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

Brighton and Hove City Council (202334600)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334600

Brighton and Hove City Council

27 September 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of roof leaks, major works, and reports that the property was not fit to let at the start of the tenancy.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a house with her 3 sons. One of her children is autistic and has additional needs, and a specially adapted bedroom. The tenancy began on 11 April 2022.
  2. On 7 November 2022 the resident reported a leak emanating from the roof. The landlord inspected the leak on 23 November 2022.
  3. On 5 December 2022 the landlord raised a job to erect scaffolding at the property. On 5 January 2023 the landlord met with the resident to explain that it needed more time to complete the repairs. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day to say that because it had found elevated moisture levels and mould growth, it would arrange a full survey and perform a mould wash.
  4. On 14 January 2023 the landlord completed a survey, following which a large volume of works were raised. Scaffolding was erected on 9 February 2023.
  5. On 10 February 2023 the resident contacted her MP for help progressing the works, because roof repairs were not due to start until 4 April 2023. She also wrote to the landlord. She was unhappy with the delays to fix leak, the damage (including damp and mould) to numerous rooms, and that works identified in the survey should have been completed before she moved in. The resident explained that she was sleeping on the sofa and that the children’s bedrooms were affected by mould growth.
  6. On 7 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP, explaining that most of the works to the roof had been completed but some works remained outstanding. The resident advised the landlord that the leak was still present on 8 March 2023. The landlord attended on the same day for a prescheduled appointment, but was unable to complete the repair without a builder being present, due to the need to remove some brickwork.
  7. The landlord completed additional works from January to May 2023, such as replacing windows at the property, installing ventilation and cavity wall insulation. On 24 April 2023 the resident advised that the she and her family were “mentally and physically exhausted” with the ongoing works, describing them as a “catalogue of disasters”. On 24 May 2023 she complained again, including that “the [landlord] accept no responsibility for the fact that this all should have been done before we moved in”.
  8. The roof repairs (or replacement) appear to have been completed on 13 June 2023. On 30 June 2023 the resident submitted a claim via the landlord’s insurance for damaged possessions, personal injury, and distress.
  9. Further remedial and internal works continued throughout July and August 2023, including replacing ceilings, flooring, and insulation. Final plastering works appeared to be completed on 5 October 2023.
  10. On 2 November 2023 the resident reported that the roof started leaking again. She requested compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and asked to raise a formal complaint. The landlord attended on the same day and completed repairs which the landlord said had fully resolved the issue. On 7 November 2023 the landlord marked the resident’s stage 1 complaint as “resolved over the phone”.
  11. On 8 November 2023 the resident said that water was still leaking through the roof. On 10 November 2023 she reported a new leak which she had discovered in the loft space and asked to raise another formal complaint. She also spoke to the landlord to express dissatisfaction with its complaint handling, adding that she “was forced [to move into] this house by [the landlord] and it is not fit for habitation.” On 13 November 2023 she reported that the leak was spreading and making the ceilings in some rooms unsafe. On 14 November 2023 the resident reported that water was now “pouring” into the property. She said she had to move her children out of the bedroom they were sleeping in at that time. The landlord treated this as an escalation request.
  12. The landlord did an initial inspection on 16 November 2023, followed by further, more in-depth inspections on 22 and 23 November 2023. It completed works to the roof and chimney to repair the leak on 8 December 2023.
  13. On 2 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it would not respond to her complaint at stage 2 because the resident had an ongoing compensation claim lodged with the landlord. It added that this served as a final response. The resident reported a new leak in the living room on 3 January 2024 and said that she was “going to have a breakdown”.
  14. On 25 February 2024 the resident advised that the leak was ongoing and that damage was being done to the property. On 26 February 2024 the landlord said it would investigate “when the weather improves”.
  15. On or around 1 March 2024 the resident was offered £1,300 compensation in response to her insurance claim. This related to the landlord’s handling of the roof leak for the period November 2022 to June 2023 and was made up of:
    1. £100 for complaint handling.
    2. £100 for “loss of room”.
    3. £300 for delays.
    4. £800 for distress and inconvenience.
