Camden Council (202123973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123973

Camden Council

25 March 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of renovation works to her property, including the quality of the work done and associated issues such as damp.
The Ombudsman has also investigated:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has a leasehold for a 2 bed maisonette, covering the ground and first floor, with a local authority landlord. There is a studio flat above the resident’s flat; the resident does not share an entrance to her property with the flat above her. The landlord has confirmed that the property is not listed or in a conservation area.

Repairs

In 2015, the landlord gave notice that it was going to do major works to the building containing the resident’s maisonette. It started the necessary legal consultation process around this time and told the resident that works would involve repairing the roof and fitting insulation, replacing windows, works to the structure, checking for asbestos, and decoration to communal areas. This was to ensure the property met the Better Homes standard. The resident was told of the total cost and the contribution she would be expected to pay. The landlord has told this Service it does not have records of any installation certificates or building control sign offs for these works, no FENSA certificates for the windows, and no warranties.
In August 2016, the landlord told the resident that she needed to pay towards the costs of major works. In January 2017, the resident told the landlord she wanted to challenge the outstanding bill because works had not been completed. The landlord responded to the resident in February 2017, acknowledged there was a dispute over the costs for major works and asked the resident to give more information about what works had not been completed. It agreed to place on hold any enforcement action over non-payment of the outstanding bill as long as the resident agreed to a payment plan.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s response in February 2017. In her reply, she stated that the landlord’s contractors had identified the following issues with substandard work:
1. Poorly fitted window frames.
2. Damage caused to the resident’s hallway and ceiling from a roof leak.
3. Damage to the outside of the building caused by scaffold.
The resident also stated that there was an issue with damp in the flat caused by cracks in the external walls which had been going on for over 5 years. This had been made worse by the contractor while doing the major works. The resident told the landlord that she believed it had done a full structural survey of the building and that this would have identified the issues she pointed out in her correspondence. In response, the landlord agreed to carry out a joint inspection with the contractor to identify faults and what steps to take to resolve them.
The landlord and contractor attempted to arrange access between March and May 2017. Records show the resident was unable to grant access due to working commitments. It is not clear when access was granted and an inspection took place, although this Service has assumed it was not until May 2017 at the earliest. Works to the window frames were carried out in May 2017.
In June 2017, the landlord and its contractor attempted to find out if contact had been made with a neighbouring property to address water leaking into the resident’s flat. Records state that the neighbouring property was empty at that time and the landlord had made enquiries with its voids team to look into the issue. This request was chased internally by the landlord in July 2017.
In July 2017, the landlord made internal enquiries regarding the resident’s concerns with the teams involved in the renovation works. It reviewed correspondence from the resident in February 2017 and noted there had been email contact in April 2017 asking if contractors had now repaired the window frames. Records show that the landlord was unclear who was responsible for repairs to damp on walls shared with neighbouring properties and asked if access could be arranged to neighbouring properties to check for leaks. Queries were also raised internally about possible damage to the roof of the resident’s building and whether the landlord would carry out repairs.
Internal correspondence from July 2017 states the landlord had inspected the resident’s property with the contractor, agreed there were problems with the window frames and noted water penetration in the hallway and living room. The contractor had agreed to contact its subcontractor and do remedial works. Damp in the living room was thought to be caused by cracks in external rendering but the landlord decided that the resident would have to pay for hacking off plasterwork to allow brick work to dry out, plus the cost of replastering and redecorating.
