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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202317169)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317169

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 September 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The removal of asbestos flooring in the property.
    2. Repairs to the kitchen flooring and electrical sockets.
    3. Repairs to a leak in the bathroom.
    4. Reports of mould in the bathroom.
    5. Repairs to a leak and floors in a bedroom.
    6. Reports of leaking windows in the living room.
    7. Reports of overcrowding.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord on a fixed term assured tenancy. The property is a 3 bedroom house. She lives with her 4 children, who are all over 16 years old. Two of her children have disabilities. One is autistic and the other has non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD) which causes seizures and puts her at risk of falls. She has lived at the property since 2019.
  2. During the complaint journey the resident had a foster child staying with her, increasing the total number of occupants to 6. The child has since moved out of the property.
  3. On 2 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord to inspect the downstairs floor tiles because they were cracked and crumbling in places. On 26 August 2022 the landlord’s contractor confirmed there was asbestos present and it would need specialist removal. It instructed the specialist contractor to contact the resident to organize the removal on 8 February 2023. The contractor emailed the landlord on 28 June 2023. It said that the resident had not responded to its calls and was unable to schedule the works.
  4. The resident reported issues with a kitchen plug socket on 9 February 2023. She said that the washing machine kept tripping out. The landlord recorded this repair as complete on 11 April 2023.
  5. In July and August 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She provided a list of repairs and said the landlord had not updated her. She said that she was overcrowded and needed help to move home. She raised other matters relating to aids and adaptations that have not been considered by this service. On 18 September 2023 we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We highlighted the resident’s vulnerabilities and asked that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 27 September 2023 and scheduled the removal of the floor tiles for 3 October 2023. This appointment was cancelled by the resident and rescheduled for 10 October 2023.
  7. The landlord issued an interim stage 1 response on 9 October 2023. It apologised for the way the repairs were handled and set out its understanding of the complaint. It provided a chronology of the flooring reports. It said that it did not have records of some of the repairs reported by the resident in her complaint. It provided appointments to conduct the repairs.
  8. The landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection on 17 October 2023. It found no evidence of damp or condensation in the property. It scheduled other repairs required to the living room windows, kitchen and bedroom. On 18 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord not to schedule any repairs until the middle of December 2023.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023. It summarised the details as set out in its response from 9 October 2023 and the details of the inspection from 17 October 2023. It provided appointments to conduct the remaining repairs. It offered £450 compensation, which comprised of:
    1. £250 for loss of enjoyment over 2 and a half years.
    2. £100 for inconvenience caused chasing repairs up until the end of December 2023.
    3. £50 for delays to remove asbestos tiles.
    4. £50 for delay to respond to the complaint.
  10. The landlord repaired the leak under the bath on 16 November 2023. It planned to repair the kitchen sockets on 22 November 2023, but the appointment was cancelled by the resident the same day. Between 18 and 21 December 2023 the landlord repaired the kitchen flooring and other kitchen repairs listed in its 17 October 2023 inspection.
  11. On 26 December 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs between 18 and 21 December 2023. She said contractors attended late and did not have details of the scheduled repairs. She was unaware of the need to clear out her kitchen before the works began. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It:
    1. Summarised the actions taken to conduct repairs to the kitchen floors.
    2. Described its procedures to conduct repairs and how it may send operatives to other appointments in an emergency.
    3. Said that it was the resident’s responsibility to move her own items so that it conduct repairs.
    4. Expected the area to be clear so that the repairs could begin efficiently. It did not consider this to be a service failure.
    5. Offered to provide support in future if she is unable to move furniture.
  12. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 3 January 2024. She disagreed with the landlord’s summary of events and highlighted her daughter’s vulnerabilities. The landlord issued its stage 2 response regarding the resident’s complaint about communication on 26 February 2024. The complaint was partially upheld. It apologised for missed and delayed appointments. The resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities were not considered before works commenced because it did not have details of her medical conditions on its files. It offered a goodwill gesture of £800.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 regarding the repairs to the flooring. It provided a summary of the visits conducted from 2 August 2022 onwards. It partially upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay to issue the stage 1 response on 19 October 2023 and the inconvenience this caused the resident.
  14. In February and March 2024, the landlord’s records show that it arranged for the asbestos flooring to be removed in the living room and hallway. There were issues with the resident’s availability for the works to begin and some debate whether the landlord would decant the resident during the works. The landlord removed the asbestos tiles and laid lino flooring in the living room and hallway between 9 and 14 May 2024. During this period, it provided the resident’s daughter’s temporary accommodation while the resident stayed elsewhere.
  15. In September 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that the following repairs were outstanding:
    1. The bath was moving away from the wall.
    2. The living room window was leaking.
    3. There was mould in the bathroom.
    4. There were exposed wires behind her tumble dryer in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord that her family members had been injured as a result of the repairs. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether the landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident was unhappy with its handling of a request for aids and adaptations to the property. The landlord set out its position and directed the resident to her local authority as the matter related to its social care function. The resident has informed this service that she has pursued this complaint through the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, no additional findings have been made by this service regarding the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to the property.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out response times to conduct repairs. It aims to complete all appointed repairs within 45 days, with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with vulnerability. If an appointment time is changed it will agree an alternative appointment. If a resident needs to move an appointment it will offer a suitable alternative, provided it had at least half a days notice. It aims to complete all major repairs within 90 days.

