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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202223664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223664

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and resultant damp and mould at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord at the property since April 2021. The property is a one-bedroom, second-floor flat in a block of six flats owned by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, through the course of the complaint, it was aware the resident had allergies to dust and mould and a skin condition affected by damp and mould.
  2. The resident reported a leak and damp in her property on 4 November 2022. The landlord attended on 15 November and found repair work was required to the chimney and gutters. A roofing contractor attended at the property on 29 November. It found lead needed replacing around the chimney, the chimney needed repointing and the gutters needed clearing. The landlord approved the work on 12 January 2023. The landlord inspected the damp and mould at the property on 1 February  and found the property “appeared to be drying out.” The roofing contractor completed the repairs to the roof on 2 February.
  3. Between 4 November 2022 and 2 February 2023 the resident told the landlord the effect the damp and mould was having on her health. She said it was “causing her skin damage to get worse” and had medical evidence of her allergies to damp and mould. She said she stayed at the property when she was unable to stay at a hotel or with friends and family. Through this period she also informed the landlord of damage to her bedding and interior decoration. The landlord welfare team monitored the repair and communicated with the resident as a result from 12 January 2023 onwards.
  4. On 9 February 2023 the landlord attempted to arrange damp and mould treatment at the property. The resident said she was only available on 14 February and from 9 March. She said between these dates she was having hospital treatment and would be recuperating. As a result, the landlord left the work open pending further contact from the resident. It inspected the damp and mould on 15 February  finding “no evidence of mould or anything that prevented use of the property.” It attempted to attend on 8 March to complete the work but was unable to gain access. On 14 March, the resident said she had a further stay in hospital due to “stress and exhaustion”. On 17 March, she asked the landlord about the missed appointment of 8 March. It went on to treat damp and mould in the property on 27 April. The resident reported her concerns with the finish of the treatment on the same day.
  5. The resident raised a complaint initially on 5 January 2023. She said she had contacted the landlord about the leak in October 2022 and nothing had been done. She said the issue was “affecting her health greatly” and the mould and leak was “getting worse day by day”. She asked for repairs for the leak and interior of the property. She also asked for compensation for her damaged bedding and interior decoration and the cost of alternate accommodation. The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 complaint response and instead escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 14 February 2023. It said this was due to “delays”.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023. It offered £225 total compensation. This was £200 for the delay in carrying out repairs to address the leak and for the resident chasing this. It offered £25 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It said it could offer no compensation for her bedding or internal decoration. It said the resident only made it aware of the issue in November 2022 and it could not have prevented the leak. It suggested she contact her insurer. It said it could not consider the cost of alternative accommodation as its inspection on 15 February 2023 found no mould at the property or anything that would prevent the use of the property.
  7. On 28 March 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s stage 2 response. In particular, she said she had reported the leak in September 2022 and the detriment to her health which she had medical evidence for. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 5 May 2023. It offered further compensation of £75 for its delayed final complaint response. It noted internal decoration was the resident’s responsibility but offered £50 for the cost of repainting the walls in her bedroom. It said it could find no evidence of the resident reporting the leak in September 2022. It also said it could find no evidence it was investigating alternate accommodation or it had approved this.
  8. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 1 June 2023. In correspondence on 16 May 2024, she said the landlord had failed to consider she was unable to sleep in her bedroom due to damp and mould. She said everyone in the building had issues with damp and mould. The landlord confirmed further works were scheduled for the roof from 19 February 2024. It is not clear whether these works progressed as scheduled.
  9. On 13 June 2024 the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it discovered it had paid a further £225 to the resident during the complaints process. It had not previously reported this to the Ombudsman. On 18 June the resident confirmed the landlord offered her £225 as resolution at its stage 1 complaint response. She states she rejected its offer but the landlord paid this in error despite this and did receive this amount.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident said that she has suffered detriment to her health whilst living at the property. She said this was because of the landlord’s handling of the leak and reported damp and mould in her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving her property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould at the property.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it will “provide service users with adequate, clear and easily understood information.” This includes anticipated response times for repairs, proactive communication for all repairs and the repairing obligations of both parties. The landlord categorises ‘appointed repairs’ as “all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required.” It will agree an appointment with the service user during the first point of contact where possible. It will complete all appointed repairs within 28 days at the appointment originally agreed.

