Birmingham City Council (202102608)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102608

Birmingham City Council

27 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. repairs relating to water ingress and damp
2. leaks from the flat above
3. replacement of the kitchen sink unit and damage to the washing machine
4. the gas service
In addition, this Service has reviewed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a high rise, 1 bedroom flat.
The landlord said that it was not notified of any vulnerabilities that the resident may have. However, this Service notes that she disclosed severe depression and referenced suicide in her communications. In addition, the resident is an older person with a hearing impairment and mobility issues.
The landlord’s records evidence a history of repair issues which date back 15 years. Cracked plaster, water ingress, leaks from the flat above, and recurring issues with a blocked kitchen sink are noted. In 2011 damp and mould is referenced.
In 2016 and 2017 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with annual gas safety checks. In, or around, May 2017 she was asked not to use her gas fire due to the landlord’s difficulties inspecting the gas flue system, which was shared across the property block. The resident submitted a complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 11 October 2017, the landlord said that if it was not possible to inspect the entire length of the flue then the resident’s gas fire would need to be capped. The landlord submitted the property block to its capital team for consideration for electric fire suites due to difficulties inspecting gas appliances.
The resident sought legal assistance in relation to the water ingress and damp. In February 2020, the landlord was instructed, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, to undertake external repairs to the main roof and investigate and remedy water ingress to the resident’s flat. It was also instructed to replace the resident’s kitchen sink unit and undertake internal plastering works. External works took place in April 2020.
On 17 September 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She referenced water ingress since 2010 and associated inconvenience, mess, and disruption. In March 2021 and April 2021, she reported wet internal and external walls.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 28 May 2021. It said that the resident had advised it that access for works was not possible until she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that an inspection on 24 May 2021 had not found any leaks or water staining. On 13 November 2021 the resident reported water leaking over her kitchen floor and in the sink cupboard. On 26 November 2021 she reported water ingress via her ceiling.
On 29 November 2021 the landlord replaced the kitchen sink unit, associated pipework, and worktop. The resident subsequently advised the landlord that a hole had been drilled into her washing machine during works, she was unable to access her kitchen windows or gas safety chain, and her washing machine had been boxed in so tightly that she could not use it.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord inspected the property and noted that there was damp. It also noted that the replaced kitchen pipework had not been fitted correctly, leaked, and wastewater was backfilling the sink which was mouldy and needed to be replaced. A new sink unit was fitted on 29 August 2022 but the resident experienced ongoing issues. On 12 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding the installation of the sink unit and associated damage to her washing machine (reference 53523645).
On 31 July 2023, following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response in relation to the ongoing water ingress and outstanding internal repairs (reference 58069481). In summary, it said that it was unable to address the repairs if the resident was unwilling to communicate or provide access. However, it acknowledged that progress may have been delayed when works were referred to a subcontractor and it referenced its attempts to schedule appointments.
On 4 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding water ingress/ damp, annual gas safety checks, the kitchen sink unit, and the damage to her washing machine (reference 61736069). In February 2024 she clarified that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to remove the gas supply and with its consultation process in relation to this. The landlord noted for this issue to be addressed in its complaint response.
On 8 March 2024, following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response (reference 58069481). In summary, it advised:
1. frequent reports of damp and mould were made between 2019 and 2022. It was unable to comment as to why some repairs were cancelled. Others were cancelled due to no access/resident refusal. There had been no reports of damp and mould since June 2022
2. issues with the kitchen sink were reported between 2009-2023. Appointments were raised, some of which were no access. There were no reports of issues with the sink between December 2020 and January 2023. No blockage was found in April 2023, and no reports had been received since then
3. the resident had reported leaks from the flat above between April 2016 and April 2021. Where access was provided by the tenant living above, the landlord had inspected and was unable to locate leaks or had been advised that the leak had already stopped. It had been unable to access the flat above on many occasions. No leaks appeared to have been reported since April 2021
4. no requests for a move or completed rehousing applications had been found, and the repairs did not require the resident to move
The resident sought assistance from this Service. She said that the landlord had not responded to her complaint of 4 December 2023 (reference 61736069). She asked the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint and referenced a severe impact on her mental health due to the repair issues. On 20 May 2024 she advised this Service of “another downpour” into the kitchen.