The removal of asbestos flooring in the property

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. The landlord’s asbestos procedure says that it will survey or inspect areas that it suspects have asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Where ACMs are present it will assess the condition of the material and the likelihood of disturbance. This includes a risk assessment which will determine what action is required and the timescales to remedy any issue.
  3. The landlord was aware of asbestos in the flooring following the inspection on 26 August 2022. There are no records available to the Ombudsman showing how the landlord assessed the risks the ACMs posed to the resident. As ACMs are a potential category 1 hazard under the HHSRS the landlord should have kept clear records of the assessments that took place. Its policy sets out the response times to conduct works to asbestos dependent on the risk. In the absence of the assessment the Ombudsman has been unable to determine if the landlord’s actions were conducted in accordance with its policy throughout.
  4. We can see that the landlord approved the removal of the floor tiles in February 2023. This was around 5 months after the initial inspection. During this period there was evidence that the landlord consulted internally about the decision, but there was no update or communication with the resident. Following the decision to conduct the repairs there were continued delays between February and June 2023.
  5. There are some mitigating circumstances during this period, as the contractor was unable to contact the resident. These issues were reported to the landlord in June 2023. The landlord should have contacted the resident itself on notice of these issues. However, it was around 3 months later in September 2023 that the landlord called the resident to discuss the repairs. It should have had greater oversight of the works and contacted the resident sooner.
  6. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  7. The landlord did not consider the vulnerabilities present in the resident’s household early in the timeline. Both the resident and the Ombudsman stressed the impact the issues had on the resident and her daughter throughout the complaint journey. The resident also took time and trouble seeking help from her daughter’s Occupational Therapist (OT) in April 2023. The OT wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 27 April 2023 to highlight the risk of trips and falls. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord responded to the OT or reflected on the report in any of its complaint responses to the resident. This was a significant factor in the sequence of events that resulted in severe delays, and a considerable detriment to the resident, given her daughter’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, which was unreasonable and unacceptable.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the delay to begin works and its communication in its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023. It appropriately offered £400 compensation for the delay to schedule the repairs and the resulting loss of enjoyment combined. The response complied with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It appropriately recognised its failure to conduct the works earlier in the timeline. It demonstrated its intention to resolve the repairs and its offer of compensation were reasonable means to put things right for the resident.
  9. Some of the delays following this stage 1 response on 19 October 2023 were mitigated by the resident’s request not to begin works until December 2023. However, the landlord failed to allay the resident’s concerns about the impact the works would have on her and her family while the floor was removed. She did not respond to the contractor, or cancelled appointments in January and February 2024 as a result. The landlord could have learned from the issues the resident experienced in December 2023 and provided additional support so that works could begin. It could have met with the resident and put an action plan together to conduct the repairs sooner. Instead, its records show that there were internal debates about the time the works would take and if it should decant the resident. These debates caused further delays to begin the works until May 2024.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 the landlord said that it had sought to resolve the repairs but was unable to agree a start date for the works with the resident. It appropriately clarified its position regarding the condition of the floor after the works were complete. It was reasonable to say that it would be the resident’s responsibility to provide floor covering once the tiles were removed and the floor levelled.
  11. The landlord did eventually recognise the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household and provided her daughters with temporary accommodation in May 2024. The resident and landlord have said that before works began it met with the resident and put a plan together to complete the works. This was an appropriate response and demonstrates the landlord’s intention to resolve the repairs. However, it could have reduced the overall detriment to the resident had it made this decision sooner.
  12. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances, such as health conditions or vulnerabilities, mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions than others. In considering the significant vulnerabilities of the resident’s daughter, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the flooring amounts to maladministration.
  13. We cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or exacerbated, a resident’s physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. However, our awards should recognise that a resident’s circumstances affect the emotional impact that a landlord’s failings have on them. In this case, the resident’s caring responsibility to her daughter and her own health issues were aggravating factors in the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings and have been considered in our award. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £800, comprised of:
    1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £400 offered in its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023.