Leak

  1. On 5 January 2023 the resident stated she had reported the leak to the landlord in October 2022. On 28 March 2023, she said she reported the leak in September 2022. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 17 May 2024, the resident said she had phoned to report the leak in September 2023. In its final complaint response of 5 May 2023, the landlord said it could find no evidence of the resident reporting the leak in September 2022. The Ombudsman can also find no evidence of the resident reporting the leak to the landlord in September 2022.
  2. The first evidence of the resident reporting a leak to the landlord is on 4 November 2022. The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 November in accordance with its Repairs Policy and notified her of an appointment on 15 November. The landlord found on 15 November  work was required to repair the chimney and clear the guttering. It raised this with a roofing contractor on 17 November. The roofing contractor attended on 29 November  and quoted for an access machine, replacing missing lead flashing, repointing the chimney stack and clearing the gutter. The above were all completed within an appropriate timescale.
  3. Following this the landlord was delayed in approving the work with the roofing contractor. It did not do this until 12 January 2023. By this point, 69 days had passed. This meant at this point the repair had already exceeded the 28-day timescale in its policy by 41 days. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, leaving her feeling she was not being taken seriously. The landlord did apologise for the delay and the resident’s calls to chase the repair in its stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The roofing contractor completed the repairs to the chimney and guttering on 2 February 2023. The landlord did inform the resident of this appointment on 17 January 2023 in accordance with its Repairs Policy. Following this the evidence shows the landlord was also uncertain if the appointment had been completed as on 3 and 7 February it chased this with the roofing contractor. This suggests a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and its communication with the contractor. The resident was concerned the work had not been completed but the landlord appropriately addressed her concerns on 7 February after obtaining further confirmation from the contractor.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman it does not have a specific policy or procedure relating to damp and mould. It confirmed its response to such reports is covered more generally in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy and procedure. This policy confirms emergency repairs as any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to the health of a service user. It aims to make safe the property within 24 hours of a report. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a leaflet it provides to residents for guidance surrounding damp and mould in the home.
  2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced under the Housing Act 2004. It is a tool used to assess risks and hazards in residential properties. Damp and mould is one of 29 hazards assessed under HHSRS. The definition of a hazard is any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual occupier of a dwelling.
  3. The resident reported damp in her bedroom when reporting the leak on 4 November 2022. There is no evidence from this point on that the landlord provided the resident with its leaflet regarding damp and mould in the home. It should have done this from this point to support the resident in mitigating the impact of damp in the property. It would have been appropriate to do this from this point as it was not certain on the timeframe in which it would complete repairs to the chimney and guttering. There is no evidence of the landlord inspecting the damp in the property at this time.
  4. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported how her health was impacted by the damp and mould at the property and her concerns that the landlord had not inspected it. This is the first evidence found of the resident stating the impact on her health. The resident said there was “black mould growing” and it was “causing her skin damage to be worse.” The resident said the landlord’s surveyor told her it could not treat the damp and mould until it had repaired the leak and this could take weeks or months. This was confirmed by the landlord’s repair logs on 17 November which suggested it “could not treat damp as it needed to rectify the source.” It also asked the resident if she could “wear rubber gloves to clean away mould until the chimney was repaired.”
  5. The landlord’s response to damp and mould from this point was wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:
    1. It failed to arrange an inspection of the damp and mould at the property to ascertain the extent of the problem. It also failed to obtain medical evidence from the resident about her condition at this point.
    2. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
    3. Due to its failure to obtain sufficient information about the level of “threat” to the resident in accordance with its Policy it could not determine if an emergency repair was required. As such, it did not at any point consider any steps to mitigate the impact of any damp and mould in the property on the resident’s health. This could have included temporary mould washes and dehumidifiers.
