord informed the resident’s MP in January 2024 that scaffolding was in place, work was being undertaken to the eaves and ventilation, and that the loft insulation was due to be replaced during the week commencing 8 January 2024. The resident has advised that no work was undertaken at the time.
The Ombudsman informed the landlord that we would be investigating its handling of the resident’s case on 4 March 2024. On the same day, a survey took place of the property which identified that mould treatment was needed by the front door, and in the kitchen, living room, utility room, and both bedrooms. The survey also recommended works to install air bricks in various locations, install new silicone joists to windows, and complete repairs to the plastering and decoration of the living room ceiling. It also asked that a report and quote was provided for the installation of a positive input ventilation unit (PIV) and that the walls were checked for cavity wall insulation.
The resident has advised that as of May 2024, his living room ceiling had been repaired and he had been informed that scaffolding was due to be erected on 28 May 2024 for roof works that were supposed to have been done as part of his original complaint. He said that he continued to experience rust from his bath taps as the iron pipes were not replaced. He added that the landlord had not confirmed how it would prevent the ongoing issues or whether it would insulate the property. He said that the landlord had installed a number of air bricks which were increasing the amount of heat lost from the property. He wanted the landlord to implement a long-term solution by installing insulation or to move him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that the issues affecting his property had impacted his physical health ad wellbeing. He also expressed concern about the impact of damp and mould in the property on his young family. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and his family.
The resident has also noted that the issues of damp and mould due to a lack of insulation in the property have been ongoing for a significant period of time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in March 2023.
The resident has raised concern that his property does not reach a desired temperature via a thermostat due to the lack of insulation, meaning that the heating needs to be on constantly. This issue was not raised as part of his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the landlord’s handling of this specific concern as it needs to be provided the opportunity to respond before the Ombudsman can investigate. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to address this concern nonetheless.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for insulation.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property, including walls, ceilings, roofs, chimneys and guttering. Its repairs, maintenance and improvements policy states that it has different response times for responsive repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours, Priority 1 (or urgent) repairs within 24 hours, and Priority 3 repairs within 20 working days. Priority 3 repairs include issues such as remedial works to plastering (where not dangerous), or blocked gutters. It also has a timescale of 45 days for “small works” which are non-urgent repairs that can be completed in batches. These include remedial works to the external fabric of the building, such as render.
The landlord published its damp and mould policy in November 2023, following the resident’s complaint. it remains unclear if it had a process in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. In line with the the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould.
In the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021), we set out a number of recommendations to landlords to consider when handling reports of damp and mould from residents. Landlords are expected to take a zero-tolerance, proactive approach to damp and mould, and ensure that adequate strategies are in place to manage complex cases, with an emphasis on keeping the resident informed to ensure they feel that the landlord is taking the issue seriously, and that the matter is progressing.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited evidence of the resident’s communication with the landlord was received and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of communication prior to the resident’s initial complaint in March 2023. It is noted that the resident advised that he had called the landlord multiple times prior to this to chase his concerns. This is not doubted but, due to the lack of available evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to establish the extent of time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns prior to raising a complaint.
In its communication, the landlord has also advised that members of staff involved in the resident’s case had since left the business, meaning that its records of the works undertaken and communications were limited. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and to ensure that information is available when individual members of staff leave the business. 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. The landlord’s failure to provide clear records of phone calls, such as notes from its staff indicating what was said and what the agreed actions were following each call, raises concern about its record keeping practices. An order for the landlord to complete a self assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management has been included below.
In this case, the landlord has not disputed that it was aware of damp issues in the property at least as early as August 2020, with its records indicating that work was required to replace the porch as only renewing the roof felt “would not help with the damp”. It was also evidently aware of issues involving condensation in December 2022 following the resident’s reports of water running down the wall in the property and an operative’s notes indicating that the issue was caused by a lack of cavity wall insulation.
The landlord acknowledged that it failed to progress repairs within its stage 1 complaint response. However, there were further delays and failings in its handling of the issues reported by the resident. The landlord failed to engage with the resident’s concerns about condensation or his request for wall insulation at any stage over the course of the complaint. This was likely to leave him feeling ignored, and like his concerns were not being taken seriously. It is evident that the resident also needed to spend time and trouble pursuing updates and there is a lack of evidence that the cause of the issue was effectively diagnosed or explained at any stage.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for an inspection to take place to assess the works required to the property on 17 April 2023, which was within 20 working days of the resident’s complaint. Despite the inspection identifying the presence of damp and mould on walls of the property, no further steps to assess the issue or determine what works were required took place until 2 June 2023, a further 31 working days later and following a further complaint from the resident.