  16. The landlord erected scaffolding again on 3 May 2024. The resident advised that the repair had been completed by 28 May 2024. On 16 September 2024 the resident advised the Ombudsman that remedial works remained ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Throughout the period of assessment, the landlord carried out a large number of works at the property. It appears that some were in relation to or preparation for the roof leaks. Some were resultant from the recommendations of a damp survey it carried out following the first roof leak, and some were due to remedial works caused by damage to property from the leaks or structural works. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these, but made reference in this report only to the works most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation. The Ombudsman is unable to conclude if many of the larger scale works were unreasonably delayed, due to the complexity and volume, although they went on for a considerable period of time and caused significant disruption. Rather than assessing each schedule of works in detail, the Ombudsman has instead considered whether enough was done to mitigate the impact on the resident and her family by the landlord. This includes the resident’s concerns that she was not decanted (temporarily moved).
  2. In September 2024 the resident explained that further disruption remained ongoing and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. However, the Ombudsman must approach complaints in a way that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case and must base its decisions on the evidence available. The records available from 2024 are limited and the Ombudsman has been unable to investigate beyond the repair of the final leak on 24 May 2024. The Ombudsman acknowledges this may be disappointing for the resident, however if the resident remains dissatisfied about the landlord’s actions/inactions after this date, she should raise her concerns via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks, major works, and reports that the property was not fit to let at the start of the tenancy.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs) are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that an emergency repair is one which needs to be carried out quickly to avoid (for example) serious damage to the building. It lists “serious water leaks” as an example of an emergency repair and commits to “attend within 24 hours”. The resident first reported a leak on 7 November 2022, however the landlord did not carry out an initial inspection of the leak until 23 November 2022, because it did not deem the leak to be an emergency. It is unclear why the landlord took this position, as the resident advised that it was affecting multiple rooms and causing significant damage, which the landlord accepted in a letter to her on 13 April 2023. The landlord therefore failed to follow its policy and this was a failing.
  3. There appear to have been multiple factors which contributed to the overall delays in fixing the initial leak. In the first instance, the landlord did not erect the scaffolding required until 30 January 2023. There is some evidence that contractor availability and the festive period contributed to this delay, however there is no evidence that the landlord sought to mitigate this, for example by considering engaging an alternative contractor. The resident requested permission during this period to engage her own contractors and recharge the landlord, which was declined, increasing her frustration.
  4. There is evidence that an extension to the scaffold was required in February 2023 and that delays in engaging a suitable contractor to attend some repairs also contributed to delays after this point. The resident chased the landlord and advised that water was still coming into the property on 8 March 2023. The repair was further delayed on 30 March 2023 because contractors could not complete the work, advising that “this job needs roofers, not builders”. The landlord noted internally that the resident “was very upset” about further delays to the works. Although the Ombudsman acknowledges that complex works were required which needed multiple contractors with specialist skills, the initial roof repair was not marked as being complete until 13 June 2023. Although the handbook advises that some more complex repairs may take “over 20 days”, this was a significant delay beyond the expected timescales. Although there may have been some mitigating factors, the time taken represented a significant failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. The landlord acknowledged this in an offer of £1,300 compensation it made to the resident relating to the period November 2022 to June 2023. The £1,100 it paid for distress, inconvenience and delays was an appropriate amount in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the guidance). The guidance states that where there has been a series of failings that have had a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £1,000 should be considered. However, the landlord also acknowledged that the resident had suffered a “loss of room” (and offered a further £100 compensation), but failed to specify which rooms were affected over what period.
  6. The resident reported during this time a varying impact on the use of multiple rooms in the property. For example on 7 November 2022 she advised that the leak was causing damage to the walls and doors “in the bedroom, hallway and front room”. On 6 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging “elevated moisture levels and mould growth” in 2 bedrooms. It later clarified on 19 January 2023 that this was a result of the leak. On 10 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that “damp and mould [is] in 2 bedrooms, the hallway, bathroom, [and] only 1 room is fit for use”. An internal email from 13 February 2023 confirmed that the landlord was aware that the resident was sleeping in the living room during this time, and all 3 children were sleeping together in the remaining bedroom. On 20 April 2023 the resident stated that her “children were sleeping next to dangerous black mould”, further impacting the resident’s enjoyment of the property. On 24 May 2023 the resident emailed her MP explaining that contractors “were working in 3 rooms at once” causing “unbearable noise” for her autistic son, that the family were “currently living without a working toilet [and with] black mould”.