    4. Its suggestion for the resident to clean the mould, even with rubber gloves was inappropriate. At this point, it was unaware of the extent of her health issue and did not complete a risk assessment. She would later clarify on 28 March 2023 that she “could not come into contact with mould spores”.
  6. From 17 November 2022 the resident continued to raise her concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her health on 24 November, 5, 12 and 17 January 2023. She was concerned she had “seen in the news a tenant had died from a damp and mould allergy” and she was “extremely allergic to damp and mould” and could “not be around damp and mould.” She told the landlord she had medical evidence to confirm this. There is no evidence of the landlord obtaining this medical evidence from her or taking any action to mitigate the issue. It is uncertain if it would have prioritised its support to the resident with this information. Its inaction between these dates suggests it was not treating the resident or her concerns seriously.
  7. On 17 November 2022 the landlord had raised the resident’s concerns with its welfare team to offer ‘wellbeing support’. It attempted to call her on 18 November to ensure she was able to “manage her skin complaint.” The response concerning the welfare team was ineffective from this point. It relinquished its ‘wellbeing ownership of works’ it is believed around 25 November 2022. This was because it believed the resident was not staying at the property due to the impact on her health. It did not follow this up until 17 January 2023. The resident later told it she had been returning to the property through this period when she “had exhausted her options.” Its lack of contact with the resident in this period meant it was unable to establish the resident’s presence at the property or any risk to the resident. Furthermore this meant its welfare team was unable to and failed to consider a risk assessment or decant for the resident throughout this period.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to inspect the damp and mould on 20 January 2023. It is of concern it had not considered this up to this point, particularly given the resident’s health concerns. The landlord did arrange an inspection for 1 February 2023. The landlord found the “ceiling and wall looked like it was drying”. It is uncertain what the findings of the presence of mould was at this point. From the resident’s report of 4 November 2022, it took the landlord the equivalent of 61 working days to inspect damp and mould at the property. There is no timescale for inspections in its Repairs Policy but this exceeded its emergency repair timescale of “making the property safe in 24 hours.”
  9. The resident told the landlord on 16 February 2023 that its surveyor informed her on 1 February her property should not have been let in “that condition.” The resident would later raise this point again in her complaint escalation. The landlord failed to respond to the resident at either time and there is no evidence it followed this up with its surveyor. This caused the resident to believe she was not being taken seriously and left her concerns unresolved.
  10. The repair to the leak was completed on 2 February 2023. Therefore the landlord should have progressed with work to treat damp and mould at the property from this date. The resident chased this on 3 February. It did not progress this until 9 February delaying any repair by 5 working days. On 9 February, the landlord took the appropriate step of leaving the repair open. This was due to the resident confirming recuperation from an operation. It is uncertain if she was doing this at or away from the property. It left the onus on her to contact it about arranging damp and mould treatment.
  11. The landlord arranged a further inspection of damp and mould at the resident’s property on 15 February 2023. It arranged this following an email from the resident’s MP on 13 February. The resident’s neighbour provided the landlord with entry to the property to complete this. It is also unclear why a further inspection was required following its inspection two weeks prior on 1 February. This suggests the earlier inspection was insufficient in determining the presence of damp and mould. The landlord’s inspection of 15 February  found “no evidence of mould” or “anything that would prevent use of the property.”
  12. The resident would later tell the landlord in her complaint escalation of 28 March 2023 that the surveyor found “issues with ventilation throughout her property” in the inspection of 15 February. There is no evidence of this included in the landlord’s correspondence with its surveyor. However, it failed to respond to the resident on this point. The landlord’s leaflet it provides residents for guidance surrounding damp and mould in the home emphasises the use of ventilation in the property. It is of concern that the landlord did not act or respond when the resident raised a lack of ventilation as an issue. This had the prospect of making any potential damp and mould issues worse. Its failure to respond caused distress and inconvenience to the resident with the issue unresolved.