A response was given to the resident on 31 July 2017, asking her to report damage caused by scaffold and damage to the hall and ceiling from the leaking roof to its repairs team. The landlord said it had written to neighbouring properties about the leaks and asked the resident to make contact with them herself. It also asserted the issues with the window frames had been resolved.
Works orders regarding damp in the resident’s flat were raised in June 2018. Repairs records state evidence of rising damp was passed to the landlord’s major repairs teams and a damp survey was arranged in early July 2018, but the works were cancelled in October 2019. Further notes on the landlord’s repair records state it began leaseholder consultation on the works in late March 2020, marked the works as ‘complete’ on 26 October 2021, but also noted that the works were rejected on 5 November 2021.
A damp survey took place on 13 August 2018 which inspected the resident’s hallway, lounge, and kitchen. It noted the following issues:
1. Cracks in the external rendering were allowing moisture penetration.
2. The rendering had bridged the damp proof coursing (‘DPC’).
3. The chimney may not have been capped, allowing moisture in via the flue.
4. It was not clear if there were any valid guarantees for previous damp proofing works.
5. High moisture levels in the front wall and walls shared with both neighbours within the hallway and lounge.
The survey recommended the following works:
1. New DPCs in addition to the existing DPC.
2. Works to the front wall to prevent the bypassing of the current DPC.
3. Waterproof rendering to be applied to all affected walls.
4. Incorporate an air brick into the chimney stack.
5. Removal and replacement of affected plasterwork and skirting boards.
6. Inspection of any plumbing defects in neighbouring properties.
7. Inspection of chimney and external render, with works to resolve any issues identified.
The landlord has told this Service that the works recommended in the survey, excluding inspecting neighbouring properties, were carried out on 3 September 2019.
On 8 November 2019, the landlord responded to an enquiry from a local councillor sent on 15 October 2019 about issues at the resident’s flat. The enquiry stated there were still ongoing problems with damp and water leaks at the flat and asked the landlord to set out what it was going to do about it. The landlord told the councillor that it had identified rising damp in August 2017 and that the major repairs team was dealing with this. A drainage survey had also been arranged but this had been delayed to March 2019 because of the resident’s availability. Works were now at the consultation stage with the leaseholders with the works required defined as:
1. Damp works to the lounge and hallway.
2. Hacking off the render to the brick wall.
3. DPC injections.
4. Application of waterproof plaster finishing.
5. Patch liner to repair cracks.
The landlord assured the councillor who had enquired about the works on the resident’s behalf that the consultation process would be monitored closely and there would be no further delays in carrying out these works. The landlord’s records state that consultation did start on 27 March 2020, but that the works to the resident’s property were ‘rejected’ after consultation ended in 2021.
On 28 June 2021, the resident reported a leak in her bedroom which was affecting light fittings and a window. The landlord arranged for guttering and downpipes to be cleared and a roofer to attend, with the job marked as complete on 27 July 2021.
On 19 May 2022, the landlord inspected the roof of the property after the resident reported a leak. Repair records state that the resident admitted to contractors that the leak occurred about 2 years ago and that she actually wanted cracks in the flat to be fixed. The landlord appeared to refuse to do these works, with its records stating the resident was responsible for internal works as she was a leaseholder.
An inspection for mould was requested on 7 February 2023. Repair records indicate this was marked as urgent with a response required in 10 days. Records state the inspection took place on either 20 or 25 April 2023 with no mould found but damp identified in many areas of the resident’s property.
On 23 October 2023, repair records show work orders were raised to make the resident’s bedroom window safe and to address water leaking through the window. An inspection took place the following day. This noted the window had no seal around it and was letting in water, and that there was no weather rail to the casement window’s top section. A roofer attended on 21 November 2023 but records state there were no issues with the roof and the original contractors who installed the windows should inspect to see why the window was leaking.

