A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202202594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202594

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

19 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs, including damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom fourth floor flat. Her tenancy began in April 2011. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing and is the freeholder of the property.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installation provided for sanitation including baths, toilets, flushing systems, and waste pipes. It states the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of her home and personal possessions against all risks.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs as urgent repairs with a 24-hour response time, and standard repairs which will be completed at the next available appointment that is convenient with the resident. It states where possible it would advise residents of any changes to their appointments at the earliest opportunity. It requires its contractors to behave appropriately whilst in a resident’s home, showing respect for both the resident and their belongings, and remove any rubbish, ensuring the area they have worked in is left clear and tidy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It states a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days. At both stages, if it requires extra time to provide a response, it will ask for an extension from the resident of no more than 10 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord had confirmed the resident contacted it on 14 January 2022 and reported issues of damp and mould. She explained her bath was still leaking, it had damaged the flooring, and caused damp and mould in the bedroom sharing a wall with the bathroom. She asked for it to be investigated. She stated several operatives had attended and she was unaware of what they advised or what needed to be done.
On 1 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that her current living arrangements were a fire hazard. She had to position her child’s bed away from the wall as it was damp and had to move her wardrobe against it due to a lack of space. She was concerned about the impact on her clothing and expressed dissatisfaction at the fact she had complained a year prior. She explained the landlord had provided her with a dehumidifier which had led to debt due to the high electricity bill. She told the landlord she was overcrowded; her child’s bedroom was in the living room which she said was unsafe and she wanted the matter sorted.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 11 February 2022 and found that the bath waste trap was leaking and the type of fitting in place was not required. The operative rectified the issue, fit a new bath trap, filled the tub, let it drain and identified that there were no more leaks or gushing water. They addressed the leak, but no damp and mould works were completed until a new job was raised on 3 March 2022 and a survey was conducted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022, forwarding her email of 1 March 2022. The landlord forwarded the message on internally, on the same day. The following day, she contacted the landlord and told it that the damp and mould issues had been ongoing for a longtime. It had affected hers and her child’s health, and she continued to notice issues surrounding it in her home.
The resident had raised a previous complaint to the landlord, but it is unclear when this was. It provided her with a stage 1 response on 21 March 2022. It apologised to the resident numerous times throughout the response including for the provision of a substandard service. It:
1. Explained she had raised a request for repair on 15 November 2021, there was a missed appointment, and attempts had been made to contact her to rearrange but these were unsuccessful, and the job was then cancelled.
2. Acknowledged it could have done more in its attempts to contact her and thanked her for confirming the leak had been fixed but the remedial works remained outstanding. It had been advised by its contractor that it needed to complete a damp survey of her property as it would enable its specialist team to investigate the cause of the damp and create an action plan to complete the repairs.
3. Provided confirmation of their discussion and the plan of action to resolve her complaint. It committed to complete the outstanding repairs by the 10 June 2022 and provided her with a point of contact and their contact details.
4. Offered £275 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble she went through to pursue the matter, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered an additional £40 for the missed appointments in line with its compensation policy, taking the total to £315.
5. Stated because of her complaint further training had been carried out on record keeping and its staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. It said it had also spoken to its contractors about the missed appointments, closing repairs, and reinforced the service levels it expected from them and the obligation they had to provide a good service to its residents. It also provided her with a liability claim form, for the damage to her personal belongings.
The resident responded the following day refusing the landlord’s compensation offer and told it, it had not addressed all her complaint points. She provided further clarity on 5 April 2022 and gave several reasons including electrical costs around a dehumidifier provided by the landlord, pests, and missed appointments. She said its contractors caused the initial issue as works were not completed properly, which led to damage to her home. There was water coming through her flooring tiles and she had to keep soaking it up. She also stated it left the mould to get worse after her initial report and she had not been provided with advice on tackling it until it was too late. She told the landlord she had to move out of her bedroom and live in the open plan kitchen and living room as it failed to tackle the root cause of the matter. She told it that she felt depressed in her home as she could not live normally in it as she was overcrowded.
The landlord told the resident on 14 April 2022 that she had asked it to investigate additional concerns which were not included in her original complaint. It said it would arrange for the compensation to be reviewed and this would be done as part of the stage 1 process.
