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

Camden Council (202409306)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409306

Camden Council

19 November 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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Overcrowding in the property.
    2. Damp and mould.
    3. The boiler.
    4. Repairs throughout her home. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 20 July 1998. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor flat. There are 6 members of the resident’s household. The resident confirmed to this Service that one of her children has autism and consistently has respiratory illnesses and vomiting.
  2. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord in June 2022 and said the resident had advised damp and mould was continuing in her property, she had been bidding on properties for 12 years, and the resident’s preference was to be rehoused. The MP followed on this enquiry on 19 October 2022. On 23 November 2022 the landlord completed a damp and mould survey in the property. The report was flagged to the landlord by its contractor as urgent, who stated approximately 60-70 square metres of mould wash and redecoration was required. The report noted mould was present in 2 bedrooms, the bathroom and kitchen. It said the ventilation had been resolved when extractor fans were fitted some time ago but the mould at the time was not addressed. It stated the only damp found was on the base unit below the kitchen sink. It said there was no obvious cause and it required investigation once the units were removed. The photos from the report (seen by this Service) showed extensive mould to walls in 2 bedrooms, bathroom, and to a kitchen base unit the property.
  3. On 31 March 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the following:
    1. She had been in contact with her MP since 2019 about overcrowding, damp and mould and repairs.
    2. A surveyor had attended in 2022 and highlighted an issue with damp and mould.
    3. She had been offered a mould wash but she was unhappy with this because she felt the issue was deeper and a mould wash would temporarily cover up the issue.
    4. There were still damp and mould issues in the property.
    5. The mould wash did not address why the bathroom and kitchen walls were so damp that snails, slugs and worms were present.
    6. The landlord had not addressed the boiler losing pressure weekly or the discolouration of the external wall directly adjacent to the walls with issues which potentially indicated a leak.
    7. The damp and mould report was provided by a contractor. The issues it highlighted were not brought up with the resident or a solution offered, including to the kitchen cabinets.
    8. She wanted the bathroom and kitchen, the boiler pressure, the discoloration on the external wall and the crack in the bathroom ceiling addressed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 April 2024. It said the following:
    1. In accordance with its complaints policy it could only address issues within the past 12 month period.
    2. To address the concerns about the damp and mould in the property, a works order had been raised on 4 April 2024 for a mould inspection to be carried out.
    3. The resident had enquired about the issue with her MP in April 2023 and received a response which stated the following:
      1. The resident’s son had informed the landlord on 18 April 2023 that the resident did not want a mould wash or any other work carried out at the property as she believed the issues would reoccur and she was actively seeking to move out of the property.
      2. The severity of the mould caused by condensation required action by the landlord and it recommended that the resident allow access for the mould wash and other works to be carried out in the interim while the resident looked to move.
      3. It would make contact with the resident to arrange an appointment for the works to be carried out.
    4. The resident had a transfer application open since 2011. The team assessment of her case was that she was overcrowded and was entitled to bid for 4-bedroom properties.
    5. At all times there had been families who were more severely overcrowded than the resident and these families had generally had a greater priority. There were presently 455 families waiting for a 4-bedroom property and 210 of these had the same level of overcrowding as the resident.
    6. It provided details of how to register for an exchange and for the older children at the property to register an application for housing if they were interested in this.
    7. There was no record on its system on issues with the boiler pressure. It suggested reporting the matter to the repairs team.
    8. There were no reports of potential leaks affecting the property or about the external area of the property. It advised the resident to report these matters to its repairs team.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. She said she did not ask for work not to be completed on the property but said she did not feel comfortable with just a mould wash treatment. The resident said she sent the landlord an email in January 2024 about the damp and mould at the property. The resident said in this email that the mould wash would not have addressed the walls of the bathroom and kitchen with slugs and snails growing inside, the cracked bathroom ceiling, the discolouration of the external wall or the boiler. The resident said she was happy to allow access and did not explicitly deny access, but wanted a permanent resolution.
  6. The landlord provided its final response on 15 May 2024. It said the following:
    1. It understood the resident wanted to move due to the overcrowding.
    2. The resident had a live rehousing application. However, due to the lack of available properties and the number of other applicants with higher rehousing points totals, she had not had any success.
    3. The housing advisor has suggested the resident try a mutual exchange as a more likely way of getting rehoused. It provided a link for further advice.
    4. It was surprised by the lack of repair records for the property over recent years. It could not find any other formal complaints from the resident since January 2022.
    5. There were numerous records for boiler issues from October 2023 onwards. There were 9 reports of a loss of pressure with the last report on 9 February 2024. 
    6. Each report where access was achieved had been addressed by repressurising the boiler. There was a note on one record suggesting that the cylinder expansion vessel in the cupboard was leaking and a new part needed to be ordered and fitted. However, when operatives returned, on 16 December 2023, no access was possible. Operatives had tried again on 23rd December and then closed the order on 13 January 2024 due to no access.
    7. More recent attendances appear to have just repressurised the boiler without reference to the need for a new part. The last visit was also the annual maintenance check.
    8. As there had been no further reports of lost pressure since February 2024, it would await further contact from the resident on this. If the loss of pressure happened again, it asked the resident to report this and mention the reference of the complaint to ensure that further consideration was given to the cause of the pressure loss, rather than just a re-pressurisation of the boiler.
    9. It could not see any reports of a cracked ceiling or wet exterior wall. It had therefore asked the repairs service to raise an inspection order to attend the property and consider these issues, as well as any other repair needs the property required. This would also be an opportunity for the resident to discuss and be updated on the window and fire door issues she had mentioned.
    10. Since early April 2024, it had been trying to attend to undertake a damp and mould inspection. The first date set for this was 5th April, but this was put back to 26 April 2024, then to 5 May 2024 and now to 21 May 2024 at the resident’s request.
    11. The resident may be of the misapprehension that the inspection visit was just for a mould wash. This was incorrect. It needed to inspect to see what the cause of the damp and mould was. It would then order remedial works for whatever the cause was considered to be.
    12. Previously the damp and mould was believed to be due to condensation exacerbated by the overcrowding. But given the resident’s mention of a damp exterior wall this may not be the sole cause of the problem. It was therefore most urgent that the resident gave access without further delay so that remedial works could be carefully considered.
    13. The complaint was partially upheld. This was because while in part the resident had caused some delay by not agreeing sooner access for the damp and mould inspection, it was not satisfied that it had been sufficiently thorough investigating the causes of the lost boiler pressure.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In June 2024, the resident told this Service that the damp had been present since she moved into the property. She said the damp was on clothes and other items. She said the windows in the property were not properly sealed and this caused the property to be cold. This had made her daily life uncomfortable as her and her daughter had thyroid problems.