Complaints

Records show that the resident made a complaint about the quality of renovation works on 6 July 2018, with a further complaint about damp in her property made on 13 May 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 February 2022 and explained she had had no response to her complaints from the landlord. This Service wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022, outlining the complaint and requesting a response by 18 February 2022.
A stage 1 response letter was issued on 11 February 2022. The response defined the complaint as being about ongoing issues with damp in communal areas. The landlord stated it had checked repairs records and noted the issue had been reported in January 2021, with contractors attending on 3 occasions and carrying out what had been thought to be successful repairs. It stated that no further works had been ordered until the resident got in touch in February 2022. Another inspection on 14 February 2022 had been arranged to identify what works were needed. Evidence provided by the resident shows that this complaint response mistakenly considered a neighbouring property and gave details about repairs carried out there, rather than looking into issues with the resident’s maisonette.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 5 April 2022. This Service contacted the landlord on 13 April 2022, after the resident expressed concerns that her escalation request had not been acknowledged, asking for a final response to the resident’s complaint by 6 May 2022.
A Stage 2 response was issued on 18 May 2022. The response stated that the resident had been in touch with the landlord in May 2021 to ask for a response about long standing issues with the resident’s property. The landlord had asked for more information, and the resident forwarded the councillor’s enquiry from October 2019. The landlord admitted it was not clear what had happened after this point and that it had believed there had been no contact until the escalation request on 5 April 2022. It acknowledged that this Service had been in touch on 4 February 2022 to advise the resident had made a complaint but not had a response – the landlord had looked into this and could not find a complaint but registered a Stage 1 complaint request on 7 February 2022 anyway.
The Stage 2 response apologised for referring to the wrong property in previous contact and acknowledged this was to do with issues with the landlord’s record keeping for housing repairs – the resident’s property had two sets of records and only one had been checked. It acknowledged issues with damp identified in 2018 and stated that works to resolve these issues had been marked as closed in September 2018. It also acknowledged issues with roof leaks in June 2021, telling the resident this was caused by blocked gutters and had been resolved in July 2021. The works discussed in the response to the councillor in 2019 had been subject to consultation but this had been rejected on 5 November 2021. The landlord admitted that it was hard to understand its records about this point, that the resident had reported damp and water ingress but there were no more repairs ordered for the resident’s flat since November 2021, and that it was seeking internal advice from relevant teams about these issues.
To resolve the situation, the landlord stated that it would arrange another inspection of the resident’s flat to assess what work needed doing and whether the landlord was liable to do it. The inspection would take place 10 working days after the Stage 2 decision was issued. The resident’s complaint was not upheld but the landlord stated that it was ‘reserving final judgement’ on the complaint and that the formal complaint process had not ended although the resident was free to escalate her complaint to this Service.
The resident and the landlord have told this Service that no surveyors have carried out inspections of the resident’s property following the Stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

It has proved challenging to obtain relevant records and evidence from the landlord in this case. Partial repairs records have been provided and, although details of surveys and inspections have been passed on, there is still much evidence which the landlord has failed to provide despite requests from this Service. Our assessment has been based on the limited evidence provided by the landlord, as well as information and evidence provided by the resident.
The resident has referred to issues with her landlord and its responses to reports of structural issues with the building reaching back to 2012. In accordance with paragraph 42 c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is the Ombudsman’s discretion as to whether to investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, which is normally within 6 months of the matters arising. As there is evidence that the resident attempted to make a formal complaint in July 2018, which is connected to issues with the quality of renovation works carried out before this date, this assessment covers the year preceding the resident’s first attempted complaint.
Because a considerable period of time has passed since the initial renovation works, which causes issues with the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the landlord’s subsequent responses to concerns about the renovation works and associated housing conditions issues which the resident believes were caused by these works. Events prior to this point have been considered as context to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to issues allegedly caused by poor quality renovation works carried out by the landlord.

