Aster Group Limited (202312581)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312581

Aster Group Limited

20 December 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of damp and other repairs in the property.
2. repair to a blocked toilet in May 2022.
3. administration of appointments.
4. response to the resident’s request for compensation.
5. response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant who lives at the property with her 13 year old daughter. Her tenancy began in March 2013. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). She also suffers from mental health issues.
The landlord’s records reflect that on 19 December 2022 the resident contacted it and reported a number of repair issues. These included drainage issues with the downstairs toilet and shower, gaps around windows, mould in bedrooms, and damage to the living room floor caused by damp. She said the house was damp and difficult to heat.
The landlord told the resident it had booked a surveyor to inspect the reported repair issues and property condition on 19 January 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 18 January 2023 that a contractor disturbed her by banging on her window. She explained she was unhappy that it had removed ivy from the front of her property, that it had left the removed ivy lying on the ground, and that it had damaged render. She complained that the landlord had not made her aware of the work in advance and that as she worked from home, it had interrupted her working day.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of communication regarding the contractor’s visit. It explained it was carrying out planned external decoration works in the street which involved washing down windows and doors, decorating fascias and removing overgrown ivy. It said it would inspect the contractor’s work when it carried out the property condition survey.
The survey was due to take place on 19 January 2023. However, due to illness on both the resident and landlord’s part, the appointment was rearranged a number of times. It took place on 28 February 2023. During the survey, the landlord identified a number of repair issues which it said it would attend to:
1. there was damp on external walls due to raised ground levels and damaged external render.
2. the window reveals were in poor condition.
3. the toilet and drains in the downstairs shower room kept blocking so would need a camera survey.
4. a number of other minor repairs:
  1. renewal of an internal doorframe.
  2. renewal of 2 electric light fittings.
  3. fitting of latex screed and vinyl in the living room.
  4. installation of a new fan in the bathroom and overhaul of the kitchen fan.
  5. removal of an asbestos hopper and downpipe at the rear of the property.
During a phone call with the landlord on 9 March 2023, the resident asked to make a formal complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that she said the complaint was about “failures in repairs over the years” and tradespeople attending her home.” The landlord also recorded that the resident asked during the call for compensation “as she has been unable to use various rooms in her home due to damp.”
During a further conversation prior to the stage 1 response being issued, the resident asked the landlord to compensate her for loss of earnings. She said this was because operatives arrived unannounced while she was working. The resident also complained about the landlord’s response in May 2022 to a blocked toilet. She explained it did not repair the toilet until the day after she reported it. This meant that a disabled family member who was staying with her did not have access to toilet facilities overnight.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023. It said:
1. in line with its complaints policy, it had limited its review to repairs reported in the past 12 months.
2. it attended to a blocked downstairs toilet in May 2022 within 24 hours of the resident reporting the issue. This meant it adhered to its service standards for response times. It recognised the family member staying with the resident at that time was unable to use the upstairs bathroom facilities. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress this may have caused.
3. there was a note on the resident’s file that it must given prior notice before it visits her.
4. its contractor hand delivered letters in December 2022 to all residents who would be affected by the decoration works. However, it acknowledged that the resident said she did not receive this and was therefore distressed when the contractors arrived in January 2023 to start the work. It said the contractor should have knocked on the resident’s door before the work started and left if there was no answer.
5. it acknowledged that the resident said there were other occasions operatives had arrived without warning and that this caused issues with her planned workday. It offered her £250 for the service failure and for any distress and inconvenience caused.
6. it asked for a surveyor to inspect the damp and other repairs in the property in December 2022. The survey did not take place until 28 February 2023 due to staff sickness and a shortage of surveyors. This was a failing as it did not attend to the repair reports within its normal timescales. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay.
Within the stage 1 response, the landlord listed the repair jobs it had identified during its survey on 28 February 2023. It confirmed that a CCTV survey of the drains in the downstairs shower room had since taken place and that it would action any jobs identified by this.
The landlord said that to resolve the damp identified in the external walls, it needed to lower ground levels and repair render. It explained that it would take this and the replacement of stone window surrounds forward as planned work rather than a routine repair.
The landlord was unable to provide a date for any of the planned work. It said it would keep the resident updated once it had more information. It also said that a surveyor would attend the property on 21 April 2023 to ensure that it had identified all other repair jobs and booked in appointments “within a timely manner”.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that since the visit on 28 February 2023, its communication with the resident, and internally with raising jobs, was “poor”. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience any delays in resolving the repairs had caused. It also offered her £75 compensation for the delay in issuing its complaint response. This brought the total compensation offered in the stage 1 response to £775.
A surveyor attended the property on 21 April 2023 to inspect the outstanding works. He identified during this visit that the landlord should also carry out works to external paths and an access ramp. He was accompanied on the visit by an environmental health officer as the resident had complained to the local authority about the condition of her property.
Following this visit, the environmental health officer wrote to the landlord. She advised that the damp and mould in the living room was a category 1 hazard under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). She also advised that drainage to the downstairs shower room, and cracking to walls and ceilings, were category 2 hazards. She set out remedial action for the landlord to take.