  13. On 14 February 2023 the landlord stated internally it would be “inappropriate” for it to attend on 8 March  as the resident would be “bedridden”. The landlord attempted treatment of damp and mould on 8 March  but could not gain access. It is uncertain why it attempted this at this date and seems to contradict its agreement with the resident to wait for her contact and its internal concerns about attending. The resident had told the landlord on 9 February she was “recuperating” at this time. Its actions were not in accordance with the “flexibility for vulnerable service users” it details in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy. Moreover, the landlord’s attempt to complete treatment appears to disregard her health concerns at the time.
  14. Moreover, it is uncertain why the landlord attempted damp and mould treatment on 8 March 2023 given that its inspection had identified “no evidence of mould”. On 17 March, the resident asked if she had missed an appointment on 8 March and asked for treatment to commence on damp and mould at the property. It raised the repair on 22 March  for completion by 7 April. This was not completed until 27 April. Therefore from the resident reraising the issue on 17 March  the landlord took 28 working days to complete the treatment, which was in accordance with its Repairs and Maintenance Policy. However, it did not meet its internal target of 7 April.
  15. The landlord told the resident in its final complaint response on 5 May 2023 its inspection of 15 February found no mould at the property. The resident had said she had arranged for mould “to be scrubbed from walls and windows” so she could stay in the property. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 May but said it could only base its findings on the evidence of its visit on 15 February. The landlord failed to acknowledge it had not completed a satisfactory inspection of the reported damp and mould between 4 November and 14 February. As such it was not able to accurately assess any reported damp and mould prior to the resident arranging for it to be cleaned.

Decant

  1. The landlord’s Decant Guidance states it is “committed to making reasonable efforts to secure suitable alternative accommodation.” Its reasons for a decant include planned, unplanned or emergency repairs at the property and serious safety concerns validated by another agency. The landlord must complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity to illustrate the specific issues and remedies to mitigate the need to decant.
  2. There is no evidence of the landlord considering a decant from the point that the resident reported the leak and damp on 4 November 2022. The landlord failed to abide by its Decant Guidance for the following reasons:
    1. The work scheduled at the property confirmed that repairs were required. Furthermore from 24 November 2022, the resident stated she had medical evidence to confirm the impact on her health resulting from the condition of the property. The landlord did not consider if these factors meant that the case met the “safety concerns from another agency” requirement of its policy.
    2. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment at the earliest possible opportunity to determine if a decant was required.
  3. The landlord failed to consider a decant in accordance with its guidance. It had the opportunity to do so at each further point of the resident raising concerns about her health on 24 November 2022, 5, 12, 17 and 20 January 2023, and following MP contact on 13 February 2023. It would not consider this until its complaint response of 28 March 2023. However, up to this point, the resident had said she had been living at hotels and with her family. She later told the landlord she had returned to the property when she had “exhausted her options”.
  4. In her complaint escalation of 28 March 2023 the resident asked why alternative accommodation was not provided. She also asked to be reimbursed for the time she had spent in a hotel. The landlord’s response of 5 May was based on its inspection of 15 February 2023. It said its inspection suggested no evidence to recommend a decant and its housing team had not agreed on this. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the landlord considering a decant for the resident from 4 November 2022. As previously established it was unaware of the level of any damp and mould at the property until its inspection of 15 February 2023.
  5. In summary it is unclear if a decant was required for the resident from the point that she first reported her repair concerns at the property to the landlord. However as a responsible landlord it should have considered a decant for the resident in full consideration of her health concerns. The landlord failed to appropriately consider a decant for the resident as follows:
    1. It failed to inspect the property between 4 November 2022 and 15 February 2023 to support consideration of a decant. It failed to consider a decant in the same period despite being made aware of the resident’s health concerns. It did not consider if this met the “serious risk” in its decant procedure and had not completed a risk assessment to support this.