The following day the resident raised issues with the landlord’s recording of complaints. She explained there had been multiple occasions where she had raised complaints, and the full details were not noted. She gave the example of November 2021 where she reported both a repair and a complaint together but when she queried the complaint, she was informed there was no complaint. The resident said this upset her and she asked it to listen back to the call record. She advised she was still affected by the situation, and it had been months since she raised the issue. She told the landlord it was affecting her child’s mental health and reiterated her living situation. She expressed dissatisfaction about paying rent for a 2-bedroom property when she was not able to use all the bedrooms. She said she was dissatisfied that she had to live in the property with water coming through the tiles for 2 weeks as it was unsafe, and the situation was the fault of its contractors. She provided details of a list of errors and history of poor work by its contractors dating back to 2017, which she expressed led to the mould problems and that the compensation offer was not acceptable.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 12 May 2022. It explained her complaint and the resolutions she sought. It advised that it had looked at its records and the correspondence between her and its contractor. It:
1. Stated the leak was resolved on 11 February 2022 and a survey was then booked for 20 April 2022 to identify any subsequent works required. It explained it was waiting for an update from the survey and apologised as the works had taken an unacceptable amount of time. It said the work would now be prioritised and completed quicker.
2. Explained it had spoken to the contact centre about the call she made to raise her complaint. It told her it could not listen to the call as it became unavailable after 90 days. It apologised and said it had fed back to the relevant team to ensure full details were recorded initially and to ensure it had a sound understanding of residents’ complaints.
3. Offered the resident an apology for the sub-standard service she had received and offered £50 for the length of time it had taken to resolve her complaint. It offered a further £100 for the inconvenience it caused her. It said it had looked at the compensation offered to her in another complaint and added its current offer as a top up to that for the extra failings and time it had taken to resolve the complaint.
4. Committed to complete the repairs for the damp and mould by 1 July 2022 and said further staff training had been completed on record-keeping. It said its staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. It said it had spoken to its contractor about the missed appointments and had reinforced the service levels it expected of them. It provided her a point of contact who was appointed to ensure the works were completed to a good standard and within the timeframe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2022 and refused its compensation offer as she felt it was unacceptable and unfair that she should bear the costs of the dehumidifier whilst it was in her home. She also identified it had not mentioned the dehumidifier again in its response. She expressed dissatisfaction around the landlord’s communication as she could not reach her specified point of contact, had no information about the works and nobody was able to provide her with any. She raised issues around damage to the flooring in her bathroom due to the leak and that no risk assessment had been completed to allow the contractors to know what needed to be done. She also reiterated the issues she had previously raised and asked why the landlord only wanted to work on the bedroom when she was told during an inspection that there were issues with the bathroom and bedroom. She stated she was told that underneath the bath and the bedroom wall needed replacing. She also advised she was made to assist the landlord’s contractor in completing some works while pregnant by holding a sponge to the airhole of the bath while he plunged it.
The landlord explained to the Ombudsman that following its damp and mould survey of 3 March 2022, it completed the recommended works on 13 June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2022 and raised a complaint about the overall job. She said it had told her all works to the bathroom would be completed by “1 July 2022” and this was not done as there was still mould under the bath and the bath wall which was shared with the bedroom. She raised issues with the quality of workmanship, said a hole was left which had mould coming from it, and said she could see mould in the tile lines. She then raised issues with the works completed in the bedroom as she said the mould had breached the bathroom wall and reached the bedroom wall. She advised only a small hole was cut and replastered in the bedroom. She raised health concerns and said she believed the mould would return. She said when the wall was plastered it took days for it to dry and this meant the wall was still wet when it originally booked her appointment and she had to rebook it for a later date. She reiterated her dissatisfaction that the bathroom had not been addressed as it was the root cause of the problem, and that it had not mentioned anything about damp proof paint being used.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident to meet and discuss the issues with her property so they could create an action plan for the repairs. They asked her to provide her availability and followed up on 18 August 2022 after not receiving a response.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord raised works for the resident’s property and asked that she was contacted within 48 hours. On 9 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor tried to arrange for decorating works to her property. It provided a date of 13 September 2022 to assess the works and asked her to confirm if this was acceptable.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord sent an internal email detailing a conversation that took place with the resident on 27 September 2022. It said that she interrupted and said she was expecting another call from its complaints team. She stated she was extremely busy and could not make any appointments and expressed she felt she was being harassed by the landlord to make an appointment to complete works that would not address the problem. She ended the call and it tried to call back and left a voicemail in case she unintentionally ended the call. It said that she appeared frustrated, annoyed, and angry. It advised that it had attended to make the necessary repairs to the waste pipes, stopping the leaks.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 29 September 2022. It apologised for the month delay in responding, explained what it believed her complaint was about and her reasons for dissatisfaction. It advised it had looked at the job repairs history on its system and spoken to relevant operatives and:
1. Reiterated its findings and actions from its response of 21 March 2022 about her reports on 15 November 2021. It provided further information and explained the works were also delayed due to no access and illness from its operative, and it apologised. It had tried to contact her on 3 separate occasions but was unsuccessful, so the job was closed on 21 December 2021. It explained it had completed a temporary job on 9 December 2021, but after receiving information that the matter had worsened, another job was raised on 22 December 2021 and completed on 23 December 2021. Following this, the operative who attended reported there was no leak when they left.
