Bromford Housing Group Limited (202123542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123542

Bromford Housing Group Limited

22 December 2023

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:
1. Response to a sewage leak at her property;
2. Response to her reports of water ingress and resultant damp;
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has explained that she experienced problems with mould in the property she lived in before her current home, which left herself, her family, and her two pet dogs with long–term illness.
The resident has advised that she has other health issues, including long–term mental health conditions.
The resident holds an assured shorthold 5 year fixed-term tenancy.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building (including drains, gutters and external pipes), as well as the installations for the provision of sanitary conveniences (toilets and waste pipes).
The tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s “obligation” to insure her furniture, belongings, and the internal decoration of her home.
The landlord’s repairs policy splits repairs into the following categories:
1. Immediate (to be attended within 2 hours);
2. Emergency (to be attended the same day);
3. Emergency (to be attended the next day);
4. Appointed (to be attended at a time suited to the resident and dependent on the availability of the landlord’s resources);
5. Unappointed (for example, to a communal area);
6. Planned or Cyclical
The landlord’s repairs policy separates out repairs it is responsible for, and those residents are responsible for. It says it is responsible for “items within the curtilage of dwellings… (where they have been provided by [it]), including… some rooms and dwellings where we have decorated and provided carpet”. It is otherwise silent on the responsibility for floor coverings. The resident has asserted that the landlord provided the floor coverings on the ground floor of her property, before she moved in.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its two-stage approach to complaint handling. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within five days, and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 a senior manager and a resident member of the “Locality Influence Network” review the details of the complaint, and will provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure tells its staff not to offer compensation in the case of “burst pipes, blocked drains or other events which could not have been predicted and were not previously reported”.

Summary of events

On 11 December 2021 the sewage pipe to the resident’s home became blocked, backed up through her toilet, and flooded the ground floor of her property.
The resident has described waiting 11 hours for the landlord’s contractor to attend and start to clean the property.
The landlord arranged alternative accommodation for the resident and her children in a series of hotels, whilst it arranged works to return the property to a habitable condition.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 December 2021 to carry out a survey of the work needed, and completed a “major” environmental clean the next day. It noted that the hallway, kitchen and bathroom floors, skirting and kick boards, and three bags of contaminated clothes needed to be removed.
The resident has explained that her distress was added to by being in hotels, rather than at home, over the Christmas period.
The exact date the resident moved back home is not clear, but she had returned by the time she submitted a stage 1 complaint on 5 February 2022.
The resident’s complaint outlined her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response:
1. After “a lengthy stay in numerous” hotels, the resident and her children had moved back to the property, but there were still outstanding repairs needed;
2. There was no flooring down, and the landlord had told her it would not cover this, or the cost of replacing her damaged belongings. She did not have contents insurance;
3. She had “been met with incompetence, lies and overall unnecessary stress” whilst trying to sort these issues;
4. She had had to unblock the sewage pipes in her garden that day, as they had started to back up;
5. She had not received a response to the photos of penetrating damp that she had sent.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 February 2022 and gave her contact details for the complaint handler.
The resident responded on 14 February 2022 and added further detail:
1. The landlord’s drains contractor had not attended to do a CCTV investigation of the drains, even though the landlord had said it had;
2. The landlord’s cleaning contractor had advised an affected area of plasterboard should be replaced, and she was waiting for this to be done.
The landlord replied on 16 February 2022 and asked the resident if she would agree to extending the time for its complaint response, to allow it look into the additional issues she had raised. The resident said she was happy with this.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord attended, and raised a job for the drains contractor. It unblocked the drain, and the resident said the operative advised her that the garden slabs were too close to the building which was why the water easily penetrated the exterior bricks when the drain had backed up, and that the sewage pipe and drainage was not set up to adequately drain the waste water away. She also said that the operative had advised her she should not have to claim on her contents insurance for the damaged flooring.