The mould was the not treated in full until 10 July 2023; this was over 3 months following the initial complaint and an unreasonable period of time given that the issues were affecting multiple rooms of the property. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing his concerns during this period and there is a lack of evidence that he was provided with any form of update outside of the landlord’s complaint communication. It remains unclear as to why the matter was not handled with urgency given the presence of mould, young children living in the property, and the potential risks and hazards involved.
The landlord has not provided a clear explanation as to its understanding of the issues impacting the property. A survey on 2 June 2023 identified that work was required to repair torn felt and lead flashing around the chimney breast, remove ivy, clear the guttering, and inspect the roof and loose rendering, in addition to the mould treatment. The repair issues highlighted can contribute to issues such as damp and mould, and it was reasonable to raise these where there were evident repair issues. However, the landlord failed to adequately engage with the resident’s concerns about condensation or wall insulation.
Further notes following an additional survey on 26 June 2023 identified the property as having no wall insulation, due to being a solid concrete construction, and stated that while the loft insulation needed topping up in areas, this could not be the reason for the wall issues in the property. Despite identifying that mould was affecting an unheated room, and the stairs and landing area with only 1 radiator, it is of concern that no assessment of the heating in the property was carried out. This is particularly the case given that the resident had also raised concern that the property never reached above a certain temperature during the inspection, and that inadequate heating can also contribute to damp and mould issues. Alongside this, the Ombudsman would have also expected to see evidence that factors such as adequate ventilation were considered in the diagnosis of the damp issue.
While the landlord’s internal records suggest that it believed that issues with the external render were a “large contributory factor” to water ingress in the property, it remains unclear as to why this was believed to be the case as there is no evidence to suggest that damp meter readings were taken at any stage during surveyor inspections. This would have allowed the landlord to confirm whether the issues involved water ingress, penetrative damp, or condensation. There is also no evidence to confirm that the landlord’s understanding of the issues was communicated to the resident at any stage.
Despite the landlord confirming that works to clear the guttering and remove ivy would take place on 22 June 2023 (in its complaint response), this did not happen until 12 July 2023 according to its records. While the landlord’s records suggest that work to the render was scheduled to take place during the week commencing 14 August 2023, there are no documentary records to confirm the extent of work required or what work was completed. Work to top up the insulation and draft proof was completed on 11 September 2023 according to the landlord’s internal communication. However, this was not included on the repair history for the property, and it remains unclear as to why the landlord told the MP that this was due to take place in January 2024.
In addition, the landlord has not demonstrated that it progressed the roofing works effectively. Despite its records showing that scaffolding was required in September 2023, there is no further evidence that work was carried out and the resident has now been informed that roofing works are due to take place at the end of May 2024, 8 months later. The landlord would have been expected to monitor actions found to be required through to completion and communicate with the resident but there is a lack of evidence to suggest it did so.
At no stage did the landlord address the resident’s request that the property was insulated, or provide any reassurance as to how it would resolve the issues long-term. The landlord’s consistent failure to engage with the resident’s concerns or lived experience was likely to leave him feeling frustrated and added to the inconvenience he experienced. Its failure to engage with the substantive issue ultimately led to the issues being unresolved almost a year later in March 2024, where the same works to treat mould in multiple areas of the property were found to be required. While steps were evidently taken to install ventilation bricks, the Ombudsman has not seen further evidence that the cause of the issue in the property has been effectively diagnosed or clearly understood.
In its communication with the Ombudsman in May 2024, the landlord said that the property had not been included in its latest stock condition survey, but it was aware that the property had no wall insulation. It was developing a plan to bring all of its properties to an EPC rating of C by 2035 and confirmed that installing insulation would be considered as part of this. It said that the resident’s property would be included within the stock condition inspection project in the 2024-2025 financial year.
The Ombudsman appreciates that retrofitting insulation can be costly, and that the landlord would be entitled to consider completing major insulation upgrades as part of a planned project rather than on an ad-hoc basis. However, in cases where damp and mould are found to be the result of poor insulation or a defect, the landlord would be expected to take all reasonable steps to limit the impact on its residents and resolve repair related structural issues. In this case, the landlord did not explain its position or any limitations it faced when addressing the damp and mould issues to the resident which would have been appropriate in order to manage his expectations. In addition, in view of the recurring issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether other options such as an internal ventilation system or internal thermal boarding were required in order to reduce the damp and mould issues experienced from the outset.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for insulation. There were delays in the landlord treating the mould in the property and it did not demonstrate that it had effectively diagnosed or communicated with the resident. The landlord has not evidenced that it took reasonable steps to listen to the resident’s concerns about condensation or a lack of insulation, confirm its position to him, or take proactive steps to resolve the recurring problem. It also failed to demonstrate that it had considered the impact on the resident or his young family. It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family, and the time and trouble he spent pursuing his concerns. Several orders have been made below.