Events following the end of the complaints process.

  1. On 20 June 2023 the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a letter of claim which included a defective boiler, areas of damp, defective walls in the kitchen, damp and mould to bedrooms, areas of damp and mould in the bathroom, and cracks to the bathroom ceiling. Following this, the landlord completed an inspection of the property on 24 July 2024. This report identified that widespread mould growth and damp conditions were present in the property in the bathrooms and bedrooms. It said the external brickwork outside was indicative of historical dampness but there was no evidence of current damp penetration. It said the issues were largely due to poor ventilation and there was no evidence of water ingress. It stated the mould growth in the bathroom was the moisture generated from showers not being effectively removed. It said residents were recommended to refrain from using the handheld shower attached to the wall and to consistently use the extractor fan. The landlord completed a mould wash and stain block works on 12 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation.

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about overcrowding is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. Matters relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding in her property and a request to move to a new property would usually be for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to refer her concerns about this to the LGSCO.
  3. The overcrowded property was detailed as a likely contributing factor to the damp and mould issues in the property. This investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the overcrowding within this context within the assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  4. The resident told this Service that she had complained about damp and mould since 2018. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2022 that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  5. The landlord provided evidence to this Service of a disrepair claim made by the resident in June 2024 which included the issues raised during the resident’s complaint of damp and mould, issues with the boiler, and the kitchen wall. There was no evidence provided by either the landlord or the resident that legal proceedings had been issued. The resident confirmed to this Service in September 2024 that she had disengaged this and there was not currently a legal team dealing with the claim. Therefore the issues raised within this claim which were raised during the complaints process have been referred to and assessed within this report where appropriate.
  6. In her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her and her children’s health. While this Service is able to assess the response the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. This is because it is outside our role to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the resident’s health. Such matters may be more appropriate for a court or liability insurer to decide.
  7. Part of the resident’s complaint to this Service related to damages to personal belongings. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s housing repairs service policy says it is responsible for the building structure including damp proof work, and the repair and maintenance of appliances it installed to provide heating and hot water. It says the following about timescales for repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs are attended the same day.
    2. Urgent repairs are completed within 5 working days.
    3. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days.
    4. A total loss of water heating between 1 November and 30 April is categorised as urgent with a response time of within 3 days.

The policy says that if a resident breaks an appointment and it cannot get into a property, it will try and telephone the resident. If this is not possible it will leave a card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange. It will record the details of the visit and cancel the repair order. It says it is the resident’s responsibility to contact it to order the repair again.