On 21 February 2022 the resident reported a leak from her roof into the loft space and asked for an urgent repair.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It:
1. Set out the resident’s complaint, and recognised the repairs needed after the sewage leak were not completed;
2. Summarised a plan of action that had been put together after its visit of 18 February 2022:
  1. Its contractor would attend to carry out a camera inspection of the external drain;
  2. Appointments were booked for 21 and 22 March 2022 to remove the radiator and toilet in the WC, to prepare for plastering works;
  3. It had unblocked her external drain during its visit on 18 February 2022.
3. Advised it had passed the resident’s reports of water ingress to the loft space to its repairs team;
4. Recognised the distress the resident had experienced during the sewage leak and apologised that she felt the need to complain;
5. Advised its stage 1 complaint process had been concluded, and how the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
On 24 February 2022 the resident chased the repair to her leaking roof, and the clearance of mould in the loft. She expressed her frustration that the landlord’s drains contractor had not turned up to an appointment booked that day.
At this point the resident contacted this Service, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions to date. We notified the landlord of the resident’s contact on 28 February 2022 and it acknowledged this in an email to the resident on 2 March 2022. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2. It tried ringing her on 3 March 2022 and left an answerphone message for her.
The resident responded on 3 March 2022 and explained she did not understand where one complaint stage would end and the next start. She reiterated her concerns regarding the water ingress to the roof and described the attic area as “soaked”. She explained she was worried that the mould would get worse the longer it was left, and that this was causing her anxiety. She described having “hit a brick wall” in trying to get the follow up actions after the sewage leak completed.
On 8 March 2022 the resident followed this up and reported to the landlord that it had been windy, and she was worried that the slate on the roof would have slipped (and increase the water ingress to the roof). The resident explained that her allergies were “extreme” at that time and described her house as damp. She asked that the landlord’s roofing contractor attend, as she believed it could complete the repairs sooner than the landlord’s own repairs team.
The member of staff the resident had emailed responded to her on 11 March 2022 and apologised for the delay, they explained this was because they had been off ill.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord gave an update to the resident:
1. It had asked its drains contractor to update it, and also to provide it with a timeline so it could see the failed appointments and delays the resident had experienced;
2. The repairs to the roof were booked for 1 April 2022. It had asked its planners whether it could bring this forward, and would ask the manager of the team if it could use the contractor the resident had mentioned, once they returned from annual leave;
3. There were appointments booked for 21 and 22 March 2022 to remove a radiator and toilet, and to repair the damaged plasterboard;
4. Once these works were completed, it would look into an offer of compensation for the delays and service the resident had experienced.
Also on 18 March 2022, the landlord’s drains contractor attended the resident’s property (which she described as “unexpected”) and carried out a CCTV survey of the drain in the back garden. The landlord’s internal records show it did not find any issues during this survey.
On 1 April 2022 the resident updated the landlord that its roofer had attended, and told her they could not get on the roof due to its health and safety rules, and that it would be using contractors to fix any problems. They advised her to wait until the end of the month before chasing for an update. She expressed concern that the issue would “go on forever”. She also asked for an update on the other issues.
On 11 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and explained her roof was still leaking and she was very concerned that mould had formed. She asked for an update and also confirmation of the timeframe for her to “escalate this further”.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord provided an update to the resident:
1. It had raised the roof repair to its roofing contractor, and asked that it contact the resident to arrange this as soon as possible. It said it would ensure the mould and damp were treated once the roof repair was completed, and asked the resident not to worry;
2. It asked the resident if she had proof of purchase of the flooring or her damaged belongings, so it could consider how to help her;
3. It had asked its drains contractor to review the matter of the gradient of the drainage in the garden;
4. It asked the resident if there were any other issues from the “sewage incident” that it needed to raise and address;
5. It said it understood the resident must be frustrated and it apologised for this;
6. It advised that once it had completed the proposed works and concluded the complaint, the resident would have six months to request a review/ escalation.
On 18 April 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the flooring had already been down when she moved in. She was still waiting for the skirting boards to be replaced and wanted the kitchen, bathroom and hallway flooring replaced. She explained she felt the need to be “vigilant” with her toilets, as they threatened to back up “now and then”, and that she continued to flush the drain with water from a butt.
The landlord responded the next day, and advised it had chased the repair to the skirting boards. It had also asked its drains contractor to carry out a full survey of the drains, as the one in March had only looked at “one line”.