2. Following another report of leaks on 14 January 2022, after a couple of unsuccessful attempts at contacting her, it fixed an appointment for 11 February 2022. When it attended it found there was no leak from the bath.
3. A damp specialist visit was also arranged, and it recommended that the bathroom floor and party wall needed to be dried. The resident however refused its offer to install a dehumidifier due to the expense she would incur, and it was suggested natural air flow was used instead. The original appointment was made for 18 May 2022 but then changed to 24 May 2022 upon her request.
4. Its operative then attended and follow-on works were scheduled for 13 June 2022, during which decorative works were done and it was believed all works were successfully completed. She then raised an escalation on 1 July 2022, which stated that the issue had recurred.
5. It made several attempts to book an appointment, and a supervisor then visited on 30 August 2022.They observed that there was still mould on the back walls and under the bath and the repair works completed were not to an acceptable standard.
6. It concluded the quality of work conducted did not meet the required standards and apologised for her experience. It said it had been trying to contact her for remedial/decorative works and to complete the action plan suggested by its operative but had been unsuccessful. It stated it had attended and completed a poor job in the past which resulted in issues being prolonged, but it needed to reattend to be able to resolve the issues.
7. Its contractors had been trying to contact her approximately twice a week and had been leaving voicemails to schedule an appointment but were not successful. A text had also been sent to her on 9 September 2022. It said it appreciated the inconvenience of operatives coming over to check the issues repeatedly, especially as she had a family and again apologised for the poor experience.
8. It told her it had spoken to its colleagues in its complaints team and that its contractors would be contacting her by the end of the week to book an inspection. Following that, works should commence 7 days after the inspection and their aim was to complete all works by the end of October 2022. It apologised for the delays in completing all the works.
9. It explained its previous compensation offer of £150. It then offered her £250 compensation for the delays in escalating her complaint to stage 2 and sending the outcome, quality of work throughout and delays in completing the works. It asked that she send it pictures of the wall in her bedroom to show the damp/mould as she had said she could not use the room. This would allow it to ascertain if the correct amount of compensation had been provided. It also explained that it would deduct any money owed to it from any payments it made in line with its compensation policy.
10. It had spoken with its contractor and reinforced the service levels that it expected from them and the obligation they have to provide a good service to its residents.

Post complaint

Between 30 September 2022 and 29 November 2022, the landlord discussed and arranged the works to the resident’s property with its contractor. The resident informed the landlord that the proposed date of 19 December 2022 was not convenient for her, and she wanted the works completed after Christmas.
Between 19 January 2023 and 24 January 2023, the landlord left the resident 3 voicemails asking her to contact it to arrange the works. It also sent her a text message asking her to contact it.
Between January 2023 and June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord 8 times before receiving a response. She emailed it in January refusing its compensation offer and raising a complaint about further damage to her property and mould in her hallway. It is unclear to the Ombudsman which compensation offer she was refusing. She also raised issues around the landlord’s operatives damaging her flooring tiles in the bathroom in front of her cracked toilet, and its failure to treat an appointment as an emergency. She contacted it again in February 2023 for a response, queried why the complaint was closed and reiterated she was refusing its offer of compensation. She tried to raise another complaint about its communication and said she had made many attempts to contact the landlord and received no information. She sent a further email in March 2023, and raised a complaint about its communication in April 2023 stating it was unprofessional. She received a response on 12 April 2023, where the landlord looked to discuss the matter and her compensation refusal. She responded on 15 May 2023 expressing dissatisfaction about its communication.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 9 February 2023 that the works to the resident’s property were completed on the same day. It acknowledged that works were protracted and that this was caused by a series of misdiagnosis, but further delays were due to resident not wanting work completed in term time, or before Christmas 2022.