The landlord recently advised this Service that it has started a “Capital Retrofit Assessment” which will include surveying properties affected by damp and mould and applying measures to render them more thermally efficient. It has said that the majority of work will be completed by March 2025 and that the resident will be contacted when access to her property is required. In addition, a damp and mould survey is due for completion by 7 September 2024.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised this Service that she repeatedly complained about the property’s condition since 2010. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, when considering the availability and reliability of evidence provided to this Service, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from February 2020 onwards. This follows works being issued to the landlord under the Section 11 notice, and compensation of £4,000 that was subsequently paid to the resident as “Full and final settlement of all claims”. However, it is considered prudent for some elements of the historical evidence to be considered for context, which is why these have been included in the background above.
The resident referenced a detrimental impact on her mental and physical health. This Service does not doubt her reports. However, this investigation is unable to determine a causal link between these and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, we are not able to draw any conclusions on whether health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the resident’s reports. It is, however, the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the resident and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate when considering the circumstances of the case.
Between March 2022 and October 2022 the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The investigation reviewed 14 cases brought to the Ombudsman during the period, identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in January 2023 and can be viewed at: Birmingham-Special-Report-FINAL-January-2023-1.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as some of the cases considered by the Ombudsman in that investigation. Some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case. In light of this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this investigation which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes

Repairs relating to water ingress and damp

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective, and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. The assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is typically responsible for internal and external walls, damp proof course and membranes, roofs, and water pipes. It highlights that a resident must allow the landlord access to the property and any person authorised by the landlord to inspect for or to carry out repair and maintenance work.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould was issued in October 2021 and can be found here: Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The report outlined the need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and stressed the importance of timely responses that reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord’s tenant handbook advises that it has a large number of high-quality self-contained properties available for people aged over 50. If residents want to move, they are advised to contact their local neighbourhood housing office or housing team for more information. The handbook references extra-care accommodation for people aged 60 years or over who need help or support.
The Section 11 notice issued in February 2020 listed priority works to resolve the water ingress and damp issues. The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 24 March 2020. This Service understands that external works to the roof took place in April 2020. In this respect it acted promptly.
Following this, the records indicate that the landlord experienced access issues when attempting to complete works within the property. For example, an email from the landlord to the resident’s solicitor from August 2021 notes that the landlord could not agree to the resident’s request to put works on hold until a Covid-19 vaccine was developed and the resident inoculated. Reference was made to seeking an injunction for access. There is also reference to ‘no access’ visits, such as on 26 October 2021 for a damp survey.
However, there is also evidence of missed appointments by the landlord. For example, the landlord acknowledged that it did not attend a damp inspection on 4 November 2020 which it said was due to a system failure. In addition, it advised, “Unfortunately the contractor could not attend on 16.11.20 because the system was unable to update the appointment on his PDA device.” There is no evidence that the landlord considered the inconvenience that this caused the resident. Further, it was unfair that she needed to chase the landlord following both missed appointments. It is also noted that the landlord acknowledged that issues may have arisen that delayed progress during the period when works were referred to a subcontractor.
While we acknowledge that the landlord referenced access issues, it would have been important for it to ensure that a damp inspection took place as soon as possible, so that it could identify any possible cause, repairs required, and assess the condition of the property. The resident has referred to an inspection having been carried out in June 2021, however it is unclear what this was in relation to, and no copy of an inspection report or any other detailed outcome of this is contained in the records that the landlord provided.
On 6 November 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had not received a response regarding her request to move. Prior to this, she had asked to be moved to a modern, warmer home that was not cold and damp. In response the landlord sent the resident a link to the Homeswapper site and suggested that she contact its health and housing team. This was a reasonable response.
However, in its internal email dated 7 March 2024, the landlord noted that the resident had not made any requests to move. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part when considering the resident’s previous requests. In addition, this Service would expect to have seen that the landlord considered internally whether the properties referenced in its tenant’s handbook that are available for people aged over 50 may have been more suitable, and a potential option for the resident when considering all the circumstances of her case. An order is made below to address this.