Repairs to the kitchen flooring and electrical sockets

  1. The records show that the resident first reported issues with a kitchen plug socket on 9 February 2023. She said that the washing machine kept tripping out. The landlord conducted the repair on 11 April 2023. This was around 42 days later, which was within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. In its letter to the resident on 9 October 2023, the landlord apologised for the time waiting for the repairs. Its response to these concerns was reasonable.
  2. The resident raised her concerns with the position of plug sockets in her kitchen and believed that there were exposed wires in her calls to the landlord in October 2023. The landlord appropriately included these issues in its inspection on 17 October 2023. The inspection also highlighted issues with the kitchen flooring that required the renewal of floorboards and the replacement of nonslip flooring. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss its plan to conduct these repairs in detail with the resident at the time. However, there was no record that it conducted any assessment of the impact the repairs would have on the resident. It failed to consider the vulnerabilities in the household and its oversight caused the resident distress when it began the works in December 2023.
  3. The resident said that she had to move furniture on the day works began on 18 December 2023 and had no prior knowledge that this was necessary. The landlord should have considered the vulnerabilities in the household and provided more detail regarding these repairs. Had there been a clear plan in place at the time, the impact on the resident could have been mitigated.
  4. The landlord’s response at stage 1 on 2 January 2024 did not fully address the resident’s concerns. Its decision not to uphold the complaint at stage 1 was later overturned at stage 2 on 26 February 2024. It appropriately recognised its failings to provide support prior to conducting works on 18 December 2023. It demonstrated learning by sharing details on the support that it had available for future repairs. Its apology for the delays to begin the works was fair. Its offer of £800 compensation was a reasonable offer to put things right for the resident.
  5. On 29 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say some of the work was not done. She said the landlord had left wires exposed behind her tumble dryer. There was no record available to show that the landlord returned to resolve these issues post complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen flooring and electrical sockets. Despite the failures to recognise the vulnerabilities in the household, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 was fair. It apologised for the delays to conduct repairs and failure to communicate effectively with the resident. It demonstrated learning by updating its records and providing details of support available. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offer of £800 to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay this sum of compensation if it has not already done.

Repairs to a leak in the bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that while it attended to repairs to the water tank in the loft on 1 August 2022 it identified a leak underneath the bath. The records are unclear if the works were followed up at the time. However, the resident raised the leak under the bath in her contact with the Ombudsman in July and August 2023. There are no records available to the Ombudsman that show the resident contacting the landlord directly herself between these dates. We have considered that the landlord’s response on 9 October 2023 to our report on 18 September 2023 to be within a reasonable period. Its appointment to schedule the inspection for 26 October 2023 was therefore within the 45 working days in its policy.
  2. The landlord’s decision to reschedule the repairs at the resident’s request on 18 October 2023 was reasonable. The landlord’s records show that it repaired the leak under the bath on 16 November 2023.
  3. In its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 the landlord said that it had no record of a leak in the bathroom since October 2020. It said that the resident had not reported the issue to the landlord after this date, outside of the correspondence with the Ombudsman in September 2023. This was not an accurate reflection of the resident’s reports and a failure to treat the resident fairly. The landlord should have considered its own records and the impact the issues had on the resident.
  4. Once the repairs were conducted in November 2023 there are records showing a follow up repair was required to replace the bath panel. The resident has said that this action has not been followed up and the repair remains outstanding. The landlord’s poor record keeping have further contributed to delays to resolve repairs in this case.
  5. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the bathroom. The landlord did resolve the repairs causing a leak within the timescales set out in its policy in November 2023. However, its records show that it did not follow up repairs from August 2022. It also failed to repair the bath panel following the works in November 2023. The resident reports that the repairs to the bath panel remain outstanding. The landlord should pay the resident £100 for her time and trouble. It should schedule the repairs to the bath panel as highlighted in its repair on 16 November 2023.