The resident’s lease states that the landlord has an obligation to maintain and repair the structure of the building containing the resident’s maisonette, including window frames.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out repairs priorities and timescales. Structural repairs are classed as programmed works in the repairs policy and are completed within an agreed timescale. There is no distinct policy on damp and mould, but the landlord has a specialist team which investigates reports from residents.
The landlord’s major works guide for leaseholders, dating from June 2016, states it will use an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process where there is dispute over the invoices for major works. This guide states that referrals will be made if all avenues for dealing with a disputed charge have been exhausted, and that leaseholders can request a referral themselves. The review would be carried out by an individual or a panel, depending on the complexity of the case. Leaseholders would be invited to present evidence to the panel and an officer would then investigate the dispute, prepare a report to be presented to the head of leaseholder services and the senior housing management team, and make recommendations based on their findings.
It is unclear from the evidence provided when the initial renovation works took place. This Service has assumed that these works took place after the initial consultation notice in 2015 and before the resident raised concerns about the quality of works in February 2017.
There is no evidence that ADR was offered to the resident as per the landlord’s major works guide despite there being a dispute over payment for the works. Although the landlord’s initial response to inspect and assess the works were sensible, ADR should have been offered as per the guidance, as this may have allowed the quality of works to be examined in detail closer to the date of the dispute. This was a failure of the landlord to follow its own guidance.
It is positive the landlord took steps to inspect the quality of the works done and, after inspection, agreed to carry out remedial works. This was an attempt by the landlord to put things right. However, there is no evidence of what issues were found during its inspection and what works were carried out to resolve this issue. It is concerning that no records were kept of the remedial works as it limited the landlord’s ability to identify whether the issues raised by the resident related to the original renovation works or if they were newer issues caused by something else. The landlord’s failure to keep adequate records of the works done means that it does not have accurate information on its properties, which will then have an impact on how it plans future major works and cyclical maintenance.
Although the landlord’s handling of reports about the windows was initially positive, and it was entitled to recall the subcontractor to remedy the faults, there is no evidence the remedial works were checked after they were completed. Further inspections and surveys of the resident’s property did not examine the windows until the reported leak in October 2023. The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s bedroom window in October 2023 clearly identifies that there were issues with the installation of the window and that this was a contributing factor to the leak.
It is also positive that the landlord took steps to try and determine whether some of the issues in the resident’s property were caused by water leaking from neighbouring properties. However, these steps only extended to writing to the neighbours and making enquiries with the voids team, with no evidence that any responses/lack of response were then followed up by the landlord or if inspections were then arranged.
The landlord did not link the findings of the damp survey with the issues complained about by the resident in 2017. The Ombudsman cannot speculate about the cause of the damp in the resident’s property, but the resident clearly complained of damage to the external walls of her property caused by a scaffold and the damp survey stated that water ingress was occurring due to cracks in the external rendering. Any potential links between the bridging of the DPC by the external rendering and the original renovation works should also have been explored. Failing to link the survey with any findings of defective work in the original renovation has also meant that the landlord has not been clear whether the responsibility for carrying out further repairs or remedial work sits with the landlord, the contractors who carried out the original renovation, or the resident. It is positive that the landlord accepted a responsibility to carry out the works identified in the survey, but further investigation of the impact of the poor quality renovation works would have helped all parties be clear where they stood and when the resident would be expected to carry out works herself.
There is conflicting evidence from the landlord as to when the works identified in the damp survey on 13 August 2018 were carried out or if they have been carried out at all. The landlord has suggested that it is likely that work was completed on 3 September 2019 as this is when contractors submitted their bill. However, the landlord’s response to the councillor’s enquiry in November 2019 states that damp works were still at a consultation stage, indicating that these works had not been carried out yet, 2 months after the date that the landlord has suggested works were completed. The landlord has also told this Service that leasehold consultation for the damp works started on 27 March 2020 but it has not been able to provide copies of any notices or correspondence with the resident or other affected leaseholders. The landlord’s records state that the consultation process was ‘rejected’ on 5 November 2021, although this may be as the works had been incorrectly identified as requiring consultation with the leaseholders. The landlord has admitted that the works were never actually sent for consultation. Based on this evidence, it is impossible to draw a firm conclusion on when the works were carried out, if at all.
If works were carried out on 3 September 2019, as suggested, there was a delay of 270 working days between the date that works were identified as being required and their competition. This is a significant delay in carrying out repairs. As described in the preceding paragraph of this report, conflicting evidence about the date that repairs were done, if at all, means that repairs may have taken even longer to be carried out and may not have been done at all. The Ombudsman notes that an inspection was carried out in February 2023 which identified damp within the property – in the absence of conclusive evidence that the works identified in the damp survey from 2018 were carried out, this means that either works were insufficient to remedy the problem or were not carried out at all. This is a failure of the landlord to carry out works which it had agreed to do within a reasonable period of time. The resident has told this Service that the works identified in the 2018 damp survey were never carried out and that she is still waiting for repairs. These delays had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s confidence in the landlord to handle repairs appropriately, affected her use and enjoyment of her home, and caused her significant time and trouble in chasing outstanding repairs.
The Ombudsman can find severe maladministration where there has been a significant or severe failure which has had a significant impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord failed to carry out repairs in a reasonable period of time to significant damp in the resident’s property which it had accepted a responsibility to resolve. It has ultimately not been able to evidence that these works were carried out at all. The landlord’s failings include not offering ADR despite its own guidance on this topic, failing to check if remedial works had been completed properly, failing to link any findings from the damp report with issues identified after the poor quality renovation works, failing to make adequate enquiries about potential leaks from neighbouring properties, confusion over who was responsible for certain repairs, and offering misleading information as to what steps were required for the landlord to carry out repairs.