The landlord advised the resident that she was adequately housed which she disputed due to the condition of the property. In the absence of any risk assessment, it is unclear how the landlord reached its decision. The landlord failed to evidence that it appropriately considered or assessed any risk to the resident caused by the water ingress, damp, and mould. This was particularly unreasonable when considering her vulnerabilities and the impact on her wellbeing that she disclosed.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that its contractor would provide her with a comprehensive breakdown of works and associated timescales. However, there is no evidence that a ‘comprehensive’ breakdown was provided until August 2022, following the resident’s contact on 7 June 2022. It was unreasonable that the resident needed to chase the landlord for this information.
The communication issues in this case are noted, both from the resident’s perspective and the landlord’s. Historic repair records reference that the resident needed time to answer the door, and that operatives must knock loudly. In December 2020 the resident experienced difficulties with her computer and her phone. On 23 March 2023 and 28 September 2023, she advised that she did not have broadband or a landline. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had considered all available options to try and progress matters and that it considered any appropriate support. For example, it ought to have identified early on whether a representative, neighbour, friend, or family member could assist, signpost the resident to a support/advocacy service, and seek support from its housing team. The landlord failed to demonstrate a proactive approach in this respect. It is reasonable to consider that this contributed to the delays and communication breakdown between the resident and the landlord, and associated difficulties arranging access.
On 9 March 2021 the resident sought advice with regards to making a claim for damage to her possessions due to the damp. The landlord responded promptly and sent her an online form the next day. When she had difficulties editing the form, the landlord directed her to its website which was a reasonable approach.
Between March 2021 and November 2021 the evidence available shows that the resident continued to raise concerns about leaks and damp. The records later indicate that works to plaster in the resident’s property (presumably to remedy damage caused by the earlier leaks) were attempted but both parties reported issues with access/attendance. Again, there was a missed opportunity here for the landlord to consider available options to try and progress matters.
In, or around, November 2021 the landlord asked the resident whether she would consider having dehumidifiers installed. This was appropriate and demonstrated its attempt to address the damp issue. However, the landlord should have first satisfied itself, via an inspection, on the cause of any damp and the condition of the property, and that dehumidifiers were the appropriate option (as noted above, there is reference to an inspection in June 2021 but we have no details of this). The resident declined the dehumidifiers, in part due to the associated energy costs. The landlord noted that it would discuss the possibility of financial support in this respect. However, there is no evidence that it did so and an order is made below to address this.
The resident purchased her own damp monitoring equipment, explaining “I have had to spend £400 to buy a moisture meter to provide evidence and to do what [landlord/contractor] should be doing”. The equipment she chose followed advice from the landlord’s contractor. When considering the ongoing issues with water ingress and damp, as well as the resident’s individual circumstances, we would expect the landlord to have at least considered installing its own equipment early on. There is no evidence that it did so, which was unreasonable. A recommendation is made below that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for the cost of the damp monitoring equipment.
On multiple occasions following the Section 11 notice (for example, December 2020, April 2021, and November 2021) the landlord advised the resident to contact her legal representative in relation to the repairs. This was despite the resident having advised that her file was closed and it had already been agreed that works could go ahead. The landlord’s approach and its repeated requests that she contact her legal representative in relation to the repairs added to her distress, time, and trouble pursuing matters. In addition, it is reasonable to consider that this may have contributed to the delays progressing works.
In January 2022, in response to further reports of a leak, the landlord’s records note that this was attended but no leak found, and that “Tenant has damp it’s not a leak”. In March and April 2022 the resident continued to refer to damp in her home in her communications with the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord took action in relation to this. This was not in line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, which by this point had been published for several months.
There is reference to a visit in regards to damp and mould growth in June 2022, where works were identified, including hacking back plaster. However, the resident declined these works, stating she did not want plaster hacked until the “wet” readings she had been taking with her device had gone. In response, the landlord stated that the damp issues would only be resolved if plastering was done.
On 4 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord that her mental health issues meant that she could not cope with the upheaval that plastering would involve. In response, the landlord said that it could consider providing temporary accommodation. While there is no evidence that the resident accepted the offer, the landlord’s approach was appropriate and demonstrated its attempt to progress works.
The resident raised concerns about possible structural damage to the property due to years of water ingress. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns which was unreasonable and likely left her feeling unheard.
There is limited evidence of any reference to the water ingress and damp works between August 2022 and July 2023. On 25 July 2023 the resident advised us that she had received an email from the landlord and its contractor to confirm that an appointment had been scheduled for 1 August 2023 regarding Section 11 works. The resident had replied to say that she was “in no mental state to be speaking with anybody from the [landlord] or [contractor].”