    2. It failed to stay in touch with the resident between 25 November 2022 and 17 January 2023. As such it was not aware if she was residing in the property and if there was further impact on her.
    3. Following its inspection of 15 February 2023 it did not fully consider a decant until 28 March 2023 and did not communicate this to the resident until this date.

Compensation

  1. In its responses of 28 March and 5 May 2023 the landlord stated it could not offer compensation for damage to the resident’s bedding and decoration. This was appropriate as the resident stated damage had taken place prior to her reporting the issue on 4 November 2022. The landlord appropriately advised her on 28 March 2023 it had no opportunity to prevent damage in her property. This was in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Guidance “where a customer has delayed resolution of the issue”. The landlord could find no evidence that the resident reported the issue in September 2022 as she had previously stated.
  2. On 28 March and 5 May 2023 the landlord directed the resident to claim for damage to her bedding and decoration to her household insurer. This was appropriate advice and in accordance with its Compensation Guidance, “where a claim could be made on home contents insurance.”
  3. The landlord said it could offer no compensation for the resident’s expenses living away from the property. It based this on its inspection of 15 February 2023 finding “no mould” at the property. As previously established it was not aware of the presence of any damp and mould between 4 November and 14 February 2023 as it had not inspected the property. It had no further evidence to base its decision on but should have acknowledged the limitation in its approach and offered appropriate compensation for failing to inspect the property earlier.
  4. The landlord offered £50 compensation regarding the quality of the finish by its contractor when completing damp and mould treatment on 27 April 2023. Its offer was reasonable as its Repairs and Maintenance Policy confirms decoration is the resident’s responsibility. However, in offering this the landlord failed to complete a “post inspection” of the work. This was not in accordance with its Repairs and Maintenance Policy. As such it failed to meet its aims by failing to monitor its performance.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience to carry out repairs at the property. Its award considered the time, trouble and inconvenience was of “high effort and high impact”. The £200 fell between the £151 to £400 scale for this. The Ombudsman finds the total compensation offered by the landlord as insufficient for the total detriment caused to the resident for the following reasons:
    1. It failed to inspect and consider the impact the damp and mould caused to the resident’s health in an appropriate timescale from 4 November 2022. It also failed to offer appropriate steps to manage damp and mould in her property, which included its failure to consider a decant for the resident.
    2. It failed to consider the overall inconvenience caused to the resident in managing the leak in her property.
    3. It failed to respond to her points concerning ventilation in the property and the standard of the property when it was let to her.
  6. The Ombudsman has considered the £225 the landlord offered to the resident as part of its stage 1 complaint response. This was rejected by the resident but paid in error by the landlord. Although this amount was paid in error it was received directly by the resident as part of the landlord’s complaint process. The amount would not have been received by the resident otherwise. The £225 compensation will therefore be considered in full against compensation ordered by the Ombudsman in this report. As it is uncertain specifically what complaint elements the £225 was awarded for, it will be applied for both the substantive issue and complaint handling.
  7. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required at the resident’s property. It was delayed in assessing the leak between 4 November 2022 and 2 February 2023. It failed to inspect reports of damp and mould at the property between 4 November 2022 and 1 February 2023. It also failed to sufficiently consider the impact on the health of the resident or consider whether a decant might be appropriate. The failings above were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication and poor record-keeping. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome herself and provide an accurate account of what had taken place.
  8. The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair the  structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £750 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.
  9. The Ombudsman has previously found maladministration following investigations into complaints with the landlord involving leaks and damp and mould. This was reviewed in the Ombudsman’s case reference 202224898 of 31 October 2023 where wider orders were set for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to leaks, damp and mould. As such the same order will not be repeated in this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure confirms “all complaints will receive a written response” and that it operates a two-stage complaints procedure as follows:
    1. Stage 1 “focuses on staff taking swift action to resolve resident concerns effectively.” It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 3 working days and respond in 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 focuses on “more detailed independent investigation into customer concerns and providing a full written report of their findings.” It will respond to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint response they can raise this with the landlord within 10 working days. The landlord will then consider this and provide a final complaint response.