Reports of mould in the bathroom

  1. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that show that any reports of damp and mould were made prior to the resident communication with the Ombudsman in July 2023. When we wrote to the landlord in September 2023 the landlord appropriately scheduled a damp and mould inspection, which was done on 17 October 2023. This was within 45 days of the report being made to the landlord and compliant with the landlord’s policy. During the inspection the landlord found no evidence of damp or condensation in the property.
  3. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mould in the bathroom. The records show that the landlord responded within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It inspected the bathroom and found no evidence of damp and mould. However, the resident reiterated her concerns that there is damp and mould in the bathroom in her contact with the Ombudsman in September 2024. The landlord should arrange for a new inspection of the bathroom to determine if there is damp or mould present and remedy within a reasonable period.

Repairs to a leak and flooring in a bedroom

  1. The records show that issues with a crumbling wall from a leak and problems with the flooring in the bedroom were first raised to the landlord in our email on 18 September 2023. The landlord did include these in its inspection on 17 October 2023. During that inspection it said that further investigation was required to a leak under the bedroom windowsill and silicone pointing was required. There were no recommendations regarding the repairs to the flooring.
  2. In its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023 the landlord said that it planned to resolve these repairs on 18 December 2023. The landlord records show that it attended to repair a roof leak in the bedroom on 15 December. It is unclear if the works were resolved. However, in the resident’s complaint on 26 December 2023 she said that the repairs to the bedroom floor and window were outstanding.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 did not address the concerns raised about either repair. Its response conflicted with the findings in made in October 2023. It reflected on historic repairs from 2022 and failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the issues. This caused additional time and trouble for the resident as she emailed the landlord with the same issues on 29 February 2024.
  4. Despite the additional efforts made by the resident the landlord failed to address the outstanding repairs. In its communication with the Ombudsman the landlord has accepted that there has been a failure to plan repairs to the bedroom flooring. It says that the works were scheduled in December 2023 but were cancelled due to the resident’s availability. It then did not reschedule the works. This is further evidence of its failure to have proper oversight of its repairs and maintenance. Since the involvement of this service the landlord has recognised this oversight and plans to conduct the repairs by 7 October 2024.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak and flooring in a bedroom. The landlord failed to conduct the repairs within a reasonable period. Its poor recording keeping contributed to further delays. It should pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of leaking windows in the living room.

  1. The landlord’s records show the living room windows were broken on 27 June 2022. The landlord’s response to these reports was appropriate. It secured the windows before repairs were conducted on 3 October 2022. The resident then reported that the windows did not shut properly on 16 November 2022. The landlord took around 4 months to repair these issues when it closed the repair as complete on 13 March 2023. Despite these repairs the resident reported issues with leaks from the living room windows when she contacted this service in July 2023. When we wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2023 the leaking windows were raised on the resident’s behalf.
  2. In its stage 1 response on 9 October 2023 the landlord said that the repairs had been passed to a surveyor to inspect. The inspection was conducted within the timescales set out in its policy on 17 October 2023. During the inspection the landlord recorded water ingress in the living room from the windows. It planned to install new windowsills to resolve the issue. It said in its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 it said that the works were resolved on 4 January 2024. The landlord’s repair records do not show when the windowsills were installed, or when the windows were sealed. The resident has disputed the landlord’s findings at stage 2 and said the works remain outstanding.
  3. The evidence confirms significant problems with the landlord’s record keeping, which this Service can conclude hindered its ability to progress the repairs. It failed to have proper oversight of the repairs at the property, or to consider the concerns raised by the resident appropriately.
  4. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaking windows in the living room. There was no clear evidence that the repairs were resolved by the landlord. Its record keeping failures contributed to its lack of oversight of these repairs. The landlord should pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It should conduct an inspection of the windows and confirm what repairs remain outstanding.