  7. It is ultimately unclear from the evidence what the direct cause of each period of impacted enjoyment was, or how long that period for. It is understood that the works resulting from the damp survey caused significant disruption, as well as the leak itself (and works to repair/remediate it and the damage caused). However it is clear that the impact was extensive and long-lasting, therefore the £100 compensation was not reflective of the loss of enjoyment caused to the property during this period.
  8. The evidence also shows that the resident went to a significant amount of time and trouble during this time to chase the landlord, request updates and information, and to encourage movement on works which were delayed. The resident also spent time corresponding with her MP. The landlord did not account for this in its compensation offer. The Ombudsman has considered this in the orders set out at the end of this report.  
  9. The landlord’s reported repair of the leak, which involved major structural works to the flat roof of one part of the property, held during the summer months but ultimately resumed allowing water into the property on 2 November 2023. The resident reported a new leak discovered elsewhere on 10 November 2023. The landlord initially attended the same day on 2 November 2023, but it appears the leak was not fixed until May 2024. The second leak was inspected on 16 and 23 November 2023, and required extensive works to the chimney and more scaffolding. Again the repair logs show that complex works which required multiskilled contractors were needed to replace the roof, chimney, remove and replace brickwork and rectify a number of other defects to the property. The landlord completed some works in December 2023, after which it advised the resident’s MP that works had been completed. However more leaks remained and the repair which had been completed in December was reported as being ineffective on 1 January 2024.
  10. At this time the evidence shows that internal landlord emails focused on insurance claims and “an offer of compensation that will prevent the resident from escalating matters further.” At the time some leaks and a large volume of remedial works were outstanding, the landlord was aware of the significant disruption and distress caused to the resident and her family by conditions at the property. Despite this, there is little evidence that discussions were taking place about how to reduce the impact on the resident or to speed up the progress of the works. This was a theme seen throughout the period of assessment. For example on 24 April 2023 an internal landlord email stated that the resident was “having extensive works carried out causing significant distress and inconvenience to her and her family [including her] disabled child.” It went on to say that the resident was concerned she would not be able to move her furniture and possessions in time to accommodate the [next round of] works, and had requested help with this. An internal reply to this email said “this tenant has already gone above and beyond in making demands… Her expectations are well known to be unreasonable.” Although it appears the landlord’s contractors did later assist with moving furniture, the landlord’s initial response was troubling.
  11. The landlord appeared to resolve a leak in the loft space in the first week of January, but took no further action until the resident chased “the continued damage being caused inside the property due to the ongoing leak” on 25 February 2024. Repair records available after this time are limited, however the evidence shows that some leak(s) were resolved or improved before a final repair to rebuild the gable was completed in May 2024. The resident advised that this was the final leak which was repaired. Further remedial works continued throughout this time, including mould washes, the last of which took place on 25 April 2024, and plastering (and replastering areas which had previously been done). The landlord explained that there were some reasons why delays were outside of its control, for example that it was waiting for favourable weather conditions to complete some repairs. However, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s account aside from emails it sent to the resident at the time. The landlord did not respond formally to these delays and where delays cannot be explained and evidenced, the Ombudsman can only assume these delays were unreasonable.
  12. The landlord’s record keeping appeared to play a part in the delays. For example, on 14 November 2023 it wrote to the resident’s MP in response to the MPs concerns that children had again been moved out of the bedroom and that the ceilings were unsafe. The landlord said that it “trusts the issues have been resolved”. It is unclear why it took this position at the time, as it had received correspondence from the resident and her MP on 13 and 14 November 2023 advising that water was “pouring into the property” and a job had been raised to inspect the leak again on 23 November 2023. On other occasions, for example on 2 November 2023, both the resident and landlord agree that it attended to make safe the recurrence of the leak, but no repair records reflect this. Other repair logs appear to lack detail or fail to specify which of the multiple reports of leaks it is in relation to. There are a number of jobs which are repeated throughout the period, though it is unclear why this was required.
  13. The repair records viewed across the period November 2022 until May 2024 show significant and extensive works both internal and external to the property. Although at times the effect on the resident is unclear, it is understood to be significant. The resident expressed significant levels of distress through the period assessed. The landlord often noted that she was crying during phone calls. The resident’s children, one of whom is autistic, also experienced significant distress and disruption, including that a specially adapted bedroom was unusable for intermittent periods due to water ingress, damp, mould, or remedial works. The resident regularly advised needing to remove her son from the house for extended periods due to the impact the noise was having on him. Internal staff emails throughout the period show that the landlord was aware all family members were regularly moving “room to room”.