Repairs to the resident’s property involving the condition of his bathroom, rust from pipes and a hole in the ceiling following a leak.

It is evident that the resident experienced delays in the landlord’s response to his reports of repair issues within the property. As above, the Ombudsman has been provided with little record of communication between the resident and the landlord prior to his complaint and it remains unclear as to the extent of time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns. In its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 April 2023, the landlord did not dispute that a number of repairs had been outstanding, and works were recorded but not followed up on.
Within its initial response to the resident on 6 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it had been aware that tiles were falling off the bathroom walls and the bathroom was in a poor state of repair in December 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the bathroom in the first instance to determine what works were necessary. There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident following an inspection on 17 April 2023, resulting in him needing to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns.
It was not until 20 June 2023, in its further stage 1 complaint response, that the landlord explained that the bathroom had been identified as needing replacement, and that it had arranged for an urgent inspection to take place on 26 June 2023 with a view to replacing the bathroom within 6-8 weeks. The landlord confirmed that a member of staff would be responsible for communicating with the resident regarding this. However, it is evident that the resident had cause to raise concern on 19 July 2023 that he had not been contacted regarding the repairs.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint within its final complaint response on 9 August 2023 as it admitted that the member of staff responsible for communicating the next steps to the resident had only contacted him that day. By this stage, it had been around 6 weeks since the inspection on 26 June 2023 and it was evident that the bathroom replacement had not been scheduled to occur in the subsequent 2 weeks in line with its initial intention to replace the bathroom within 6-8 weeks. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have commented on the expected timeline for the replacement within its written response to the resident in order to manage expectations effectively.
The resident experienced further delays following the landlord’s final complaint response and the bathroom replacement did not take place until December 2023. This was 12 months since the landlord was aware of the condition of the bathroom and 9 months since the resident’s initial complaint that the bathroom was in a poor state of repair. While it is noted that work such as bathroom replacements can take time, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it communicated effectively which was likely to have contributed to the overall inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s records show that issues involving rust from the bathroom pipes were identified and investigated in March 2019. The job notes from the time show that the issue was likely due to iron pipes feeding the hot tap being rusted, and that the iron pipework needed to be changed. The resident has said that he had pursued the issue since 2019 and no repair or replacement was completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to say that it would include this as part of the bathroom replacement works given the likely level of disruption.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen any documentary evidence showing that the pipework was replaced as part of the subsequent bathroom replacement, and the resident has advised that the issue remains outstanding to date. This indicates that the landlord failed to see its complaint commitments through to completion and was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident, as the issue has now been unresolved for at least 5 years. An order has been made below for the landlord to address this.
Despite acknowledging that follow-on works were required following a leak through the resident’s living room ceiling in February 2023, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord took any action to resolve the resident’s reports of a hole in the ceiling over the course of the complaint. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the hole in his living room ceiling has now been repaired and decorated following an inspection in March 2024, over a year later. This was a significant delay and likely to cause further inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. In view of the landlord’s failure to carry out follow-on works once it was on notice of the issues, its poor communication, and the subsequent delays in resolving the problems experienced by the resident, it is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted. An order has been made below for compensation to be paid in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing his concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it was expected to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied with the response, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It specifies that the resident can escalate the complaint within 28 calendar days of receiving its stage 1 response. If the landlord decides not to investigate at stage 2, it will write to the resident setting out its decision and provide details of the Ombudsman. If a complaint is accepted at stage 2, the landlord is expected to issue a response within 20 working days.
The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 22 March 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 April 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe. However, the response failed to comment on the resident’s concerns about poor communication. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 9 May 2023 due to a lack of progress since its stage 1 complaint response. This was 33 days later and 5 calendar days outside of the landlord’s timescale for requesting an escalation to stage 2.
The landlord rejected the resident’s escalation request on 15 May 2023 as the request was made after the 28-calendar day timescale had passed. Given the relatively short period, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have utilised its discretion to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process at the time, especially as the issues were ongoing and there had been no further action since its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord would be expected to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman if it was unwilling to escalate the complaint, but it failed to do so. The landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint unnecessarily delayed the overall complaint process for the resident and prevented him from approaching the Ombudsman at an earlier stage. In addition, despite being aware that the resident was dissatisfied with a lack of action, the landlord took no further steps to communicate internally and arrange for works to be progressed which demonstrates a lack of ownership and responsibility.