Meanwhile, the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her stage 1 complaint and asked to escalate it. The exact date and details of the escalation request is not clear from the landlord’s records. But the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 24 April 2023.
Over the next 3 months the landlord was in regular contact with the resident by phone and email about her escalated complaint and the arrangements for the repair works. During this time the resident complained about the landlord’s communications with her. She said that she was receiving emails from her housing officer even though she had told the landlord she did not wish for that individual to contact her. She also raised concerns about 2 other officers involved in investigating her complaint, including that they were not responding to her promptly.
A number of the landlord’s officers and contractors attended the property during this 3 month period to carry out further inspections and works in relation to drainage, electrics and asbestos removal. The resident complained that the landlord and its contractors were continuing to make unannounced visits. She told the landlord that this had occurred a further 9 times. She explained to it that this was causing her stress and impacting her ability to work.
The landlord agreed with the resident that it would coordinate the outstanding works to minimise disruption. It said it could move her and her daughter into temporary accommodation during this time. The landlord discussed the detail of this during calls and emails with the resident in early July 2023. The resident complained that the options for temporary accommodation proposed by the landlord were not suitable due to her circumstances.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023. It addressed a number of the issues raised by the resident during the 3 month period between the stage 1 response and stage 2 response. These issues included the date when she reported the repairs, the stage 1 responder’s attempts to ring the resident, the response time to the May 2022 toilet blockage, the brightness of lights and the proposed vinyl flooring.
In response to her complaint about the unannounced visits, outstanding repair works, and communications, the landlord said:
1. although the resident advised there had been 9 further unannounced visits since the stage 1 response, she had only provided detail in relation to 4 of these. It had therefore only investigated these 4 visits and found that only 2 were unannounced. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for these.
2. it had discussed the outstanding repairs with the resident during its stage 2 investigation. It recognised that as it had carried out some work in-house while other jobs had been allocated to different contractors, this had caused the resident confusion. It therefore agreed to collate the works to minimise the number of visits and disruption to the resident.
3. further to discussion with the resident, it had booked the groundworks and drainage works to commence on 14 August 2023. The works would take 2 weeks.
4. it agreed to move the resident and her family into temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing as it was mindful of the impact the works might have on her wellbeing.
5. it had ordered the new windows for the property and they were in the process of being manufactured.
6. it would book the external window surrounds in for repair once it had fitted the new windows.
7. it had remained in contact with the resident throughout its stage 2 investigation by telephone, email and during a further home visit on 9 June 2023. The landlord sometimes received “several emails a day” from the resident and some phone calls “were up to 2 hours long”. The amount of contact was “above and beyond what [the landlord] would normally expect to have within the complaints process.”
8. it had made managers aware of her dissatisfaction with the 3 officers involved in her complaint and coordinating her repairs. However, the managers agreed the officers were the “right people in the business to work through these issues” with the resident.
9. it was sorry for the delayed complaint response. It was hoping to be able to provide the resident with a “clear way forward with the works” in its response. This was why it was delayed. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay.
10. the compensation of £775 offered in the stage 1 response, combined with the additional £200 offered in the stage 2 response, brought the total compensation offered to £975.
The landlord subsequently paid the £975 compensation to the resident. However, she remained unhappy with its complaint response. She therefore referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident told us that the compensation offered did not reflect that she had been “living in chaos for 9 months”. She explained that she had paid full rent during this time even though she “had no use of two rooms in the property since October [2022]”. She did not feel that the landlord had addressed the “core” of her complaint about the damp in the living room and operatives showing up “without appointments 10 times.” She said the landlord had also ignored her request to be allocated a different housing officer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident referred in her formal complaint, submitted in March 2023, to “failures in repairs over the years.” The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that in accordance with its complaints policy, it had limited its investigation to the resident’s reports of issues from March 2022 onwards.
This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which provides that it is reasonable for landlords to limit the scope of their complaint investigations to issues arising no more than 12 months previously. Our investigation is therefore focussed on the landlord’s response to the various concerns raised by the resident from March 2022 until the stage 2 response was issued in July 2023.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.
Following receipt of the stage 2 response in July 2023, the resident responded to the landlord. She outlined her frustration that over the years she had paid for replacement flooring in her property, along with other items damaged by damp and mould. She asked why it had never compensated her for loss of personal items. However, there is no evidence that she raised this issue within her March 2023 complaint. The landlord therefore did not address it within its complaint responses. Even if she had raised it when making her complaint, the landlord may not have accepted the complaint if she had incurred the expenses more than 12 months previously. We have therefore not included the landlord’s approach to compensation for loss of personal items within the scope of this investigation. We have however considered other compensation requests she made when submitting her complaint. These related to loss of use of rooms and loss of earnings. This is assessed in the compensation section below.