On 20 May 2022 the resident updated the landlord’s complaint handler. She advised that scaffold been put up a few weeks ago, and earlier that day she had found the landlord’s roofing contractor on her roof without having an appointment booked. She had overheard the roofer talking to his manager, and it was clear to her that they had not been briefed properly. They had told her they would clear moss from the roof. She advised the landlord to instead use a previous repairs contractor it had sent, who she believed would do a better job. She explained the “joke” was that her roofer friend had been up into the attic and had been able to identify the problem, and described them as “professional, competent and no messing”. She told the landlord her physical and mental health were declining rapidly.
The complaint handler responded on 23 May 2022 and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. They told the resident they had asked the contractor to make direct contact with the resident, but to keep them informed so they could provide the resident with updates and “jump in where any support was needed”. They would take this up with its management, and had already raised the matters regarding the conversations the resident had reported with the contractor.
On 17 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update. She advised that the roofers had briefly attended, and whilst she was not certain what they had done, it did appear that they had placed a pin next to a roof tile that had slipped.
The landlord chased an update from its drains contractor on 21 June 2022, and the contractor advised it had tried several times to contact the resident but she had “not been in”, and her phone did not accept its calls. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2022 and tried to set up an appointment for 29 June 2022, which she accepted.
On 27 June 2022 the drains contractor informed the landlord it would have to rearrange the appointment due to “an emergency”, and suggested 6 July 2022. The landlord passed this message on to the resident on 28 June 2022.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord and drains contractor corresponded by email, and discussed that the complaint handler had not heard back from the resident regarding the proposed appointment, and that they would shortly be on a planned period of absence. The contractor said it would send its operative to the resident’s home to see if they could gain access. After the visit, the resident asked the landlord to confirm what repairs had been done to her roof.
On 20 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update, however, she sent this email to the complaint handler who was not in work due to planned absence.
The landlord has explained that, also on 20 July 2022, it had detected an attempted cyber attack and shut down its IT systems (understood to include its email service and its databases).
The resident has explained that she tried to request an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 4 August 2022, in an email she sent to several addresses. She has advised us that this was her second attempt at emailing the landlord with this request, and that she had also tried calling it.
On 5 August 2022 the complaint handler had returned, and emailed the resident to advise:
1. On 20 July 2022 the landlord identified it had been subject to an attempted cyber attack. It shut down its systems and staff had no access to emails or its records stored on its “systems”;
2. The landlord was in the process of restoring its IT systems, but at present staff still had no access to its systems. Limited access to email had been restored from 4 August 2022, but the complaint handler could not see any details or updates regarding the resident’s complaint;
3. The complaint handler was “unable to make any further progress or take any action on [the resident’s] complaint at [that] time”. They would be in contact when they could provide an update.
The resident responded and explained that she had been “extremely low and ill with the constant worrying”. She said her housing officer had only just advised her of the IT issues, but that she understood it must be difficult for the landlord’s staff. She asked for an update as soon as possible.
On 8 August 2022 the complaint handler asked the resident if she could provide her with an update as to “where everything is”, because the systems were still down.
On 17 August 2022 the landlord advised the resident it had access to more systems, and was in the process of chasing up what had happened.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord’s roofers attended the resident’s property and carried out an inspection, including to the guttering.
On 23 August 2022 this Service contacted the landlord and noted the resident had requested her complaint was escalated, after receiving the stage 1 response. We asked the landlord to acknowledge the escalation to stage 2 within five calendar days, and to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 August 2022 and covered the following points:
1. It had no record of the resident requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It asked her to confirm what she remained dissatisfied with, and what she was seeking as an outcome;
2. Its roofers had attended the resident’s property, and identified no issues. They investigated the loft space and found no signs of water ingress;
3. Its drains contractor had booked in the full camera survey for 2 September 2022;
4. Its systems were still down following the IT incident on 20 July 2022. As soon as its systems would allow, it would raise works to assess and treat the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
On 24 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and set out her current position:
1. She attached a copy of the email she had sent on 4 August 2022 (requesting the escalation to stage 2), and noted she had not received a response to it. She would be happy to send the complaint handler copies of all of her emails since the start of her complaint;
2. The roof had recently been checked and the surveyor had advised there was water staining, but no more water had come in. They told her to keep an eye on any water marks in the ceilings, as a sign of any further issues;
3. Skirting boards needed to be fitted in the WC and hallway, replacement flooring needed to be laid throughout the ground floor (except the living room), the radiator in the WC needed repair, and the kickboards in the kitchen needed to be replaced. The resident noted that the new flooring should match the colour of the wood flooring in her living room;
4. The resident asked for a promise that if mould was found in the attic space, the landlord would remove it, and a clear timescale of how long the landlord would honour that;
5. The resident noted that she had previously been promised compensation. She asked the landlord for a “gesture of goodwill” for the distress and inconvenience caused by:
  1. Poor complaint handling;
  2. Delays in undertaking a repair in a timely manner;
  3. Temporary loss of amenity;
  4. Failure to meet target response times;
  5. Unreasonable time taken to resolve the situation.
6. The resident highlighted that the above had resulted in stress, worsening of her physical and mental health, and disruption to her family Christmas;
7. She also explained she had to make the “heart breaking decision” to put her two dogs to sleep, because she had nowhere for them to go whilst she was moved away from the property after the leak. She has explained that she was worried they would have been caused suffering due to the health effects of living in the aftermath of the sewage leak;
8. The resident explained she and her daughters had been left for 11 hours (“far too long and unnecessary”), with the “toxic smell” of sewage, before the landlord’s contractor cleared the blocked drain. They were then “left to walk over the wet sewage laden floor to get to the kitchen while waiting for someone to help”. She said the landlord only offered to move her after her local Councillor contacted it on her behalf;
9. The resident reminded the landlord of its, and her housing officer’s, knowledge of her family’s ill health from her previous “mouldy property”, and how anxious it made her.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email, and asked her to confirm if she was happy for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident responded and confirmed she was. The landlord advised a senior member of staff would investigate the stage 2 complaint.
On 30 August 2022 the resident reported a new damp patch in the front bedroom. The resident reiterated that she had a friend who was a roofer, and asked the landlord to let her know if it was ok to contact them.
During September 2022, the landlord arranged a visit from its stage 2 complaint handler to meet the resident at home on 13 September 2022. When it attended at the agreed time, there was no answer. It noted that it had called her twice and left a message.
The landlord emailed the resident the next day, and asked if she was ok and if it could rearrange the appointment. The resident apologised and explained she had been in hospital, had only been able to buy credit that day to see its emails, and had forgotten about the appointment. She suggested new dates for the appointment, in the following week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2022 and reported that she had found bed bugs, and that she had been “suspicious” of having an issue since she and her family had been bitten or come out in a rash whilst at one of the hotels the landlord had moved her to. She asked the landlord if it had a pest control service, or who she could speak to about it.
The landlord responded on 20 September 2022 and advised the resident to talk to her neighbourhood coach (understood to be a similar role to a housing officer) to establish whether or not the landlord would assist with the bed bugs.
The landlord arranged another visit to the resident for 26 September 2022, attended by the stage 2 complaint handler, and noted that they had identified “lots of outstanding repairs” which needed to be done.
On 27 September 2022 the landlord sought an update from its drain contractor. The contractor advised that the resident had asked to change the date of its appointment, and it would rearrange this.
The landlord has confirmed to us that its IT systems were restored by the end of September 2022.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It:
1. Recognised that it was yet to establish whether there was a “fundamental” problem with the drains to the property, and had taken too long to engage a contractor;
2. Advised this had likely been affected by the fact a manager had left;
3. Upheld the resident’s complaint on this point;
4. Advised it did not “believe” there was a “fundamental” issue with damp and mould in the property;
5. Recognised there was evidence of water ingress via the sewage leak and a leak from the roof above the front bedroom;
6. Listed the outstanding works it would complete:
  1. Review the survey of the internal drainage system for the property;
  2. Assess the roofing repair and check the loft for water ingress;
  3. Replace the kitchen flooring and plinths to all base units;
  4. Replace the skirting board and architrave in the hallway and WC;
  5. Self-level the flooring in the WC and reinstate the covering;
  6. Paint the area in the WC that had been replastered;
  7. Re-fix the toilet cistern to the wall;
  8. Re-fix the radiator to the WC wall;
  9. Its contractor would complete a full-site survey to look for the cause of sewage backup, and if this was identified the landlord would complete works to resolve the issue and prevent it happening again;
7. Offered the resident £250 compensation for its failures and delays in the handling and resolution of her complaint;
8. Directed the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord chased its drains contractor for an update. The contractor suggested that an appointment be booked with the resident for 18 October 2022, and the landlord passed this on to the resident on 14 October 2022.