  1. The landlord implemented a damp and mould policy effective from 20 February 2024. It says the landlord will:
    1. Take emergency action within 24 hours or the next day and will make safe where there is risk to life and/or property. This can include a mould wash to remove mould spores, arrange emergency accommodation to decant the tenant, where necessary, and instruction for a full survey to identify the root cause and recommended remedial works.
    2. For moderate and low risk cases an officer will aim to visit a property where damp and mould has been reported within 10 working days of receiving a report. During the initial tenant report and visit, any negative impact on the health of the resident or anyone living in the household will be considered, and a standardized assessment survey checklist will be completed and shared with the resident.
    3. The resident will be informed of the next steps and estimated timelines or actual timelines where they are known for completion of works.
    4. Inspection checklists and/or summaries of survey reports identifying the root cause and recommended remedial works will be shared with the resident, so the resident understands what has been investigated, what the findings are to date, and next steps.
    5. Residents must allow access for inspections and repairs when given reasonable written notice (24-48 hours), in accordance with their tenancy agreement. If the landlord is unable to gain access and the integrity of the property, its fabric and/or the safety of the resident or those in the vicinity is at risk, appropriate action will be taken. For example this may include, but is not limited to, obtaining an injunction for access.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord responds to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 25 working days. It says some complaints that are more complex may take longer, and it will keep a resident updated on the progress of a complaint. It says a resident is to submit the complaint within 12 months after the date of the incident. It will not accept a complaint outside of these timescales except where exceptional reasons for the delay can be demonstrated.
  3. The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure says the landlord can offer a financial remedy when it finds it is at fault. The landlord can issue a financial remedy for a failure to provide a service of £25 per month, £100-£300 for distress, £100-£300 for time and trouble and £20 per month for delay. For the loss of heating and hot water for residents with individual systems, the landlord pays compensation of £3.80 per day after 5 days.
  4. This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report in October 2021 prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it could only consider issues within the previous 12-month period. This was in line with its complaints policy. However, the policy allows the landlord to use discretion where there are exceptional reasons. The landlord could have applied this discretion given that the most recent report of damp and mould had been ongoing since the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 19 October 2022 to follow up on an enquiry from May 2022. The MP enquiry had raised these issues with the landlord and this was clearly an expression of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the ongoing damp and mould.
  6. The landlord’s complaint investigation considered its actions from April 2023 to the time of the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable in consideration that the issue had been ongoing and the landlord was aware of the issue. As a result the landlord’s complaint investigation failed to understand the full circumstances of the impact on the resident. It has therefore been considered both fair and reasonable for this investigation to consider the issues from the MP enquiry in October 2022 onwards.
  7. It was evident that following a damp and mould inspection on 23 November 2022, the mould to the resident’s property had been flagged by the surveyor on the same day as urgent. The landlord’s records demonstrated that it appropriately took action on the same day, emailing the resident’s son to arrange a mould treatment. The landlord’s records noted an appointment was made for 5 December 2022, but no access was provided. In January 2023 the contractor told the landlord it had attempted to call the resident 3 times to arrange an appointment but had not received a response. This action was in line with its housing repairs service policy. This states that where it cannot get into a property for an appointment, it will record the details of the visit and cancel the repair order. The policy says it is the resident’s responsibility to contact it to order the repair again.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided the details of a response it had sent on 27 April 2023 to an MP enquiry. It said the resident’s son told the landlord on 18 April 2023 that the resident did not want a mould wash or work carried out as she believed the issued would reoccur and she was seeking to move out. In its MP enquiry response it had said the severity of the mould required action and it would be contacting the resident to make an appointment. The landlord’s records demonstrated that the landlord emailed the resident about the damp and mould on 7 July 2023. It said its contractor had attempted an appointment at the end of the previous year but had no access.
  9. There was no further evidence of the landlord attempting to contact the resident again about the outstanding damp and mould works until after she raised her complaint in March 2024. It is acknowledged that the resident had refused the mould wash works and the contractors had not been able to arrange access in December 2022, or make contact with the resident in January 2023.
  10. Following the resident’s complaint in March 2024, the landlord took the appropriate step of arranging an inspection of the damp and mould. In the landlord’s final response, it said it had been trying to book this with the resident since early April 2024. The landlord’s records showed this was initially booked for 5 April 2024 and further rescheduled by the resident 3 times, being completed in late May 2024. The landlord here had made reasonable attempts from the point of the complaint to visit the property within an appropriate timeframe.
  11. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord’s records demonstrated that it attempted to book the mould wash and stain block treatment on a number of occasions. The landlord’s contractor advised it on 20 June 2024 that the resident had refused the works. The works were completed on 11 and 12 September 2024. This was a timeframe of over 1 year and 9 months from the completion of the damp survey in November 2022 which identified the work required, and over 5 months after the landlord’s final response. It was evident that the resident’s refusal of the works and the rearrangement of appointments contributed to the delay.
  12. The survey completed by the landlord in November 2022 and the inspection in May 2024 identified that a mould wash and treatment was required to resolve the mould. The reports did not state that further works were required to the mould in these rooms. It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine exactly what repairs or works are required at the property, but rather, to decide whether the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of issues appropriately. The landlord was entitled to rely on the inspections and recommendations by its contractors. The works raised by the landlord in relation to the mould in these rooms demonstrated the landlord following the results of its survey and inspection.