Handling of damp and other repairs in the property

The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is also required to keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity. The tenancy agreement confers additional repair responsibilities upon the landlord, including to some internal finishes such as skirting boards and doorframes, as well as to communal areas.
When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident told us she had complained to the landlord about damp and mould in her living room since 2014. She said that during inspections prior to March 2022, it told her that the damp had occurred as she had not properly ventilated the property. She said that it accepted no responsibility for resolving the issue and did not recognise it was due to inadequate damp proofing. She explained that this meant she cleaned the property and replaced damaged flooring and soft furnishings at her expense. We sympathise with the resident. However, for the reasons outlined above, we can only consider the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould from March 2022 onwards.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident contacted it on 19 December 2022. She reported that the drains in the downstairs shower room were regularly backing up, windows were in need of repair and there was damp in the living room. The only other record the landlord held of the resident raising any of these issues during 2022, was that she reported the toilet was blocked in May 2022.
The resident disputes this. When escalating her complaint, she told the landlord that she rang its contact centre in November 2022 to report the damp in the living room. The landlord said in its stage 2 response it holds no record of this. The resident told the Ombudsman that she also discussed the damp with her housing officer in October 2022. We have seen no other evidence in relation to this either.
We recognise that just because a landlord does not hold a record of a report, does not mean the report was not made. However, our findings must be based on the evidence that is available. We have received no documentary, or contemporaneous, evidence to show specifically what date in October or November 2022 a report was made and what was said. We are therefore unable to assess how the landlord should have responded to these reports. Our focus is therefore on its response following the resident’s contact on 19 December 2022.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that some repairs will require a pre-inspection, including where they involve, “mould, structural or very technical issues.” It was in keeping with its policy that when it received the resident’s report in December 2022, it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the damp and other repair concerns she raised.
The landlord told the resident that the surveyor would attend the property on 19 January 2023. It had already arranged to carry out a periodic home inspection on this date. It therefore proposed that the surveyor would attend at the same time so as to minimise disruption to the resident. This was a reasonable proposal. However, the survey was rescheduled due to illness on both the part of the resident and the landlord. It subsequently took place on 28 February 2023.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the delay in carrying out the survey was due to staff sickness as well as “a shortage of surveyors”. It apologised for this and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was a reasonable amount of compensation for a delayed appointment in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The stage 1 response set out the various repair issues identified by the surveyor. These included some significant works required to rectify ground levels, the damp proof course, render, and window reveals. Further investigations were needed to identify the cause of the downstairs drainage issues. There were also some minor works required to repair a door frame, light fittings and fans, and to remove a redundant asbestos hopper and downpipe outside.
The landlord appropriately recognised in the stage 1 response that it was required to carry out all these works in line with its repair obligations under section 11 of the 1985 Act and the tenancy agreement. It acknowledged that it had not yet attended to the works since the surveyor’s visit 2 months previously. It said its communication with the resident was poor, as was its own internal communications with raising jobs. It offered the resident £250 compensation. It stated that this was for the “inconvenience and distress” of its delay in attending to the repairs.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that £250 was a reasonable level of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure and our remedies guidance. We note however that this amount did not include compensation for loss of use of rooms or loss of earnings, even though the resident asked the landlord to consider awarding compensation for these factors. We have assessed this separately in the section below on compensation.
The Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. This is particularly the case where the complaint involves repair issues that can take time to resolve. In such instances, our guidance provides that the complaint response should provide an action plan for any actions or remedies to resolve the issues. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until it has completed all actions. We are satisfied that the landlord did that in this case.
The landlord explained in it stage 1 response which repairs it would attend to in the short term, and which were longer term planned works. It reasonably suggested that to ensure that it had picked up all jobs, a surveyor would attend the property on 21 April 2023.
The surveyor’s inspection subsequently took place on the planned date. By this stage, the resident had made a complaint to the local authority environmental health team about damp in the living room and structural concerns. The surveyor’s inspection on 21 April 2023 was therefore a joint visit with an environmental health officer.
Following this, the landlord co-operated with the environmental health investigation and kept it updated on its progress in completing the remedial works to resolve damp and mould, cracking and drainage. However, by the time of the stage 2 response on 14 July 2023, most of the work remained outstanding.
Having reviewed the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was largely due to the landlord attempting to coordinate the works so as to minimise disruption to the resident. It was in regular contact with her and by the time of the stage 2 response, was in a position to advise her of an agreed date for the works. In correspondence prior to the response being issued, and in the response itself, it offered her reasonable options for temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing.
The resident had expressed concerns to the landlord about moving into temporary accommodation. It therefore explained in the stage 2 response that it did not require her to move out while the work was ongoing. However, it said it gave her the option as it “was mindful of the impact [she] felt these works would have on [her] wellbeing.” It proposed solutions to her concerns. For example, the resident said she would not be able to look after her pets if she moved to a hotel. The landlord therefore sourced a dog friendly hotel and said it would cover the cost of taxis to and from her house so she could still visit and care for her other pets. It said it would give her an upfront payment of £500 to cover any additional costs she incurred, as she had indicated that paying for items and claiming back expenses was not financially viable for her. It also said it would consider any “reasonable alternative suggestion” of where she could stay.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in response to her complaint about its handling of repairs. It recognised its initial delay in inspecting the repairs and raising works orders. It offered the resident a reasonable amount of compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience this caused her. It then proceeded to make arrangements to carry out the works in a coordinated manner so as to minimise disruption to the resident. It stayed in regular contact with the resident and provided an update in its stage 2 response on the proposed schedule of works. It offered her reasonable options for temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing. It cooperated with the environmental health investigation. This resulted in the landlord completing all the works, with the exception of the window reveals, by mid-September 2023. By that date the landlord had ordered, but was awaiting delivery of, new windows for the property. It intended to repair the window reveals once it had installed the new windows.
The resident told the Ombudsman in December 2024 that the landlord had still not replaced the window reveals. She said it was due to carry out the work imminently. However, she was not satisfied with how it and its contractor had handled the repair up to that point. For example, she was unhappy there had been numerous appointments but the reveals were still not fitted, and that the fitting would require the newly installed windows to be removed. This falls outside the scope of this investigation as the events took place after the landlord issued it stage 2 response on 14 July 2023. If the resident wishes the landlord to investigate her concerns about the window reveals, or any other repair issue arising after 14 July 2023, she may raise a new complaint.