The resident agreed to the proposed appointment on 15 October 2022 (a Saturday), and told the landlord that its offer of £250 compensation made her feel “laughed at”. She noted that its stage 2 response letter had not mentioned the matter of the new flooring matching the flooring that was down in her living room, and upstairs, and which had been put down by the landlord before she moved in. The resident explained that she had not asked to be reimbursed for loss of clothing and “personal effects” which had been damaged by the sewage, because she did not have contents insurance. She asked the landlord to re-evaluate its offer of compensation. She expressed her fear that mould was continuing to accumulate in the cavity walls, as the damp patch in her daughter’s bedroom had not been looked into.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments regarding the outcome of the stage 2 complaint, and said it would ask the stage 2 complaint handler to respond directly.
On 19 October 2022 both the resident and the drains contractor confirmed that the survey of the drains had been completed on 18 October 2022.
The contractor sent its report to the landlord on 26 October 2022, and the landlord’s internal correspondence on 27 October 2022 discussed that it had found no issues, and it could now proceed with remedial work.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to propose that it book to attend for a whole day on 28 November 2022 to complete the outstanding repairs, and asked her to confirm if she was available.
On 10 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had received a card from its repairs team, which said it was sorry to have missed her. The card had said this was for the flooring and skirting boards. The resident asked how she could be expected to know to be in, without contact from the landlord, and asked for it to confirm what this was about. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the email.
On 11 November 2022, the resident confirmed she would be available for the appointment for 28 November 2022. She also reported that she thought the damp in her property may be caused by a problem with her neighbour’s roof. Again, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the email.
On 25 November 2022 the resident reported that she had again received a “sorry we missed you” card, regarding an inspection of the roof. She expressed frustration that she had not been told in advance, and for the length of time it was taking to get the issues resolved. She asked the landlord to give her and her family a “fighting chance” at a normal Christmas.
On 28 November 2022 the landlord completed repairs to the kitchen plinths (kickboards), the skirting boards and architrave, levelled the flooring in the WC, painted areas of the WC that had been replastered, and refixed the cistern to wall. It booked in work to replace the vinyl flooring to the kitchen, hall and downstairs WC on 13 January 2023.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the roof inspection had been rescheduled for 5 January 2023, and asked her to confirm if she was available. It also advised her it had asked its heating contractor to contact her regarding refixing the radiator to the WC wall.
The landlord’s internal discussions from 20 December 2023 show that its staff discussed that the flooring that would be fitted was the vinyl in the kitchen and bathroom, which it said it was responsible for. The members of staff discussed that the resident had been advised during its previous visit that it would not replace the laminate in the hallway.
On 22 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the heating contractor, which had attended for a separate heating issue, had told her it would replace the radiator but it would not attach the fixings for it to hang on.
The landlord responded on 29 December 2022 and advised the resident it would look into the matter, and would get back to her during the first week of January 2023.
The landlord’s records of discussions with the contractor show that the contractor had advised the landlord in February 2022 that the wall needed to be strengthened and battened before it could rehang the radiator. The contractor said it received a job to rehang the radiator on 31 October 2022, and had been asked to “cold-call” the resident on 30 December 2022 after it had not been able to get hold of her.
On 17 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update. She explained her flooring had not been done, and she had not received a card through her door. The landlord’s complaint handler raised this matter with their colleagues, and they identified that a change to its computer systems had caused all its open jobs to show as “suspended”.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord offered the resident an appointment on 14 February 2023 for the flooring to be fitted, and asked her to confirm she would be available. The resident said she would be, asked if the radiator could also be hung, and where she stood on compensation.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that once all works were complete, the member of staff who had dealt with her stage 2 complaint would confirm its compensation offer.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had booked an appointment to rehang the radiator on 14 February 2023, and had also arranged for an electrician to disconnect and then reconnect her cooker, before and after the flooring was fitted, as a “gesture of goodwill”.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord identified that it did not have “the materials” for the flooring appointment the next day. It called the resident to apologise and it noted that she told it she was “not happy” and asked to speak to a senior member of staff.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident and advised it could re-arrange the works for 25 February 2023. It said it would compensate her for the missed appointment, as part of its overall compensation offer “at the end of [her] complaint”.