  13. It was evident that the landlord’s communication about the repairs also contributed to the delay in completing the repairs. The resident expressed concern on a number of occasions about a mould treatment being the only work to be completed. Given that the resident said she had been reporting damp and mould for a number of years, it was understandable that she was concerned that this was not going to resolve a potential underlying problem. It was noted that the landlord’s contractor sent the resident an email on 24 November 2022 in which it offered to talk the resident through what the treatment process was. There was no further evidence that prior to the resident’s complaint the landlord had reassured the resident of the reasons for the work it had ordered.
  14. It was evident the landlord had failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the outcome of the damp survey and the scope of works required. This did not demonstrate a transparent or customer focused approach. It was also not following the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould report which says landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
  15. The landlord stated in its final response on 15 May 2024 that the resident may be of the “misapprehension” that the inspection visit was just for a mould wash. The landlord implemented a damp and mould policy in February 2024. While this was not in place at the time of the resident’s report of damp and mould in 2022, it was in place at the time of her complaint. The landlord demonstrated that it had followed its policy in attempting to arrange a visit to the property within 10 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint. The landlord shared the next steps in advising a mould wash and stain block treatment was required. However there was no evidence of the landlord completing a standardised assessment survey checklist and sharing this or a summary of the survey report identifying the root cause and recommended remedial works with the resident following its visit in May 2024.
  16. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the reasons for the works ordered to the resident, to manage her expectations. This would have better explained the landlord’s findings and why it had raised the damp and mould wash. Its failure to do so likely caused the resident a further inconvenience of not fully knowing the landlord’s position.
  17. It was evident that the resident raised the issue with the damp to the kitchen wall during her complaint. This was also noted on the damp survey in November 2022. This survey stated the kitchen base units below the sink were affected by damp and mould and required replacing. It stated there was no obvious cause and it required investigation once the units were removed. There was no evidence of the landlord arranging works to the kitchen base units, the mould there, or an investigation into this. It was noted the issue with mould to the wall to the underside of the sink base unit was identified on the inspection report completed on 24 July 2024. This demonstrated that this remained an issue following the end of the complaints process. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if this repair remains outstanding. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to inspect this area of damp and mould and arrange to complete any repairs identified.
  18. The landlord confirmed to this Service it had been made aware of the health vulnerabilities within the household in an MP enquiry in 2019. In an email from the resident to her MP in 2019 the resident said she had spine problems, her and one of her daughters had thyroid problems, her young son was autistic, one of her daughters had bad mobility, her children had vision problems and all members of the household constantly had cold symptoms and vomiting. The contractor who completed the survey in November 2022 informed the landlord that the resident had stated her children were getting sick and vomiting. The landlord did not demonstrate it had appropriately taken the resident’s health concerns into consideration in the actions it took to complete the works. There was no evidence of a risk assessment, which would have been appropriate given the extent of the mould and the resident’s reports of the impact on the health of her and her children. The landlord took steps to access the property to complete repairs by attempting to arrange appointments. However, its records do not show it investigated alternative ways of gaining access to the property.
  19. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. It was a concern that the landlord confirmed it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident despite acknowledging it had an understanding of health needs within the household from an MP enquiry in 2019. In contact with this Service, the resident also stated her son had respiratory illness. As such a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
  20. In raising her complaint to the landlord in March 2024, the resident raised the issue of overcrowding in her property further causing damp and mould. The landlord stated in its final response that previously it was believed the damp and mould was due to condensation, exacerbated by the overcrowding in the property. It acknowledged that this may not be the sole cause of the issue. However, it was noted that the inspection report in July 2024 stated the damp and mould issues were largely due to poor ventilation. The report considered how the resident was using the shower and advised on this.
  21. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate during the complaints process that it had investigated the matter of condensation appropriately with the resident and considered how the household was coping with its everyday use of the property in these conditions: cooking, heating the property or drying clothes for example. The landlord could have done more here to explore options for alleviating the concerns about condensation in the short term, while the resident was applying to be rehoused. This was particularly important given the health vulnerabilities within the household reported by the resident.
  22. In summary, the landlord took actions to follow up on the resident’s reports of damp and mould through her MP in October 2022. It arranged for a survey of the property in November 2022 and following this quickly ordered the recommended works to the mould identified in the bathrooms and bedrooms. It was evident that the resident had not provided access and this had delayed the works being carried out. The landlord took further appropriate action on receipt of the resident’s complaint in March 2024 and attempted to book an inspection of the damp and mould within 5 days. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord again made attempts to book in the work with the resident.
  23. It was evident that the landlord’s communication about the repairs and the works ordered was not effective. The landlord failed to reassure the resident that it was ordering works in line with the survey and inspection carried out. The landlord failed to share the results of its survey and inspection with the resident. As a result the resident felt the works ordered were not going to resolve the issue. This resulted in delays in the resident providing access for the mould wash work to be completed. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the reported health vulnerabilities within the household and the risk to household of the outstanding repair to the mould. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had actioned the work identified in November 2022 to the damp in the kitchen base units below the sink.
  24. While the lack of access from the resident accounted for part of the delay, the landlord’s failures to communicate effectively had an impact on the delays also. The landlord failed to acknowledge its role in the delays in its complaint response. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  25. Compensation of £500 is considered fair to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have occurred over a protracted period, adversely affected a resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boiler.