The cumulative impact of these failings amounts to a significant failure of the landlord to put things right after it learnt of issues with the renovation works and damp being found in the resident’s property. The resident has told this Service that repairs are still outstanding, that she has found the experience of watching her property deteriorate before her eyes, despite her efforts to chase the landlord for repairs, highly distressing, that she has felt insulted by the landlord’s apparent unwillingness to carry out the repairs, that she has lost faith in the landlord’s ability to manage the building properly in accordance with her lease, and that she feels that the situation and her living environment has had a negative impact on her mental health. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of renovation works to her property, including the quality of the work done and associated issues such as damp.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. All stages of complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints, also known as ‘local resolution stage’, are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints, also known as ‘review or appeal stage’, are responded to within 25 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.’ The landlord’s complaints policy does not adopt this definition of a complaint. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s complaint predated the introduction of the Code in 2020.
There is evidence that the resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction with the quality of renovation works in February 2017. Although the landlord was correct to investigate and take steps to resolve the issue, it should have also raised a formal complaint at this stage and provided a Stage 1 response within timescales. This would have helped the resident understand her concerns were being taken seriously and steps were being taken to learn from any mistakes.
The landlord’s own records state the resident made further attempts to raise complaints about damp in her property on 6 July 2018, expressed dissatisfaction in a way which should have been accepted as a complaint via her local councillor on 15 October 2019, and again on 13 May 2021. The resident has told this Service that her complaints were repeatedly redirected to the repairs team rather than accepted as complaints. A complaint was only accepted by the landlord after this Service made contact with it on the resident’s behalf on 4 February 2022.
The landlord’s Stage 1 response was provided on 11 February 2022. Although the response was provided within 5 working days from the date that this Service made contact with the landlord, it was 2337 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction about the renovation works, 995 working days after the complaint via the local councillor, and 419 working days after the resident’s last attempt at making a complaint before contact with this Service. No acknowledgement of the complaints was given to the resident. These significant delays, compounded by the fact that a complaint was only accepted after the intervention of this Service, would have been frustrating for the resident and time consuming to chase as well as giving the impression that the landlord was unwilling to accept or consider a complaint, or investigate the concerns she had raised.
The Stage 1 response made things worse. The landlord apologised for the resident feeling the need to complain, instead of apologising for its own mistakes. It also identified the wrong property and incorrectly asserted that repairs had been carried out. It is important to ensure residents feel heard when dealing with a complaint as it shows the landlord is willing to listen, carry out a fair and thorough investigation, and will take action to resolve any problems which it acknowledges are its fault. This is an opportunity for a ‘resetting’ of the relationship between landlord and resident. The landlord’s poor choice of words and mistakes in checking the resident’s records caused offence, raised significant concerns that the landlord would not deal with the issues raised by the resident as part of the complaints process, and further damaged the landlord/leaseholder relationship.
No acknowledgement was given to the resident’s escalation request, even after the intervention of this Service. Given the background of this case, this would have caused even more frustration for the resident and raised concerns again that the landlord was going to ignore her request and not provide a Stage 2 response. This further damaged the landlord/leaseholder relationship and breached the landlord’s own complaints policy.
The landlord’s Stage 2 response was provided 44 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This is a breach of the landlord’s complaints policy. The delayed response would have been frustrating for the resident and raised further concerns that her complaint was not going to be addressed.
Although the Stage 2 response did address some of the issues raised by the initial complaint and in the resident’s escalation request, including issues with the Stage 1 response, it did not do enough to put things right for the resident and it did not acknowledge the landlord’s failings up to that point. The response acknowledged significant failings, including passing complaints to the repairs team rather than issuing complaint responses and delays in responding to requests for repairs despite records acknowledging that there was damp and water ingress in the property, but it did not fully assess these issues due to its admitted issues with record keeping. It also did not acknowledge the delay in the Stage 2 response. It does not offer a ‘final’ response to the complaint, instead offering to send a surveyor to inspect the property and see what works were required, and refused to give a definitive final complaint response until a survey took place. No compensation was offered despite the landlord acknowledging several issues with its complaint handling and its response to requests for repairs. This is a failure of the landlord to fully review the complaint, be fair by offering a ‘final’ answer in the complaints process, put things right by trying to restore the resident to the position she would have been if the issues with repairs had not taken place, and to learn from its mistakes. The resident had already experienced significant issues with the landlord’s complaints handling by the point that this response was issued so this presents a missed opportunity to restore the resident’s faith in the landlord’s ability to address her concerns and that it was taking her seriously.
The Stage 2 offer of a surveyor and further investigation of her complaint after completion of the complaints process was appropriate, even though a proper complaint response should have been provided on the basis of the information the landlord had at that point. The landlord’s failure to follow through with this offer and continue to investigate would have been disappointing for the resident and further undermined her confidence that the landlord would take action about her complaint without external intervention. It also showed that the landlord was not properly monitoring the actions it had promised to take to resolve the complaint, which is not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s actions during the complaints handling process demonstrates a serious and sustained failure to recognise and acknowledge a complaint, failure to respond to a complaint appropriately and within established timescales, failure to establish effective communication with other teams within the landlord to better understand the resident’s situation, failure to listen to the resident’s concerns, and a failure to offer a final resolution to the resident’s complaint as well as a failure to take actions which were promised. These cumulative failings would have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident’s ability to trust that her landlord would carry out a fair investigation into her complaint, put things right if it found issues during an investigation, and to learn from its mistakes. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping

Records on repairs and leaseholder management provided to this Service by the landlord were limited, with significant gaps. Many important documents relating to the renovation work cannot be located by the landlord. Gaps and omissions in the evidence provided have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it took to resolve the resident’s concerns, as well as its overall management of the issues raised by the resident. The landlord has also acknowledged this had a significant impact on its ability to investigate the resident’s complaint and draw conclusions on what went wrong.
This investigation has therefore highlighted issues with the landlord’s record keeping and how this impacted on its ability to ensure repairs were completed on time and to an appropriate standard and meant there was a missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the complaint. This has restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right and to learn from its mistakes in this case. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (published in May 2023 and available here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf), which stresses the importance of good record keeping, describing it as “the closest thing the sector could get to a silver bullet” enabling landlords to provide a better Service.
This Service has made general recommendations for system improvements on record keeping as a result at the end of this report. No specific orders have been made in this case as the Ombudsman is currently carrying out a special investigation into this landlord and will publish a separate report when this has been completed which will include detailed recommendations for the landlord.
Due to significant gaps in records relating to the resident’s property, as well as missing documents relating to the renovation works, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of renovation works to her property, including the quality of the work done and associated issues such as damp.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Inspect the resident’s property, including all rooms and windows, and draft a clear schedule of works with clear timescales for the completion of any remaining repairs or renovation works. This inspection must cover damp and mould in the property, including if this is likely to be caused by water ingress from neighbouring properties, and identify an appropriate solution for this issue. If water ingress from neighbouring properties is identified, this should be considered in conjunction with its own property records and cross referenced with complaints from neighbouring properties within the last 2 years, with an action plan drafted on inspection of neighbouring properties. The inspection report and schedule of works must be shared with the resident and this Service.
2. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s housing management team to apologise in person to the resident for the failings identified in this report. Confirmation of the outcome of this meeting, including learnings identified, must be shared with the resident and this Service.
3. Pay the resident a total of £4,410 comprising of:
  1. £2,910 for inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s delays in arranging agreed remedial works to damp in the resident’s property. This is calculated at £10 per week from the date of the damp survey to the date of this report.
  2. £1,000 for inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by poor complaints handling, including its failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. £500 for inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by poor record keeping.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Carry out a senior management review into this case to identify what additional learning and improvements the landlord can make in complaints handling and handling requests for repairs from leaseholders. This review must also assess how the landlord handled the resident’s complaints and why they were forwarded to repairs teams without a formal complaint being raised. The senior managers carrying out the review must have no previous involvement with this case. A copy of this review must be reported to the appropriate governing body and shared with this Service.
2. Review staff training on complaints handling, ensuring that any gaps in knowledge skills and expertise are filled, and ensure that all complaints handling staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and Dispute Resolution Principles.
3. Review how it approaches reports of poor quality major works and consider whether to appoint a ‘lead contact’ for a resident and contractors to give oversight to any remedial works and to ensure works are carried out in a reasonable period of time.
4. Consider what learning it may take from this report to improve how staff communicate with empathy in written communication with residents.

Recommendations

The landlord should assess its policies and procedures regarding record keeping and take steps to implement the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report titled Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management.