On 15 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint if it was not willing to escalate the previous complaint as the issues had not been resolved and no action had been taken. The landlord asked the resident to confirm his request again on 18 May 2023 which was inappropriate as it was ultimately clear that the resident wanted his concerns to be handled under its formal complaints process. Despite confirming for the second time that he wanted a new stage 1 complaint to be raised on 20 May 2023, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 30 May 2023. This was an unreasonable period of delay.
The landlord did not issue its subsequent stage 1 complaint response until 20 June 2023 which was outside of its 10-working day timescale at stage 1. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of the reason for the delay, or that the inconvenience caused by the delay was acknowledged within its response. As such, the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right its failings. In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the repair issues within its response but upheld the complaint due to “works”.
The response was evidently incomplete which was likely to add to the resident’s frustration. In addition, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request that he had his family were moved. While it is understood that the landlord intended to complete repairs, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have provided information relevant to the resident’s housing options should he wish to pursue a move in view of the concerns he had raised.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 19 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 9 August 2023, which was within its published timescales. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns within its response in relation to his request for insulation. The landlord upheld that the resident had not been provided with an update, but failed to offer any meaningful explanation and instead passed this to its repairs team to contact the resident. This demonstrated a lack of ownership or responsibility by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
It also failed to engage with the resident’s concern that painting over the mould would not resolve the issue and that the property was not fit to live in. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to engage with the substance of a resident’s complaint and confirm its position in relation to concerns that are raised. The landlord’s poor responses to the resident’s concerns and lack of responsibility led to further frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In addition, the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s request that he and his family were moved if the issues could not be resolved demonstrated a lack of understanding of the impact on him. The resident asked the landlord for help and the landlord’s lack of communication, understanding, or empathy was likely to have further impacted his confidence that the issues would be resolved.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (effective from December 2020), landlords would be expected to consider suitable remedies to put things right for residents within complaint responses. These should reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to a resident. It would also be expected to take points of learning form a complaint to prevent similar failings occurring in the future. Despite upholding the resident’s complaints, the landlord did not seek to offer any suitable redress to the resident in view of its service failures or take adequate points of learning to prevent similar failings in future.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to use its discretion to progress the resident’s initial complaint to stage 2 which led to him spending additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns. In addition, it did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman when it rejected his escalation request, preventing him from accessing this Service at an earlier stage. There were also unexplained delays in its handling of the subsequent stage 1 complaint, and it failed to engage with the substantive issues of the complaint or take sufficient ownership of the issues. In view of the above, the Ombudsman has made several orders below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and his request for insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s property involving the condition of his bathroom, rust from pipes and a hole in the ceiling following a leak.
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

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,700, comprised of:
1. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns related to damp and mould in the property.
2. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs involving the condition of the resident’s bathroom, rust from pipes and a hole in the ceiling following a leak.
3. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to arrange for a survey to be completed at the property. It should consider appointing an independent surveyor. The survey should consider, but is not limited to, assessing:
1. The ongoing condensation issues and diagnosing the likely cause of these.
2. The thermal efficiency of the property, including if radiators are sufficiently sized and whether this may be contributing to damp and mould in the property.
3. Any other factors that may be contributing to damp and mould issues within the property.
4. The resident’s ongoing reports of rust from the bathroom taps.
Within 2 weeks of the survey, the landlord is to write to the resident, setting out:
1. Its understanding of the defects within the property and a schedule of works for any required repairs.
2. Confirmation of its position as to whether it intends to insulate the property and any limitations it faces.
3. Information related to the resident’s housing options and a response to his request to be moved from the property.
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 and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. The review should include, but is not limited to:
1. Considering evidence that was available or may have been available at the time of the complaint.
2. Identifying points of learning that can be taken from the complaint and an explanation as to how it would prevent similar failings occurring in the future
3. Considering how it responds to, and inspects, properties where condensation dampness has been reported.
The landlord is to complete a self assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website) within 8 weeks. A copy of its self assessment should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that each aspect of a resident’s complaint is adequately addressed, adequate empathy is shown, that its compensation policy is correctly utilised when there have been service failures which had an impact on a resident, and that complaint commitments are tracked through to completion. It should consider utilising the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and Learning Hub (available on our website).
It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with its liability insurance information should he wish to claim for any damage caused to his belongings as a result of the delays in resolving the damp and mould issues.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendations above within 4 weeks.