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the terms of the tenancy agreement to keep in repair and good working order the services that supply water, gas and heating.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint that the landlord had not addressed the issue of the boiler losing pressure weekly. The resident said this was reported in an email to the landlord on 31 January 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response said there were no records of the concerns about boiler repairs. It suggested the resident contacted the repairs team to report the matter. This information was incorrect. The landlord confirmed in its final response that there had been 9 reports by the resident of lost pressure since October 2023.
  3. The landlord’s repair records noted that the repairs to the boiler were completed within 3 working days on each occasion. This was in line with its housing repairs service policy. In its final response the landlord said a part for the boiler was ordered following a visit and it returned on 16 and 23 December 2023 to fit this but no access was possible. It stated the order was closed on 13 January 2024. This action was in line with its housing repairs service policy.
  4. The landlord’s said in its final response that more recent repairs appeared to have repressurised the boiler without reference to the need for a new part. However, the landlord’s repair records showed a part was fitted on 8 February 2024. The landlord’s records noted that there had been no further reports of pressure loss from the boiler since this date. This Service does acknowledge that repairs can on occasion be complex and require repeated visits.
  5. It was evident the landlord failed to retain an oversight of the repair reports and thoroughly investigate the case of the issue for the resident in a reasonable timeframe. While it is acknowledged that the failed access accounted for part of the delay here, it was not clear from the landlord’s records when the issue with the part was first identified. Its first attempt to fit the part was on 16 December 2023 which was over 2 months after the resident’s initial report on 1 October 2023.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it was not satisfied that it had been sufficiently thorough in its investigations as to the causes of the loss of boiler pressure. It said it was partially upholding the residents complaint due to this. While the landlord acknowledged its failure here to thoroughly investigate the issue with the boiler, it had not offered the resident redress to put things right by way of an apology or compensation.
  7. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it attended and repressurised the boiler following each repair report between 1 October 2023 and 08 February 2024 within the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had not been sufficiently thorough in its investigations into the causes of this. As a result there was a delay in the landlord fully resolving the issues for the resident. It caused the resident the distress and inconvenience of repeated repair visits over a period of 4 months, and the time and trouble of repeated repair reports. As well as repeated instances without heating and hot water over the winter months. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boiler. This Service considers fair compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for instances where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs throughout her home. 