This Service published its Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights in January 2024: ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The report examined how and why vulnerable residents are often unheard. In the resident’s case, her vulnerabilities were not appropriately taken into account by the landlord and its approach subsequently likely exacerbated them.
The resident had repeatedly advised the landlord of the impact of her housing situation on her mental wellbeing. She disclosed severe depression and on 14 December 2020 she advised it that a liaison person/single point of contact would have been helpful. This Service would have expected the landlord to consider this request early on yet there is no evidence that it did so. The benefits of in-person contact and support for vulnerable residents is vital and can help to maintain and improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
In addition, despite the resident’s reference to suicide there is no evidence that the landlord considered a safeguarding referral or signposted her to any support. This was a significant failing on the landlord’s part. Recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must also be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. It is of particular concern therefore that the landlord advised us that it had received no notification of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
It is encouraging that the landlord more recently said that it had become apparent that the resident may benefit from additional support that could also assist with access for repairs. However, this ought to have been identified much earlier. This would likely have helped to ensure that works were progressed sooner and reduced the distress, frustration, and inconvenience that the resident experienced.
In summary, it is evident that there have been delays progressing works and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that internal plastering has taken place yet, or that the damp and mould issue has been fully resolved. The resident has indicated that the damp issue remains ongoing. The landlord has attributed the cause of delays to the resident’s failure to provide access, and we have seen that there is some evidence of access issues. In addition, the landlord’s unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident by phone to discuss works and her complaints are acknowledged. Further, COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions likely contributed to initial delays.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not resolve matters within a reasonable timescale which caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble pursuing her concerns. Neither did it assess whether she was at any risk or seek timely support to assist with arranging access. In addition, its approach that the resident’s failure to provide access was the cause of delays was unreasonable.
As such, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water ingress and damp. An order is shown below in accordance with this Service’s published remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Leaks from the flat above

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that its emergency repair service is for repairs where a response is required within 2 hours of the instruction being issued to its repairs partner. ‘Urgent’ repairs are repairs that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the resident or the security of the property. The completion period for these repairs is 1, 3, or 7 working days. Routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported.
It is acknowledged that it can be difficult to identify the cause of a leak and this would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord is expected to act proactively in response to water ingress due to the potential risks and damage that can be caused over a prolonged period. The landlord’s repair records reference intermittent leaks into the resident’s property from the flat above which date back to 2007. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 8 March 2024, the landlord noted that the last leak appeared to have been reported in April 2021.
In September 2020 there was a leak due to a burst pipe from the flat above, and the tenant having left taps running. The landlord liaised with the caretaker and the matter was resolved. On 20 January 2021 the resident reported a further leak via her kitchen ceiling and repairs were scheduled for 27 January 2021. When a leak occurred on 11 April 2021, caused by an issue with the pipework above the resident’s flat, the landlord attended on 13 April 2021. Overall, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s approach was reasonable and in accordance with its repairs policy for urgent works.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord advised the resident, “In relation to the water ingress/leak all the above flats have been accessed and there are no leaks originating from the above properties.” It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the flats and then update the resident. This demonstrated its attempt to provide her with some reassurance.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 July 2023. It said that it hoped to discuss any ongoing issues with leaks with the resident and that it was unwilling to accept that the matter was resolved without her reassurance. While this was a reasonable response, there is no evidence that any discussion subsequently took place. It is, however, acknowledged that this may have been due to contact difficulties, as the resident subsequently advised that since March 2023, she did not have a landline and rarely used her mobile.
In summary, the Ombudsman has not found evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaks from the flat above. However, as the resident advised this Service of “another downpour” in May 2024, a recommendation is made below to address this.

Replacement of the kitchen sink unit

The landlord’s repairs policy highlights internal components that it is responsible for maintaining. This includes the sink and water pipes.
Repair records evidence repeated and historic issues with the sink getting blocked. On 13 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor regarding works to replace the sink unit. However, on 16 November 2020 the landlord advised the resident, “We can only arrange repairs, but if it can’t be repaired then it would be replaced”. The conflicting information contributed to the resident’s frustration, time, and trouble pursuing matters.