Repair to a blocked toilet in May 2022

When the resident complained to the landlord in March 2023, she raised concerns about the time it took to respond to her report of a blocked downstairs toilet. When originally reporting the blockage in May 2022, she contacted the landlord in the afternoon. She explained a disabled family member was staying overnight and was unable to use the upstairs toilet. The landlord sent a repair operative to investigate within 2 hours but he was unable to resolve the blockage. It was the following morning before another operative attended and unblocked the toilet.
When submitting evidence to the Ombudsman, the resident told us of the distress the landlord’s response time caused both her and the family member. The resident advised us that she got no sleep as she was concerned about her relative. She also made phone calls during the night to the landlord’s emergency repairs number to seek updates. She said the landlord did not adequately recognise the impact this had on her in its complaint responses.
The landlord’s repairs procedure requires it to attend to a blocked toilet as a ‘critical emergency’ within 4 hours if there is no secondary toilet in the property. In this case the resident had a second toilet upstairs in the property which she was able to access. Although her guest could not access the upstairs toilet, she was not a tenant. This meant that in line with the repairs procedure, there was no requirement for the landlord to attend within 4 hours. It was an ‘emergency repair’ repair requiring a response within 24 hours, rather than a ‘critical emergency repair’ according to its repair procedure.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that although it had completed the repair within a 24 hour timeframe, it recognised the distress its response time caused the resident and her family member. It acknowledged that the resident called its contact centre several times to find out what was happening. It offered the resident £100 compensation for any distress caused.
There was no obligation on the landlord to respond to the report as a ‘critical emergency’, however, it reasonably attempted to do so by providing an initial response within 2 hours. Although the repair could not be completed during that first attendance, it was resolved within 24 hours. It is noted that inconvenience was caused to the resident and her guest in the interim. This was appropriately acknowledged by the landlord and proportionate action was taken in its complaint response to put things right. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord offered reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Administration of appointments

The tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow the landlord or its contractors access to the property to inspect or carry out work. This is providing the landlord has given 24 hours’ notice. In an emergency, the landlord can enter the property without permission.
Disruption for residents due to repairs is an inevitable part of any tenancy. However, the landlord should seek to minimise that disruption where possible. Its repairs policy states that “appointments should and will be offered for all repairs, wherever possible.”
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 to report that contractors had attended her property to carry out external decoration work without her prior knowledge. The landlord advised her that letters had been hand delivered to all residents in December 2022 about the planned works. The resident said she had not received a letter. The landlord therefore appropriately apologised for the upset caused to the resident by the unannounced visit.
The landlord apologised again for the unannounced visit in the stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the contractor should have knocked on the resident’s door prior to starting the work and if she did not answer, it should have left and returned a different day. The landlord appropriately spoke to the contractor about this. It also inspected the work the contractor had carried out and oversaw that the remaining external decorative work was completed to an acceptable standard.
The resident said when making her complaint, that there had been other unannounced visits from the landlord’s staff and contractors. She did not provide specific details of these visits. The landlord therefore only examined the external decorator’s attendance at the property during its stage 1 complaint investigation as this was the only incident it was aware of. However, it acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident said there had been other occasions there had been unannounced visits. In accordance with its compensation procedure, it offered her £250 compensation for any distress and inconvenience she suffered.
While the resident had not evidenced that there had been more unannounced attendances, the landlord agreed to offer compensation for any inconvenience she had been caused. The landlord appropriately exercised its discretion and we are satisfied that the compensation offered was proportionate to the inconvenience the resident had reported.
Prior to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, the resident told it that there had been a further 9 unannounced visits to her property. She provided the landlord with the specific details of 4 of these visits. It was reasonable that the landlord therefore limited its investigation of this aspect of her complaint to the 4 visits it had details for. It found that 2 visits by an asbestos surveyor were unannounced and offered the resident £50 for each of these. This was a reasonable amount of compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure and our remedies guidance.
The landlord investigated at stage 2 why the unannounced visits by the asbestos surveyor occurred. This was because it had an alert on its system that there should be no cold calls to the resident. It found that the alert had not been pulled through its system correctly. It raised this with its IT team in order that the glitch could be investigated. The asbestos manager also contacted the resident to apologise. The landlord’s handling of this matter was appropriate. It was also good complaint handling practice. In line with our dispute resolution principles, it demonstrated that the landlord was learning from complaint outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been several appointments at the property as the required works were being carried out by various in-house operatives and by contractors. It said that this was “causing confusion” for the resident. As a result, it agreed to “collate all the works so that [it] could minimise the visits and disruption.”
From our review of the evidence, we are satisfied that it fulfilled this commitment. It attempted to coordinate the works prior to the stage 2 response being issued and continued to do so after. It rescheduled dates to accommodate the resident’s availability. It also offered her temporary accommodation so that she did not have to stay in the property while the most disruptive works were ongoing. This resulted in all the works, with the exception of the new windows and reveals, being completed by mid-September 2023.
Following the stage 2 response, the resident contacted the landlord and said it had not fully addressed her concerns about unannounced visits. In response it said that it had investigated the incidents she had provided details of. It committed to look into any further incidents if the resident provided information about these. This was reasonable. If the resident continues to experience any unannounced appointments, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about its administration of appointments. It investigated specific visits where details were provided by the resident, acknowledged where these were unannounced, apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused. It raised any identified communication failings with its contractors. It took steps to ensure any technical issues in its IT system were addressed. It said it would coordinate the works to minimise disruption and it followed through on this commitment. This was a reasonable response to her complaint.