  1. In her complaint the resident raised concerns about a crack in bathroom ceiling, a wet exterior wall and discolouration indicating a leak and the need to replace the doors and windows. It was not clear if the resident had raised these issues directly with the landlord prior to the complaint on 31 March 2023.
  2. The landlord stated in its final response on 15 May 2024 that it had not received any reports about these matters. The damp and mould survey completed by the landlord in November 2022 did not identify any damp to the exterior walls. The landlord’s repairs records provided to this Service did not show any reports by the resident or works raised about these particular issues between November 2022 and 31 March 2024.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident to report these issues to the repairs team. In its final response, the landlord said it had asked its repairs team to raise an inspection to consider the reported issues with the bathroom ceiling and exterior wall. It said the resident would be able to discuss the window and fire door issues she had mentioned at this appointment. While this was an appropriate response by the landlord to raise an inspection about these matters, the landlord had delayed in doing so. The landlord should have raised these matters once made aware by the resident on 31 March 2024. Its action to ask the resident to contact its repairs team did not demonstrate a customer focused approach. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs throughout her home. Compensation of £25 has been ordered to account for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about overcrowding in the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boiler.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs throughout her home.  

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £625. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £500 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boiler.
    3. £25 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs throughout her home.
  3. The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the property to identify any outstanding repairs which must include the damp identified to the base units in the kitchen. The landlord is to provide the resident with the expected timescale for the completion of any works identified by this inspection in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

  1. The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household to ensure its records are accurate.