Between June 2023 and August 2023, the landlord arranged for the outstanding works to the resident’s property to be completed. It considered potential repair options for the walls and flooring and logged the works to her toilet and mould in the hallway. It told her in July 2023 it had instructed its contractors to book the required boxing in, as she did not want the entire bathroom ripped out to cause her inconvenience. The landlord’s notes state the boxing in was completed on 22 August 2023 and the resident advised she would tile the property herself.
Following an information request by the Ombudsman on 16 November 2023, the landlord confirmed:
1. Bathroom repairs regarding the leak were completed 14 February 2023.
2. Damp and Mould works for the bathroom and bedroom were completed 22 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident raised concerns about the effects of the situation on hers and her child’s health. Whilst this would have been distressing for the resident and her family, the Ombudsman is also unable to consider the effects of the landlord’s actions or inactions on a resident or their family’s health. Such issues are subject to a claim under personal injury, and such matters are better dealt with by the courts. The resident might wish to seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman can however consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident also raised issues around repairs to her toilet and a pipe within the bathroom after the landlord provided its stage 2 response. These issues did not form part of the original complaint addressed by the landlord in its responses, and there is no evidence that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these matters as part of this investigation.
The resident has also raised a further complaint after the landlord’s stage 2 response about its communication with her following her complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that this matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to make a determination on this matter.

Repairs to the resident’s property, including damp and mould.

The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its completion of the works. It explained to this service that it completed substantive works on 9 February 2023, but works to address supplementary defects were identified and completed in Augst 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges that sometimes issues around leaks and damp and mould can be complex and may result in multiple visits to identify the underlying cause. However, in this case the matter remained unresolved for substantial periods, with the landlord recognising there had been misdiagnosis of issues contributing to the delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. It also would have meant that the resident was living in a property she considered to be affecting her family’s health for longer than was necessary. The landlord’s failure in this regard caused the resident unnecessary frustration and distress.
The landlord also said that some delays were due to the resident not wanting works completed during term time and then before Christmas 2022. This made it difficult for it to schedule its subcontractors, who were in high demand. The resident’s request can be seen as a mitigating circumstance as the landlord tried to be customer focused by trying to accommodate her request. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have provided the resident with the consequences of her request. It should have identified how the request would impact on its service provision to her, how this would contribute to the delays in completing the works and if it was able to comply with her request. There is no evidence that the landlord did any of these things, and doing so would have given her an opportunity to consider her options around the approach she could take to ensure the repairs were completed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unreasonable as the resident was not fully informed. Despite this, it is however unclear how much of the overall delays were attributable to the resident’s request. Finally, it is also unclear if the resident’s request for the works to be completed during term time was for the entire year or a specific period.
The resident was often left chasing the landlord for information. When she was able to speak to the landlord, she explained she was provided with no information by it, on what was happening. Although she was provided with a specific point of contact, she explained to the landlord, she was often unable to reach them. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s contractor made reasonable and numerous efforts to contact and arrange appointments with the resident, but this was not always successful. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the nature and extent of the repairs required and the reported impact by the resident on her and her family, the landlord could have taken further measures to contact her. It could have physically attended the property or emailed her to satisfy itself it had made every attempt to contact her and ensure the works were completed in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, from the evidence, its attempts to contact her were made 2 months after it stated it would complete the required works. The fact she had to chase for information raises questions about the effectiveness of the landlord’s communications and its focus on the matters raised by the resident.
The resident highlighted that the situation had impacted on her child’s mental health, the landlord provided no evidence that it considered any action it needed to take, or that it signposted her to relevant services for assistance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been proactive around this issue.

Leak in the bathroom.

The landlord told the resident in its first stage 1 response it would have remedial works following the job for the leak completed by 10 June 2022. No evidence was provided to this service that the required works took place or that they were completed by the given date. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations that the works would be completed, and then failed to meet those expectations. This would have been frustrating and distressing for the resident.
The resident initially reported a leak in her bathroom in November 2021. The landlord then completed a temporary repair on 9 December 2021 and another repair on 23 December 2021. There were delays in the repairs due to rearranged appointments and access issues. The resident raised issues again in January 2022 about a leak, but its stage 2 response states no leak was found when it attended on 11 February 2022. The landlord reported delays in arranging the appointment due to access issues. The report within the stage 2 response however contradicts the evidence provided following the Ombudsman’s request for further evidence in November 2023. In the evidence provided in November 2023, the landlord’s report states that it found the waste trap leaking in February 2022. It also states that it found the fitting which was in place was not needed there. It then completed works, tested the tub, and identified there were no further leaks or gushing water and the job was marked complete. The discrepancy between the statement in the landlord’s stage 2 response, and its evidence to this service raises questions around its record keeping and investigation.