  14. The landlord has a Decant Procedure which governs how it administers decants. It outlines that decants may be necessary in a number of situations, including “major works”. The procedure states that the landlord’s preference is usually to complete major works with residents in situ where possible. It says that it should consider any disabilities or household needs when making its decision, and that a “discussion should be undertaken” between senior staff members if it decides to keep tenants in situ during major works. There is no evidence that the landlord had a discussion to this effect or considered decanting the resident and her family until April 2024, near the expected end of the works. As there were multiple periods where major work was expected or ongoing, and the distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family was significant, this was a failing. This failing was exacerbated because the landlord did not appear to consider the impact on the resident’s child who had additional needs and for whom the adverse effect was reported to be heightened.
  15. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the works and possibly the leaks themselves were avoidable in the first instance. The evidence shows that the property was empty for a significant period prior the resident moving on 11 April 2022, during which time a survey was completed. On 11 January 2021 the surveyor informed the landlord that the property had “misaligned damp proof course, likely defects to flashing (causing penetrating damp from ceiling/roof/wall), poor masonry, and suspected movement causing cracks. The survey made extensive recommendations, including:
    1. Further investigation of the flashing and cavity trays.
    2. Installation of new damp proof course(s).
    3. Reinforcement of the property along identified “lines”.
    4. Improving and reinforcing “connection points” in the brickwork and masonry.
    5. Removing all skirting, plaster and completing the above works.
    6. Additional extensive works to address cracking at ground floor level.
    7. Not redecorating the property for a minimum of 12 months following the works.
  16. There are no repair records available from this period, so it is not clear which of these works were completed. However the leaks identified were clearly attributed to some of the defects identified during the resident’s tenancy, including defects to flashing, cavity trays, and brickwork. As such, it is highly likely that the resident’s complaint that the property was not in a reasonable condition to be let was accurate, as the landlord ought to have known that major works and/or water ingress would have been likely to be needed during the tenancy. The landlord’s Empty Homes Technical Lettable Standards (the lettable standard) outlines the condition a property should be in prior to the commencement of a new tenancy. It states that the property should have “no apparent signs of penetrating dampness or failure or damage to the structure of the building”. The survey taken in April 2021 clearly shows that the property had clear and extensive signs of both, which were noted again in the survey conducted in 2023. It is unclear if any works were done during the period the property was unoccupied, however any works that may have been conducted were clearly ineffective. This was a significant failing which indicates that the entirety of the adverse effect experienced by the resident and her family may have been unnecessary and avoidable.
  17. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks, major works, and reports that the property was not fit to let at the start of the tenancy. The adverse effect experienced by the resident and her family varied at different points but ultimately was significant and long-lasting.  In an internal email on 12 February 2024 the landlord explained that, following on from its offer of compensation, it expected the amount of compensation due for the overall period (until that point) to look “near enough £2,800”. As described above, the landlord’s methodology was in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, however elements are missing including time and trouble and “loss of room”. The period of adverse effect continued until 24 May 2024. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay a further £800 distress and inconvenience for the period November 2023 to May 2024, inclusive of the delays. The amount of time and trouble the resident went to was extensive and so the Ombudsman has ordered £400 compensation to be paid in respect of this time and trouble over the entire period. This takes the total amount to £2,300, not including the “loss of room” consideration or complaint handling.
  18. Ultimately the Ombudsman has been unable to reliably determine how much compensation would be appropriate for a loss of room, due to a scarcity of detailed records about the rooms affected and for which periods. Instead, we have assessed the likely cumulative impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. The residents emails to the landlord provide snapshots of her experience at any one time. On 24 May 2023 the resident wrote to her MP describing how recent works were taking place “from 9AM to 7PM, in 3 rooms (meaning the family had to leave the property), that her autistic son had issues with noise sensitivity and could not bear the unbearable drilling”. She also noted damage being done to the property by the contractors, that there was no working toilet, and the presence of black mould. At its worst, the resident reported that “only 1 bedroom was usable”, though it is unclear how long this level of disruption persisted for. At its best, the property was temporarily watertight but remedial works remained outstanding or ongoing, with regular mould washes being required. An employee of the local authority wrote to the landlord on 13 December 2023 describing how the resident and her 3 children were “moving from bedroom to bedroom” depending on the locations and severity of the leaks/works throughout this period. The repair records are lengthy, show complex and extensive works being regularly attended, including multiple and repeated internal works (such as plastering and replastering) that would render rooms unusable for some periods of time.