Response to the resident’s request for compensation

The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out the various types of financial redress it may consider offering to residents. This includes:
1. compensation where a resident is unable to use part of their home because of something the landlord has, or has not, done in breach of its statutory obligations.
2. discretionary compensation where there has been a complaint investigation and the landlord accepts there was service failure. Payments may be paid for damage, loss, distress and inconvenience, and loss of earnings.
As outlined in the assessment sections above, the landlord accepted in its complaint responses that there were some failings in its handling of repairs in the property and administration of appointments. By the time it issued the stage 2 response, it had offered the resident a total of £975 compensation. The compensation was stated to be for:
1. delays in attending to repairs outside its target response times.
2. any distress and inconvenience caused by those delays.
3. any distress and inconvenience caused by unannounced visits.
4. delays in issuing the complaint responses.
As outlined above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation offered was reasonable for the delays and likely distress and inconvenience caused. However, the resident had asked specifically to be compensated for the loss of use of rooms and loss earnings.
The landlord referred to these requests in the opening section of its stage 1 response. It did not make any further reference to them in the remainder of its response. It did not explain whether, given the failings it had identified, it had considered paying compensation for loss of use of rooms or earnings. It similarly did not respond to these requests in its stage 2 response. This was a failing as it meant the landlord did not fully respond to all aspects of the complaint as required by the Code. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration. This is due to the time and trouble she spent in pursuing this aspect of her complaint.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme enables us to investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure where there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure. Therefore, although the landlord did not address the resident’s compensation requests in its complaint responses, it is within our remit to consider these as they were raised by the resident when making her complaint.
We are aware that in September 2023, 2 months after the landlord issued the stage 2 response, it responded to the resident’s request for compensation for loss of use of the living room. It said it could not agree the room was unhabitable. This was because “the affected area was isolated to a small corner of the room, and did not have an impact on the rest of the room being used.” The resident referred this decision to a Designated Complaints Panel (DCP) which was comprised of the landlord’s tenants and leaseholders. It upheld the landlord’s decision not to award additional compensation for room loss.
Having reviewed the resident’s whole complaint and her account of the impact the delays in resolving the damp and drainage issues had on her, the Ombudsman does not agree with this decision. We do not seek to dispute the landlord’s conclusion that the room had not been rendered uninhabitable. However, there was loss of enjoyment of the property as a whole given the outstanding repairs. The landlord has failed to acknowledge this. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a rent-based offer of compensation. That it did not do so during its internal complaints process was a missed opportunity to provide redress.
The resident explained the floor in the living room was damp when she reported the various repairs issues in December 2022. The flooring was subsequently removed. She advised the landlord in February 2023 that she would hold off on relaying it until the damp was resolved. The landlord replied to her and indicated that was a good idea. While options for temporary vinyl flooring were explored, we understand that the landlord and resident both agreed not to proceed with laying this. Therefore, there was a subfloor in the room only until the works were completed in September 2023.
The resident told the landlord a number of times in her communications during 2023 that she was not using the living room due to the damp. She asked it for a dehumidifier in April 2023 as she was concerned about the impact the damp would have on any belongings stored in the room. However, it did not provide a dehumidifier. She moved some of her possessions and furniture into other rooms in the house to protect them from the damp. She explained this caused disruption throughout the house.
Although the landlord held the view that the living room could still be used, the resident had told it multiple times over a 9 month period that she was not using the room. There is no evidence that the landlord enquired why the resident felt it was unusable, or provided her with assurance that it could still be used albeit for the area that had been directly affected by damp.
In making its decision in September 2023, the landlord’s position appears to have been based on its conclusion that the room could still have been used. However, its compensation procedure specifically states, “the judgement is not whether the room is being used; it is whether we consider it reasonable to expect the room to be used for its full intended purpose.” The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance also refers to a rent based compensation award being appropriate where there is loss of enjoyment of a room.
In this case, there was a concrete subfloor in the room that was damp in places, and damp in the bay window that was significant enough for environmental health to designate it a category 1 hazard. It can be reasonably concluded that the resident was not able to fully enjoy use of the room given its condition, which was significant enough to require flooring to be removed.
The landlord similarly did not address at any stage the resident’s reports that she was not able to use the downstairs shower room until the drainage issues were resolved.
The Ombudsman therefore orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £1,654 for her loss of enjoyment of the living room and downstairs shower room. This is a rent based calculation using the formula set out in the landlord’s compensation procedure as follows:
1. number of rooms affected = 2
2. divided by number of rooms in the property = 7 (kitchen, living room, 3 bedrooms, a bathroom and a shower room)
3. multiplied by the rent paid during the period in question. We have taken the period to be from the resident’s report on 19 December 2022 to 12 September 2023. This is the date the landlord advised environmental health the works were complete. The total rent paid during this 38 week period was £5,789. This is based on a weekly rent of £146.15 for the first 15 weeks and £156.38 for the remaining 23 weeks.
The Ombudsman would not usually propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Our remedies guidance states, “whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments.”
However, in this case the landlord’s compensation procedure specifically states that it may consider paying discretionary compensation for loss of earnings. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether such a discretionary payment would have been appropriate. The resident does not appear to have provided the landlord with any breakdown of her earning losses. However, the landlord did not advise her of the information it requires in order to consider making a discretionary payment under its compensation procedure. The procedure itself does not provide any guidance on how this will be assessed.
We therefore order the landlord to write to the resident and advise her of the information it requires in order that it may consider if a discretionary payment is appropriate. If the resident provides this information, it should consider and respond to her request in line with its compensation procedure. If she is unhappy with its decision, she would be entitled to raise a new complaint.
If the resident wishes to pursue loss of earnings as a civil claim, as opposed to a request for discretionary compensation, she should seek independent advice.
We are aware that the landlord is currently reviewing its compensation procedure. We recommend that it considers as part of this review whether any additional guidance should be included in relation to discretionary payments for loss of earnings.

Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

Where complaints about staff conduct are raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there was misconduct. We are unable to direct that specific action is taken against a member of staff. Our role is to assess whether the landlord undertook a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns and acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable overall.
In correspondence and during phone calls with the landlord between the escalation request and the stage 2 response being issued, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which some members of staff were communicating with her. In particular, she was unhappy that her housing officer was continuing to contact her to coordinate the works to be carried out, even though she had asked to be assigned a different officer. She said that the officer was “bullying” and “gaslighting” her. The officer responded to advise that she would remain the resident’s allocated officer. She said that she was trying to help “achieve having the works completed at [the resident’s] property in a way that best suits [her]”.
It was reasonable that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response given they were connected with the original substantive complaint issues. The landlord explained that it reviewed communications between its officers and the resident during its stage 2 investigation. It was satisfied that it was in regular contact with the resident and that it listened to her concerns. It found no failings in its communications. It also explained that the resident’s concerns about the 3 specified officers, including the housing officer, were brought to the attention of managers. The managers agreed that the 3 officers were “the right people in the business to work through these issues with [the resident to resolution]”. The landlord said that the resident would therefore continue to receive services from all 3 officers.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It reasonably reviewed its communications with the resident during its stage 2 investigation. It appropriately raised her concerns with managers. It explained this to her in the stage 2 response. It was entitled to manage its resources as it saw appropriate given it had not substantiated any concerns about staff conduct.
The resident told us that she raised a further concern with the landlord about staff conduct in September 2024. She said the landlord told her this would be considered as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. We would clarify, however, that our assessment was of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns up to the point it issued its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023. We therefore recommend that the landlord treats the concerns about staff conduct raised by the resident in September 2024 as a new complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to her complaint about its handling of damp and other repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to her complaint about its repair of a blocked toilet in May 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to her complaint about its administration of appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £1,754 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
  2. £1,654 for her loss of enjoyment of the living room and downstairs shower room over a 38 week period.
3. write to the resident and advise her of the information it requires in order that it may consider if a discretionary payment for loss of earnings is appropriate.

Recommendations

When next reviewing its compensation procedure, we recommend that the landlord considers whether any additional guidance should be included in relation to discretionary payments for loss of earnings.
We recommend that the landlord treats the concerns about staff conduct raised by the resident in September 2024 as a new complaint and investigates if appropriate in line with its policies and procedures.