    3. The landlord may extend the timeframe to its complaint responses by 10 working days. When it does so it will explain the reasons for the extension and confirm the new timescale in writing.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 5 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 9 January 2023. This was equivalent to 2 working days, so within the landlord’s Complaints Policy. It told the resident it would provide its full response by 20 January 2023. It failed to do so and told her on 20 January 2023 it was waiting for the outcome of a survey on 1 February 2023 before it could reply. The survey was completed on 1 February 2023 but it still failed to reply. On 14 February 2023, it told her it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. This was equivalent to 28 working days and exceeded the landlord’s timescale for response by 18 working days. This also caused uncertainty to the resident over the landlord’s complaints process. In its further complaint responses of 28 March and 5 May 2023, it failed to acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 response and the confusion its handling of the complaint caused.
  3. When the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 14 February 2023, it said this was so it could “properly investigate” the complaint. This is in accordance with its Complaints Policy which states stage 2 responses are a “more detailed investigation”. However, its willingness to bypass stage 1 of its process raises concerns about the landlord’s complaints process and the effectiveness of its stage 1 complaint investigation and response.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 February 2023. This was equivalent to 2 working days and in accordance with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. It told the resident it would respond by 14 March 2023. It told her on 14 March 2023 it was unable to respond and would do so by 28 March 2023. Its extension was equivalent to 10 working days which it explained to the resident. This was in accordance with its Complaints Policy. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023 within the further extension.
  5. The landlord offered compensation of £25 for “the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.” The landlord’s stage 2 response was within its timescale for response (with extension) in its Complaints Policy. It is uncertain what delay it was referring to in this response or if it referred to the cumulative delay from the resident’s initial complaint on 5 January 2023. If so it should have made this clear to the resident to ensure there was no confusion. If this was for the delay from 5 January 2023 the landlord should have increased this to between £51 and £100 in its Compensation Policy scale. This is because the delay was more significant than “minor delays” in its £0 to £50 compensation scale.
  6. The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 March 2023. It acknowledged her complaint on 31 March 2023. This was equivalent to 3 working days and in accordance with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. It told the resident it would provide its “final response” by 14 April 2023 due to staff Easter leave. The resident chased a response to her complaint on 11, 14 (twice), 17 and 18 April 2023 without a reply from the landlord. This caused the resident uncertainty and inconvenience and gave her the impression that she was not being taken seriously. It responded to her email of 19 April 2023 on the same day stating it would reply by 5 May 2023. It did go on to reply by 5 May 2023.
  7. The landlord offered £75 compensation for its delayed “final response”. This was appropriate and in accordance with its Compensation Guidance. The guidance suggests payments between £51 to £100 for “delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer”.
  8. The complaint responses of 28 March 2023 and 5 May 2023 appropriately responded to most of the concerns raised by the resident. However, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the property. It also failed to respond to her concerns about the standard of the property when let. She told the landlord its surveyor informed her, the property “should not have been let as it was.” Its failure to investigate and respond to these points caused the resident to feel she was not being taken seriously, causing distress and inconvenience to her.
  9. A landlord’s complaint process enables it to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in failing to provide a stage 1 complaint response. It failed to adhere to its policy in its stage two complaint response in its communication with the resident. It failed to respond to all of the resident’s concerns. Its complaints process was confusing, and it failed to acknowledge this at any point. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures relating to its complaints handling, £200 compensation has been ordered, with this figure inclusive of the amount offered by the landlord during the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred, and the landlord’s offer of action and compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and resultant damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to carry out the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior staff member from the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £950. Compensation to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to her reports of a leak and resultant damp and mould at the property.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      3. The amounts above include the £575 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure for the above issues.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her property, taking any further action as appropriate.
  2. The landlord to ensure all staff members are compliant with the requirements of its Decant Guidance. It should consider any further training, as necessary.