  19. The Ombudsman has determined that compensation for loss of enjoyment is pivotal to putting things right in this case, in part because the adverse effect was likely avoidable, had the landlord adhered to its lettable standard. The Ombudsman has determined that the resident should be compensated an amount equivalent to the value of 15% of rents paid from 8 November 2022 until 24 May 2024, to reflect the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. This includes the period between leaks in June to November 2023, in which no water ingress was reported but the resident told the landlord that the ongoing disruption caused by the works was “unbearable”.
  20. The Ombudsman has made no further orders in this case for the landlord to ‘learn from outcomes’. This is because the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s correspondence with the Regulator of Social Housing from February 2023, setting out a number of changes it plans to make in how it deals with leaks, damp, mould, and manages its housing stock. The correspondence sets out several steps the landlord was due to take, including investment in the maintenance of its housing stock, surveying staff (recruiting new surveyors to conduct rolling stock inspections), and changes to its processes to ensure investigations and remedial works are more robust. The landlord is however ordered to provide a written update on the progress of these changes, and any monitoring it has subsequently carried out (if applicable).

Complaint Handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the landlord’s responsibilities in dealing with complaints. The Code states that when a landlord receives a complaint, it should respond with a clearly labelled written response, within 10 days. If a complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they may request to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process, which must be responded to within 20 days. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”.
  2. The resident made many repeated expressions of dissatisfaction from as early as 29 November 2022, however these were not raised as formal complaints. She continued to do so about a range of issues including that the property was not fit for let in the first instance, the repair timescales, the disruption caused by the major works, and other issues as they arose. Due to a perceived lack of progress, she also engaged her local MP to correspond with the landlord, who expressed dissatisfaction on her behalf. However the landlord still did not raise a formal complaint. This was in contravention of the Code and was a failing. The landlord did not raise a stage 1 complaint until the resident specifically asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 2 November 2023.
  3. The landlord acknowledged her stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023. There is no evidence however that a complaint response was produced. The landlord noted internally that a stage 1 response had been provided “over the phone” on the same day, however the details of this response are vague, concluding “apologies offered, damage to be rectified”. This response did not adhere to the Code’s requirement that a written and clearly labelled response be issued. The reported response also did not appear to incorporate any of the numerous other elements the resident had complained about, though it is not possible to state definitely due to the lack of detail contained in the call log.
  4. The resident made a number of further expressions of dissatisfaction on 8, 10, 13 and 14 November 2023 again about numerous issues, including that the property was “not fit for habitation” when first let to the resident. The landlord treated the latter of these as a request to escalate her complaint. However, no stage 2 response was ever issued. The resident chased on several occasions. Apologies for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response were offered and a response was promised to the resident on 29 November 2023, 6 December 2023, 13 December 2023, and 27 December 2023, before the landlord informed the resident it would not respond at stage 2 on 2 January 2024. The landlord was clear that this was its final decision, which allowed the resident to escalate to the Ombudsman at that point, which mitigated further delays from accumulating. However this delay was unnecessary and avoidable.
  5. The landlord explained that its reason for not issuing a stage 2 complaint response was that the resident currently had an open compensation claim being dealt with by the landlord’s legal representatives. “Appendix B” of the landlord’s Corporate Complaints Procedure states that matters that should not be dealt with by its complaints team include those which involve an insurance claim against the landlord. The evidence shows that the resident did have an insurance claim open with the landlord relating to the period November 2022 to June 2023. A “second part” of the claim was to be settled after the works had been completed. It was appropriate that some elements of this claim, for example an allegation of personal injury and damage to the residents possessions, be dealt with in this way. However, there is no reason that other elements such as the distress, inconvenience, disruption, and delays, should have been pursued through this route rather than through the internal complaints process. The process was also confusing and misleading, as there is no evidence the claim was ever logged with an insurer. Offers of compensation instead were made by the landlord’s legal representatives.