On 27 April 2021 the resident chased for an update on the sink replacement works. In response, the landlord said that it could not see any related repairs. This further contributed to her frustration and inconvenience. The landlord should ensure that it keeps comprehensive records of repairs and its responses.
A new sink unit and worktop were fitted on 29 November 2021. Events were protracted in this respect when considering that this work formed part of the Section 11 notice in February 2020.
In June 2022 the landlord noted that the new sink unit had not been fitted correctly. It still leaked and no splashback or kick plate had been fitted. The landlord referenced wastewater backfilling the sink which had become mouldy and needed to be replaced. It was unfair that the resident continued to experience issues with the sink unit. This speaks to the importance of good workmanship and getting things right first time. A new sink unit was fitted on, or around, 29 August 2022. Following further issues with the plumbing, we understand that matters were fully resolved in, or around, June 2023. The resident experienced a prolonged period of inconvenience which was unfair.
The resident reported that her washing machine was damaged during works. This Service notes that the landlord referenced having hand delivered a compensation form on, or around, 16 September 2022. This was a reasonable approach, although it is noted that the landlord’s historic repair records referenced that the resident had an aversion to opening letters. Therefore, it would have been good practice for the landlord to check with the resident whether she required any support completing the claims form.
In summary, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs that it was responsible for, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in its obligations in law, within a reasonable period. The law does not specify what a reasonable period is as this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. While it is acknowledged that the landlord experienced difficulties contacting the resident and that it reported access issues, it is clear that the period in this case far exceeded what could be considered reasonable, and that this had a detrimental impact on the resident.
As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the kitchen sink unit. An order is made below in accordance with this Service’s published remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge its failings.

Gas service

In October 2017 the landlord advised the resident that it had referred the property block to its capital team for consideration of electric fire suites instead of gas. In response she said this would cause her difficulties due to the damp and cold in the property.
In September 2020 and October 2021 the landlord asked the resident if she would consider having an electric fire fitted instead of the gas fire. She declined and said that she needed the gas fire until the water ingress issue was resolved. Yet on 19 October 2021 the landlord advised, “I can confirm that a works order has been raised to remove gas fire and fit electric suite.” The resident contacted this Service and said, “I believe that this has now turned into harassment. Somebody needs to step in before it’s too late.” The landlord’s approach contributed to the resident’s overall distress and failed to demonstrate that it had listened to her or appropriately considered her concerns.
On 22 October 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It appropriately explained that it had to undertake annual gas safety checks by law and reiterated the access difficulties. However, it said, “I have been informed that to alleviate this annual event you are willing to have the gas fire exchanged to an electric suite, and your meter to be capped off.” It advised that a fire suite had been ordered and that its contractor would be in touch regarding installation. In response, the resident disputed that she had agreed to an electric fire and asked the landlord to let her know how it had reached its conclusion.
This Service has seen no evidence of the resident’s agreement. The landlord said that she had indicated verbally that she wished to have an electric fire but there is no record of this. Its approach was unreasonable and likely added to the resident’s frustration, especially when considering her written communications regarding the matter.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the electric fire was ready to be fitted. When she raised her concerns, it said that she had confirmed in writing that she would consider it. The resident disputed the landlord’s account. She reiterated that she would reconsider an electric fire once the damp issues were resolved and asked for copies of the emails where she had said otherwise. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request which was unreasonable and again would have caused her frustration. Neither is there evidence that it responded to her contact on 1 December 2021 when she asked what the landlord’s position was regarding her refusal to have an electric fire suite.
On 4 December 2023 the resident submitted a complaint about “annual gas safety checks etc”. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this aspect of her complaint, despite having acknowledged it on 24 December 2023. This is further addressed in the following section of this report.
In summary, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the gas service. An order of compensation is made below in line with this Service’s published remedies guidance. The order made recognises that the landlord’s approach may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but that she experienced distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and a loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of her concerns.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint referenced a 3 stage process. At stage 1 it attempted to resolve the issue on the spot. If it could not, the complaint would be investigated at stage 2 and a response issued within 15 working days. If the resident was unhappy with the stage 2 decision, they could ask for a review at stage 3 and a response would be issued within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy stated that compensation would only be paid where there was liability. It further stated that compensation would not be paid for inconvenience or distress. On 4 December 2023 the resident submitted an online complaint “about my living conditions” (reference 61736069). She referenced 3 parts to her complaint which she asked the landlord to respond to: 1. ‘Ingress-damp issues, 2. Annual Gas Safety checks etc, 3. Sink unit and claim for damage to washing machine’. She advised that her home was a place of depression, she was living on the edge, and could not function or sleep. The landlord sent an acknowledgement response the same day. It failed, however, to reference the resident’s concerns about her wellbeing. Its response demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding which was unreasonable.