The landlord then confirmed following the resident’s escalation and notification that the issue had reoccurred on 1 July 2022. In its internal correspondence on 28 September 2022, it stated it attended the resident’s property to make necessary repairs to the wastepipe to stop the leak. It is unclear if this was a new repair following her report in July 2022 or its previous attendance in February 2022. This again raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
From the landlord’s evidence, works were not completed to address the leak until 14 February 2023. This meant that between July 2022 and February 2023 the works remained outstanding for a period of over 7 months. Overall, the issues surrounding the leak remained outstanding for over a year before a permanent and appropriate solution was reportedly provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord did attend and believed the issue had been resolved earlier in February 2022, the fact that after it re-emerged, it took a prolonged time to be rectified caused the resident frustration and distress.
From the evidence provided, it appears despite the works completed by the landlord initially the leak reoccurred. This led to further damage to the resident’s home and property. Following the history of repairs at the property, and the resident’s reports of difficulties with the contractor’s standard of work, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that post work inspections were completed. This would have provided reassurance to the resident and ensured that any subsequent or outstanding issues were fully addressed. Its failure to do so led to frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
Following the resident’s confirmation that the leaks were resolved in February 2022, there was a 2-month delay in the landlord arranging a survey to identify subsequent works. No explanation was provided about why there was a delay, and no evidence was provided that an explanation was provided to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory.

Damp and mould.

Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS and as such the landlord should have been aware of its obligation. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring would be expected.
The resident reported health and safety issues with her living conditions. She also reported an impact on her health. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to complete an inspection at a much earlier point, and/or a risk assessment to allow it to make an informed decision. This would have allowed it to consider the risk to the household and identify any immediate action required to reduce any identified risks. This would include things such as a mould wash or considerations around the habitability of the property for the household and if a decant was required. No evidence was provided that this was completed, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable.
From the time the resident raised the issues with the damp and mould it took the landlord 48 days to arrange for an inspection of her property. The landlord provided no reasons for the delay in arranging the inspection.
The Ombudsman published the Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 which stated that landlord should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in its properties.
The further damage to her property and the issues with mould saw her sleeping in her living room with her child, as she believed her bedroom was unusable. The landlord has not provided any evidence that following its survey, it offered the resident any advice in a timely manner, or reassurance on if the bedroom was safe to use, based on its expert’s advice. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable, caused her distress and she described the situation had a negative impact on her other child.
Following the survey, it then took the landlord over 3 months to act on the recommendations of the survey. There is no evidence the reason for the delay in employing the recommendations was explained to the resident, or that she was ever made aware of them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. This caused the resident frustration and contributed in the break down in the relationship with the resident, as she felt she was not listened to due to its lack of action.
From the evidence provided, the resident was not given advice on how to treat the mould. Although the landlord’s damp and mould policy was a draft, it would have been best practice for it to have followed its recommendations especially considering it was looking to enact them as a policy.
The landlord told the resident that it would complete the required works by 1 July 2022. The landlord confirmed that the works were not completed until 22 August 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. Although it is acknowledged that some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, there were some avoidable delays and missed opportunities to complete the works sooner. Its failure to do so led to a breakdown in its relationship with the resident and caused her frustration.
From the point the resident informed the landlord about the issues with damp and mould, and it completing the necessary works to address the issue, there was a delay of over 19 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. The resident was left living in a property, which she had explained to the landlord that she believed was harming her family’s health for longer than was necessary.
When the landlord tried to complete works in the resident’s property it originally did not complete all the necessary identified works. It failed to appropriately address the mould underneath the bath and the mould which had penetrated the wall shared by the bathroom and bedroom. Issues were also raised around the works it completed within the bedroom and it found that the works had been completed to a poor standard. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unacceptable. This led to the works remaining outstanding for longer than was necessary.
The landlord stated it completed a survey of the resident’s property, but this has not been provided to the Ombudsman. It is unknown what the recommendations of the survey were, however, what is agreed by both the resident and landlord, is that works were recommended to the bathroom and bedroom. The landlord failed to explain why it originally only planned to complete works to the bedroom, to the resident or this service, and that is unreasonable. This again raises questions with the landlord’s communication.