On 21 February 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that render on the outside of her home had peeled, and explained this was in the same area as she had observed the damp patches in her daughter’s room.
There are records from 27 February 2023 showing the resident asking for confirmation that the appointment for that day was going ahead, and the landlord’s staff identifying that it again did not have materials for the work.
On 28 February 2023 the resident contacted the stage 1 complaint handler and advised that she had stopped the work to the flooring that had been scheduled for that day, as she had been told when the operative arrived that her hallway would not be done, and that the repairs team told them to “push” her to have only half of the kitchen done. She asked where she stood, as she would not accept the “pathetic” offer of £250 compensation and she was not confident of the landlord’s previous assessment that there was no damp issue.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident, and apologised for the delay in its response. It confirmed its position:
1. It would not replace her hallway flooring, as it was not responsible for the leak, it was “unprecedented” (had not happened previously), and it expected the resident to have contents insurance in place;
2. It noted that she had a kitchen/ diner, and it was only responsible for the flooring to the “kitchen section”. It had been unable to get flooring that was large enough to fit this area in full, however it had offered to use a ‘soft tile style’ covering, which (in its words) was “not as aesthetically pleasing as vinyl flooring and does not look as nice”;
3. Its stage 1 complaint handler was awaiting an update regarding the plan of action for the roof;
4. Once all works were complete it would review its offer of compensation, but could not guarantee if, or by how much, this might be increased.
The landlord’s internal communications from 16 and 17 May 2023 show it thought it possible that the peeling render that the resident had reported, had resulted due to water ingress. It had picked up latent building defects elsewhere on the resident’s estate, and it decided it should investigate for wider issues with the roofs and any associated water ingress, across the estate. It has confirmed to us that the resident’s house was built in 2008.
The landlord’s records show its stage 1 complaint handler chased colleagues for updates regarding the landlord’s current position on 31 July 2023, and noted that the resident’s complaint had been open since February 2022.
The landlord raised a job to assess the loft space for water damage and leaks on 16 August 2023, and carried this out on 6 October 2023. It did not find specific issues with the resident’s property, and has explained it is continuing to investigate when the resident allows it access to her home. As of December 2023, it is in the process of “planning the response” to issues it has investigated with the parapet walls to the properties on the resident’s estate.
The landlord has confirmed that, as of December 2023, it has laid flooring to the kitchen and WC in the resident’s home. It has explained that the dining area was “unaffected”, and so it did not offer to lay new flooring there.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the sewage leak at the resident’s property

When the sewage leak occurred, the landlord did attend within its timescale for emergency repairs, and then offered the resident alternative accommodation whilst the property remained uninhabitable.
It is acknowledged this incident caused the resident and her family distress, and it is not clear what advice, support, or signposting (if any) the landlord offered the resident whilst she awaited the attendance of its contractor. We recognise the resident’s particular upset at the impact on her pet dogs, who she has explained were put to sleep.
An environmental clean was required to return the resident’s home to a safe condition to live in, and this was carried out five days after the initial leak. It is not clear why the resident then had to stay out of the property for several more weeks, including over the Christmas period.
The landlord identified that it needed to repair the resident’s WC, flooring to the WC and kitchen, the kickboards in the kitchen, and some replastering and redecoration. It took too long to complete this work, which it reasonably should have been able to complete under its appointed repairs category. It is notable that the landlord’s policy does not give a specific timeframe for appointed repairs, and it is possible that giving a particular target might have sped things up. On the face of it the works were not complex and could have been completed within one to two months at the most.
The resident and the landlord both agreed that it was important to establish the cause of the sewage leak, and that it would not be worth completing the repairs until they could be sure it was resolved. The landlord asked its contractor to investigate the external drainage at the property, and this is where things slowed significantly. The landlord did not adequately monitor the process to ensure that its contractor had successfully booked and completed the necessary inspections, and it ultimately took 10 months for this to be done.
The resident is disappointed that the landlord did not replace the flooring to her hallway, particularly because the landlord had provided the flooring before she moved in. The resident was further disappointed that the landlord did not match the new flooring to the one in her living room, after she had asked for this.