Reports of overcrowding

  1. In our letter to the landlord on 18 September 2023 we raised the resident’s concerns that she was overcrowded. The landlord did not address these concerns in its stage 1 responses on 9 and 18 October 2023. We reiterated this issue on 21 February 2024 when we asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint. The first record that the landlord considered these issues are from internal communications on 22 February 2024. It discussed contacting the resident to provide advice around rehousing. However, there are no records that it did so at any point.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2024, it said there was no record of the resident reporting overcrowding in the property. This was unfair and did not reflect the concerns raised by the resident, the OT, or this service throughout the timeline. It failed to address the fact that these issues were unresolved in its earlier complaint responses. It did not treat the resident fairly as a result. It should have recognised these failures and made efforts to put things right.
  3. There was a further demonstration of the landlord’s record keeping failures as it said that its records were incorrect (it had 4 occupants living at the property). This service had highlighted the number occupants living at the property in our letter on 18 September 2023. The OT asked the landlord to help the resident with rehousing in its email to the landlord on 27 April 2023. The landlord’s failure to maintain accurate records caused the resident additional time and trouble in this case.
  4. The landlord did appropriately ask the resident to provide details of the additional household members to update its records. However, there was no record that this was followed up at any point. The resident has also since advised that there are now 5 occupants living at the property. She has said that she continues to seek assistance with rehousing, which has not been provided by the landlord.
  5. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of overcrowding. At no time did the landlord conduct any assessment of the resident’s housing circumstances. It failed to address the concerns throughout its complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £200 for her time and trouble. It should contact the resident and provide appropriate advice/guidance on its rehousing procedures.

Record keeping

  1. The failure to adequately assess the impact of works on the resident’s household was a trend throughout this investigation. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 highlighted a significant failure within its own record keeping that it did not fully address. It said that it had not considered the household vulnerabilities prior to works commencing in December 2023 because it did not have details of the daughter’s medical conditions on its files. Both the resident and Ombudsman had stressed the vulnerabilities in her household throughout the communication with the landlord. The landlord itself was supporting an application for major adaptations through the local authorities’ social care services for the daughter’s needs. The OT letter in April 2023 highlighted the daughter’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of the vulnerabilities present in the household. The landlord did not set out how it would put this right, or that it had learned from this error. This failure could undermine the resident’s confidence in the landlord and could damage the landlord/tenant relationship.
  2. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the repairs, impacting both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters.
  3. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f in relation to responding repairs, record keeping and vulnerability policies. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of asbestos flooring in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the bathroom.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mould in the bathroom.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak and floors in a bedroom.
    5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaking windows in the living room.
    6. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of overcrowding.
    7. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen flooring and electrical sockets.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology from a member of the senior leadership team for the failings identified in this report. Provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident £1,900 in compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the removal of asbestos flooring in the property.
      2. £400 offered in its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023.
      3. £100 for her time and trouble in its handling of repairs to a leak in the bathroom.
      4. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to a leak and floors in a bedroom.
      5. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of leaking windows in the living room.
      6. £200 for her time and trouble in its handling of reports of overcrowding.
    3. Repair the bath panel as highlighted in its records on 16 November 2023.
    4. Provide evidence to this service that the repairs to the bedroom floor and wall are resolved on 7 October 2024.
    5. Inspect the windows in the living room and bedroom and schedule any outstanding repairs within 8 weeks.
    6. Contact the resident and provide appropriate advice/guidance on its rehousing procedures.
    7. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should inspect the sockets in the kitchen to ensure that they are safe and functioning correctly.
  2. The landlord should arrange for a new inspection of the bathroom to determine if there is damp or mould present and remedy within a reasonable period.
  3. The landlord should pay the £800 compensation set out in its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024 if it has not already done so.