The landlord provided the resident with an insurance claim form after being informed of damage to her belongings. In the circumstances, this was an appropriate and customer focused approach.
The landlord acknowledged in its responses that it failed to complete the works in a reasonable timeframe or to a reasonable standard and offered the resident compensation totalling £465 across its 3 responses. This is excluding its £250 offer for its complaint handling failing it identified. It also explained the learning it took from the resident’s complaint, and that it reiterated the standard’s it expected to its contractors. From the learning, it explained that it provided training to its staff. Whilst these are positive and appropriate actions, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough to address the level of inconvenience, frustration, and delays caused to the resident by the landlord and its contractor’s actions and inactions.
There is also no evidence that the landlord took steps to consider the reported loss of use of her bedroom and the effect this had on her family. It is not possible for this service to determine whether the bedroom was completely or partially unusable for the period and so a compensation amount based on approximately 20% of the loss of use of a room has been made for the period. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £1688 in relation to the loss of the use of the bedroom. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her and her family by not being able to make full use of the bedroom and is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.
In summary, there were issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident as she was not kept fully informed. Repairs remained outstanding for unreasonable amounts of time and were not completed to good standard. No risk assessments were completed, or consideration appeared to have been given on the impact of the issues on the resident’s family’s health. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to escalate her complaint and respond at stage 2 within a reasonable time. It was also appropriate that it identified some of its failings and provided the resident with an apology for them.
It was also right that when the landlord identified the resident raised new issues, following its stage 1 response, it decided to deal with them as a new complaint. This is in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The resident explained that she had raised a complaint when she originally discussed her concerns around the leak in November 2021. The landlord failed to appropriately record this as a complaint, and this led to a delay in the complaint handling process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory and was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier point. This also caused the resident frustration and contributed to her feelings of not being listened to by the landlord.
The resident raised issues about her living conditions being a fire hazard, overcrowding and the effects of the situation on her family’s health. She also raised an issue around having to bear the costs of a dehumidifier on multiple occasions with it. The landlord failed to address these issues within any of its complaint responses. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable and caused the resident frustration and distress, especially around the dehumidifier as she raised the issue and asked it to address this multiple times.
The resident further explained to the landlord that she had raised complaints with it and some of the issues she discussed were not properly recorded. This led to issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and caused the resident frustration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable.
Following the landlord’s first response on 21 March 2022, the resident raised dissatisfaction the following day and provided further information. This led to the landlord providing a new stage 1 response, however, following her expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint was delayed by 13 working days. This led to an unnecessary delay in the complaint handling and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was unreasonable. However, there is no evidence this led to a significant detriment to the resident.
After informing the resident it would be considering her complaint at stage 1 in April 2022, it then provided its stage 1 response 8 working days late. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable, however, there is no evidence this led to significant detriment to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord in May and June 2022 prior to its stage 2 response and expressed dissatisfaction. It said in its response that there had been a 1 month delay in its response. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have considered whether the resident’s continued expressions of dissatisfaction were attempts to escalate her complaint. This led to a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and unnecessary delay in the complaint handling process.
Between the resident’s email on 23 May 2022 and its stage 2 response, the landlord’s response was delayed by 70 working days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unacceptable. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was a complaint handling failing and offered the resident compensation in an attempt to correct the situation. However, in this Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough to address the level of delays and distress caused to the resident. An order has been made for further compensation to be paid to the resident.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (Including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp, and mould. As a result of these, a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202122336. As a result, we have not made any orders or recommendation as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property, including damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It also failed to show that it considered the health and safety concerns raised by the resident. There were also issues with its communication, as it failed to provide the resident with explanations around delays or how her requests impacted on its service delivery.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to consider all the issues raised by the resident, including issues she repeatedly asked it to consider. It failed to recognise and consider some of the resident’s emails as escalation requests and this ultimately led to unnecessary delays in the complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified across its handling of repairs and damp and mould and its complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £2603 made up of:
  1. £715 compensation previously offered across its responses if it has not already been paid to the resident.
  2. £1688 for the loss of use of her bedroom for the period of 14 January 2022 to August 2023.
  3. Pay the resident £200 for its complaint handling failings.
3. If any works remain outstanding, provide the resident with a schedule of works and proposed dates for completion. A copy should also be provided to this service.
4. Identify the length of time the resident had the dehumidifier in her property and provide a refund for any reasonable additional electrical costs for the use of the dehumidifier.
5. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding complaints with a view of providing a resolution.