  6. The Code states that a response to a complaint (and any actions deemed necessary to put things right) should be issued when the outcome is known, not when all the actions required have been completed. The landlord therefore subjected the resident to unnecessary delays in receiving redress by removing her option to pursue compensation via the internal complaints process. An offer was not made to the resident in respect of the first claim until February 2024, although it was only relating to events up until June 2023. At the time of this determination, no outcome has been provided to the second period of adverse effect for which the resident had claimed. These delays represent further failings.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Insurance guidance states that “an insurance claim should not restrict a complainant’s ability to access the landlord’s formal complaint procedure… Complainants should be able to raise a formal complaint even if an insurance claim is also being made, particularly if a complainant has raised additional issues… In these circumstances, a landlord should clearly explain to complainants what issues can be considered through its formal complaints procedure and what can be progressed through insurers.” Although the guidance acknowledges there may be some circumstances where delaying a complaint response may be warranted in lieu of an insurance claim, we have found no good reason from the evidence why that should have applied in this case. The landlord’s decision not to respond (and offer appropriate redress) through its complaints procedure was a failing. The Ombudsman gave the landlord a further opportunity to respond at stage 2 its process on 19 August 2024, which was declined.
  8. By declining to respond through the internal complaints process, the evidence suggests that the landlord failed to follow the Ombudsman’s DRPs. For example, the landlord suggested in internal emails that compensation of £1,500 might be suitable for the period ending June 2023. However its legal representatives replied “I would stick with [the £1,300 already offered]”. It provided no reasons for this, for example why this lower amount better reflected the adverse effect experienced, or by referencing any appropriate guidance or policy. The resident also was required to enter lengthy engagements with the landlord’s legal representatives in order to seek redress, which were often adversarial in nature and dismissive of the adverse effect caused. For example, in a phone call with the resident on 16 January 2024 the landlord’s legal representative said to the resident “what do you want? You have to value [your claim] and provide proof and justification for [it, because] this [money] is from the public purse”. This suggests that the landlord’s legal representative was prioritising cost saving over its responsibility to be fair and put things right. Aside from the further unnecessary time and trouble, this likely caused distress to the resident by making it difficult for her to seek appropriate redress. It also prevented the landlord’s internal complaints team from having an opportunity to reflect on what went wrong and to learn from outcomes.
  9. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident in respect of its complaint handling prior to June 2023, however it is unclear which failing(s) this relates to. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration, where some attempt has been made to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified, compensation of up to £600 should be considered. The Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to pay £300 compensation, inclusive of the £100 already offered, in respect of its complaint handling in this case.
  10. From other cases determined by the Ombudsman, there is no evidence that the landlord’s failure to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process, for the reasons identified in this case, is an issue that goes beyond this isolated case. However, the failing nevertheless was significant and a recommendation for staff training and a review of “Appendix B” of its Corporate Complaints Procedure is made below. The Ombudsman also determined a complaint against the landlord under reference 202122936 on 12 June 2023 in which a recommendation made was “to review whether improved processes or training of staff are required in relation to fully investigating and responding to all complaint points raised and in offering appropriate redress, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.” As these same themes were noted again in this case, this recommendation has been repeated below as an order, to be complied with within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks, major works, and reports that the property was not fit to let at the start of the tenancy.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £2,600 made up of:
      1. £1,600 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble.
      3. £300 for delays.
      4. £300 for complaint handling.
      5. The £1,200 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
    2. Pay the resident an amount of compensation equivalent to 15% of the value paid in rent by the resident, for the period 8 November 2022 (when the landlord should have first attended) until 24 May 2024. The £100 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
    3. Provide a written update on the progress of the changes described to the Regulator of Social Housing in February 2023, and the results of any monitoring it has subsequently carried out (if applicable).
    4. Send the resident a formal written apology, from a senior member of staff, for the failings highlighted in this report.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must review whether improved processes or staff training is required in relation to responding to all complaint points raised and in offering appropriate redress, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.

Recommendations

  1. To consider if further staff training is required to help staff appropriately deal with complaints where elements may also be subject to an insurance claim or legal proceedings.
  2. To complete a senior review of “Appendix B” of its Corporate Complaints Procedure, to ensure that it does not conflict with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code when put into practice.