In addition, the landlord’s acknowledgement advised, “Your complaint has successfully been submitted and will be assigned to an officer within the next 48 hours. Once assigned, you will receive an acknowledgement of the complaint and the name of the Investigating Officer.” However, following no response, the resident chased for an update on 19 December 2023. It was unfair that she felt the need to do so. This contributed to her time and trouble.
On 21 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident under complaint reference 59495816. It appropriately apologised for a delay responding which it explained was due to a high service demand. It said that this complaint would be merged with complaint reference 61736069. However, the stage 2 complaint response was issued under complaint reference 58069481. The landlord’s approach was confusing and it failed to use its internal complaints process as an effective dispute resolution tool. By this point the complaint had been outstanding for several weeks.
At stage 2 of its internal complaints process the landlord acknowledged that, on occasion, it was unable to say why a repair relating to damp and water ingress had been cancelled. Nevertheless, it determined that the complaint was unjustified, which was unfair. Further, it determined that the resident’s complaint regarding “outstanding repairs including black water coming up the kitchen sink” was also unjustified. Its stage 2 complaint response, however, only referenced the blocked sink, and not works relating to its replacement or any other outstanding repairs. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it understood the resident’s complaint or that it engaged in a meaningful way with its internal complaints process.
Part of the resident’s 4 December 2023 complaint related to the “annual gas safety checks etc”. On 24 December 2023, the landlord asked the resident for more information. This was an appropriate response, especially when considering the length of time that had passed since the issue last appeared to have been raised in 2021. On 21 February 2024 the landlord noted that the resident had responded and had advised that she did not want to change to cooking on electric or lose the reduced dual fuel energy rate. She had asked whether a consultation had taken place, if so when, and why she was not part of it. She asked the landlord to explain its decision to remove the gas supply. As noted above, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to this matter, which was a further complaint handling failure.
Overall, the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint was protracted. Responses were delayed and aspects of her complaint were not responded to. Her complaints were merged which contributed to confusion and poor complaint handling. In addition, this Service was required to intervene to request that complaint responses were issued. Further, the resident felt the need to escalate her concerns via her local councillor which contributed to the time and trouble that she spent pursuing matters. The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable. It failed to follow its complaints policy and this Service’s complaints handling code. As such, this Service has found maladministration.
An order of compensation is made below that is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the ‘Scheme’) this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to water ingress and damp.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the replacement of the kitchen sink unit.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to leaks from the flat above.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the gas service.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme this Service has found maladministration in the handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident £925 compensation. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident unless she advises otherwise and is comprised of:
  1. £500 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and delays that the resident experienced in relation to the water ingress, damp, and mould
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, and delays that the resident experienced in relation to the replacement of the kitchen sink unit
  3. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced regarding the gas service
  4. £150 for distress, inconvenience, delays, confusion, and frustration that the resident experienced due to the handling of the associated complaint
2. undertake an internal and external inspection of the resident’s property, to include an assessment of damp and the condition of the property. Provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the date of the inspection. Any works subsequently identified must be clarified in writing with the resident and this Service, and a schedule of works must be provided to both parties within 4 weeks of the date of inspection, including dates for completion, which should be adhered to
3. arrange for a housing manager to visit the resident to discuss any support needs, housing options, and additional support that may be available to her to help with access and communications. The outcome of the meeting and any agreed actions must be confirmed in writing with the resident and this Service
4. apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report
5. respond via its internal complaints process to the resident’s complaint about the gas service in accordance with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. A copy/copies of the landlord’s complaint responses must be provided to this Service
6. ensure that the resident’s vulnerabilities, communication preferences, and any access requirements are noted on her customer record
7. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. the landlord considers reimbursing the resident £400 for the cost of the damp monitoring equipment that she purchased
2. the landlord checks with the resident as to whether she requires any help progressing a claim for damage caused by damp and/or damage to her washing machine.