The landlord’s policy wording appeared to suggest that it could be responsible for replacing flooring that it had originally provided, although this Service accepts that this was qualified by explanations that this would usually apply in sheltered housing. Ultimately, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would expect her to claim for the flooring through contents insurance, and its tenancy terms and conditions underline its expectations that she would take out a policy when her tenancy started. The landlord did not identify an underlying fault with the drainage, and it was reasonable for it to explain to the resident that its public liability claim process did not seem appropriate given the leak was the first failure in the drainage that had been reported to it.
There was nothing in the landlord’s repairs policy or tenancy terms that required it to replace the flooring to match the existing one in the dining or living room areas, and it exercised its ability to choose not to do this. We do, nonetheless, acknowledge that this caused the resident upset and draw the landlord’s attention to this.
The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation for its delayed responses was not sufficiently proportionate to the impact on the resident, and we have made an order for this to be increased below. We have included a calculation in relation to her rent, in recognition of the loss of use of the WC she experienced, and the fact she waited so long for suitable flooring to be laid in her kitchen.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and resultant damp

The resident had shared her household’s vulnerabilities with the landlord, and the fact that she had moved from her previous home (also one of its properties) due to damp and mould. The resident was clearly anxious about the potential for mould to spread in the property, and flagged her concerns to the landlord several times.
The resident told the landlord that she had a friend who was a roofer, and that they had advised her of potential issues with the roof. The landlord did not engage with the resident’s advice that she had spoken with a professional, and it was understandable that she felt the points she had raised had been dismissed.
The landlord did not adequately monitor its roofing contractor to ensure that the inspection and repair works were completed in a timely way. The resident reported several appointments had been made at short notice or cancelled, and this caused her disruption.
It appears that one source of water ingress was addressed when the roofers fixed a loose roof tile, and the resident recognised this in her communications with the landlord.
During the course of the complaint, the landlord began to discuss a wider problem with the build of the properties on the resident’s estate. It suspected there were latent defects, and the peeling external render the resident had reported appeared to be in common with issues at other properties. It is welcomed that the landlord has carried out an inspection, although after an unreasonable delay, in October 2023. The landlord should ensure that it advises the resident in writing of the outcome of its inspection, and of any works it plans to undertake. It may seek for these works to be completed under its warranty, in that case it should ensure that any damp and mould is appropriately addressed in the meantime, given the resident’s family’s vulnerabilities.
As with the repairs discussed above, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation did not adequately address its service failures in response to the resident’s reports of a leak to the roof, and an order to put this right is made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s stage 1 response did not make it sufficiently clear as to whether it had upheld the resident’s complaint or not, and it is not surprising that she felt the need to escalate it to stage 2.
The landlord did not recognise the resident’s desire to proceed to stage 2 quickly enough, and should have been prompted by her ongoing contact with us, and her explanation that she did not understand the difference between the stages on 3 March 2022, to assess whether it should have escalated the complaint. The delay in doing this for a further six months caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble, and represented a missed opportunity to grasp the problems and get them fixed much sooner. The landlord compounded the time and trouble caused to the resident by asking her to confirm she wanted her complaint to be escalated, even after we had already asked it to do this.
The landlord’s response at stage 2 did recognise its failings, however it did not put things right. The resident was caused further distress and uncertainty as she waited for the promised resolutions to be completed.
A more reasonable and appropriate course of action would have been for the landlord to confirm:
1. A timescale for the repairs to be completed;
2. A confirmed offer of redress (including financial compensation) for the failures it had identified to date;
3. A further commitment of a date by which it would review its offer of compensation after it had completed the repairs, and what it would be taking into consideration;
4. The resident could submit a fresh complaint about anything that was or was not done after the stage 2 response was issued, including the works carried out as part of the stage 2 resolution.
Of particular issue is the impact this delay in confirming the level of redress had on the resident’s ability to make a decision regarding her hallway flooring. The resident had been hopeful that the landlord would make a gesture towards the cost of replacing it.
The landlord’s response after the cyber attack also fell short of our expectations regarding knowledge and information management. Once the computer systems were shut down, it did not appear to have an adequate system in place to ensure open repairs issues and complaints were in hand and progressing. At one point the landlord asked the resident to advise it of what had been done at her property, rather than requesting this information from colleagues and contractors.
The landlord’s complaints policy suggests that its stage 2 reviews will be conducted by both a senior member of staff and a resident. In this case, this did not appear to happen. Under our complaint handling code, we do not specify the need for more than one person to review a complaint. The landlord is asked to review its policy wording and check it clearly sets out the actual process it uses at stage 2.
It is notable that responsibility for the bulk of the communication with the resident continued to sit with the stage 1 complaint handler once the complaint had moved to stage 2. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the stage 1 complaint handler made efforts to progress the resident’s case, but it also suggests that they would have benefited from earlier and more consistent involvement from senior management until the action plan it had produced was complete.
We have not received evidence from the landlord that it offered compensation for the missed repairs appointments, despite its promise to do this in February 2023.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to a sewage leak at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and resultant damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The repairs that were required after the sewage leak did not appear particularly complex or unusual. The landlord does not publish set target times for completion, but we would expect these to be realistically achieved within a month or two. The resident was caused unnecessary disruption and distress, and was unable to properly exercise quiet enjoyment of her home, for approximately one and a half years after the leak.
The landlord did not ensure its roofing contractor assessed the reported leaks to the roof within a reasonable timeframe. Again, this really should not take longer than a month, but we would expect it to be done within a quicker timeframe where a live leak is reported. The landlord has told us it is still investigating the possibility of latent defects, and again it took over a year and a half for the landlord to carry out a detailed inspection of the loft area after the resident first raised the issue.
The resident had previously experienced mould at a different property, and the landlord did not recognise the distress that this added to her wait for action in her current property.
The length of time the landlord took to respond to the resident’s complaint was far too long. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was logged in February 2022, and it took 20 months to reach a final position on the issues she had raised.
The landlord occasionally gave the appearance of a lack of respect for the resident, specifically in its failure to respond directly to the advice her friend had given regarding the leak to the roof area, and its choice of the flooring it would install (as set out in its own description of it).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within five weeks of the date of this report, an appropriately senior manager (director level or above) at the landlord writes to the resident and apologises for the impact of its delays in addressing the matters she raised to it.
It is ordered that, within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord directly pay the resident a total of £4,000 compensation, consisting of:
1. £250 it previously offered;
2. £2,400 for the impact of the landlord’s failures to repair the resident’s property after the sewage leak (equivalent to approximately 25% of the resident’s monthly rent across 18 months);
3. £1,100 for the distress the resident experienced whilst waiting for the leak to the roof to be investigated (equivalent to 10% of the resident’s monthly rent, across 20 months);
4. £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord for a resolution to her complaint.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the roof inspection it carried out in October 2023, and any further work or investigations it plans to undertake at her property.
The landlord should ensure that any damp and mould is appropriately addressed until any latent defects are identified and repaired, and must confirm to us within three weeks of this report that it will do this.
Given the resident’s broader concerns regarding the treatment of mould that may arise in future, the landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report, with details of its damp and mould policy and how she can report any damp or mould she finds to it. It should provide us with a copy once completed.
The landlord must explain to us, within seven weeks of the date of this report, the steps it has taken in response to this case, that will ensure that relevant members of its staff are aware of:
1. When to escalate a complaint to stage 2;
2. Who should be handling the complaint at stage 2, including responsibility for correspondence with residents and the oversight of promised actions;
3. The need to offer a resolution in its stage 2 response, and how to identify follow-on matters that are better addressed by a fresh stage 1 complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the wording of its complaint policy, and checks that it matches its current process for handling stage 2 complaints.
It is recommended that the landlord review its repairs policy and assesses whether it would be helpful for staff and residents for it to give more details about the timeframe/s it would expect an appointed repair to be reasonably completed within.
The landlord is encouraged to note the resident’s upset due to its decision not to match the flooring it supplied to the one that had been used for her living room, and to consider whether there is a way of reasonably preventing similar issues arising in future.
It is recommended that the landlord review the procedures it has in place to guide staff in the event of any future loss of access to its databases or email systems (including in the event of a cyber attack), to ensure that it can continue to meet the service levels it is required to deliver under its tenancy agreements, policies and landlord and tenant law.
It is recommended the landlord review the guidance it offers staff in relation to contract monitoring and completion of work by contractors, to ensure they understand how to escalate matters that have not been completed to standard or in a timely way.