City of York Council (202344656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344656

City of York Council

23 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and water ingress.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in July 2020. The property is a flat within a low-rise block of similar properties. On one side of the building there is a flat roof which is above the resident’s kitchen. The block can be accessed via either side of the building and the resident has advised that there is often confusion about which side is the front or rear of the block. In his communication to the landlord, the resident advised that he has epilepsy, heart failure, asthma and osteoarthritis.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident first reported issues involving damp and mould in his kitchen in February 2021. This was initially related to his sink and waste pipe. He raised further concerns about mould in the kitchen in September 2021 and the landlord completed work to re-felt and weatherproof a canopy and balcony (flat roof) above the kitchen between December 2021 and March 2022. The landlord also cleaned off mould in the kitchen in February 2022.
The resident reported mould returning in his kitchen in November 2022. Between November 2022 and November 2023, the landlord’s repair records indicate that:
1. It completed a mould wash of the kitchen on 24 November 2022.
2. It inspected the “balcony” on 9 December 2022 and completed further work to repoint areas of the rear wall in February 2023. The job note indicates that roofers needed to attend after the pointing to reseal the balcony, which was reported as completed on 28 February 2023.
3. On 16 May 2023, the landlord raised a work order for crumbling bricks around the sink waste pipe and damp from the gutter waste pipe. It reported this as completed on 29 June 2023.
4. It raised another inspection visit on 2 August 2023 to discuss faults with the property, which it completed on 30 August 2023. The job notes show that guttering was faulty in areas. The photos taken indicate that this was on the other side of the building to the resident’s kitchen. It also needed to trim a tree and repair a communal bench. It completed work to clear the gutter to the front and rear, and check roof tiles to the main roof on 4 August 2023.
5. It raised a work order to inspect the guttering and reported this as completed on 27 October 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of this visit.
6. On 3 November 2023, it raised an order to look at all gutters to the block and provide advice on what to do as the resident still experienced water entering the property. The job description indicates it was not certain whether the water ingress related to the guttering.
The landlord’s records from 28 November 2023 indicate that the resident had raised a complaint via a voicemail. The landlord’s notes say that since he moved in, there had been water leaking from the flat roof at the back of the property into his kitchen, which affected more than one property. He did not feel the landlord was willing to fix the problem due to the costs involved, and a staff member was too busy to attend.
On 30 November 2023, the landlord reported completing an inspection of the guttering and raised a work order to erect scaffolding to allow access to the main roof to complete work to the tiles and roof felt and to renew the gutters.
On 4 December 2023, an MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They explained that:
1. The resident had experienced damp and mould in the property for 3 years and the landlord had not resolved the problem. Water was leaking into his kitchen, and he believed the landlord should have completed work in the summer months and not now, when the weather was bad.
2. He needed to spend additional money on electricity to run a dehumidifier to prevent mould getting worse. He had also needed to do this during the previous year which amounted to hundreds of pounds. He confirmed that he had epilepsy, heart failure, asthma, and osteoarthritis so he needed to keep warm.
3. He added that the landlord showed no interest in remedying the damage caused to his property and when he had asked why it had not completed work, it had not provided an answer. He added that a recent inspector did not bother to look inside the flat which left him feeling upset.
4. He said he had also raised a complaint about a staff member, but heard nothing further. The staff member told him they needed to be at another property, and they did not want to listen to his concerns or try to help him.
5. He also raised concern about a communal bench which was dilapidated and needed replacing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 December 2023 via email. It noted that it had called him and explained why it was not able to investigate the complaint about a staff member due to data protection. It aimed to provide a response to his other concerns by 28 December 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023, the landlord:
1. Summarised the repair history related to his reports of damp involving the guttering and flat roof from November 2022 onwards.
2. Explained that although the issues related to the flat roof and guttering had been ongoing for some time, it was taking the steps it would expect to resolve the reported problems. It added that it needed to pre-inspect some jobs before it could arrange the repair appointment. This was where it did not know the scope of the work, or it needed a more detailed diagnosis.
3. Said it could not see that it had kept the resident updated with the proposed plans to address the reports which meant he had needed to chase it for definitive answers. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for poor communication.
4. Confirmed that a housing repairs team leader would visit the property to inspect the inside within 1 calendar month. Following the inspection, they would set out target dates for the action it would take within 20 working days of the inspection.
5. Explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, he could escalate the complaint. It also confirmed that he could approach the Housing Ombudsman at any stage of the complaints process and provided a link.
On 3 January 2024, the landlord raised 2 work orders to investigate water leaking through the communal porch into the resident’s flat and to clear a blocked drain/gulley outside the resident’s flat. The landlord reported completing work to clear the drain/gulley the following day. The landlord raised further work orders to inspect the guttering on 26 January 2024 and to erect scaffolding and renew guttering to the “front” on 31 January 2024. On 1 February 2024, it completed work to investigate water leaking through the communal porch, but the Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of this visit.
On 5 February 2024, the resident called the landlord. Its records indicate he had raised separate, unrelated concerns, but also said he had not received a response to his complaint. The landlord re-sent this on 7 February 2024. On the same day, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident said he disagreed with the action timescales in its stage 1 complaint response and that he wanted to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024 confirmed that it believed the timescales set out in the stage 1 response were reasonable to ensure the service area had appropriate time to arrange for the action to be completed. This took into account staff absence and workloads to ensure no further dissatisfaction was caused. It did not uphold the complaint and said the resident could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he was unhappy with its response.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service in March 2024 as follows:
1. He said that damp and mould was a problem before he moved in and he believed the landlord should have remedied this. This continued despite a cover being placed on the roof.
2. A surveyor had informed him that the landlord would not spend “that much” money on replacing the flat roof which was causing water ingress.
3. Nothing had been done to fix the internal damage, including to his decorations, as a result of water ingress. The landlord had mentioned offering compensation so he could complete work himself, but he would not be able to do this due to his health conditions. He maintained that his health had been impacted by the property condition.
Following the complaint, the below occurred:
1. The landlord raised an inspection following reports of damp and mould in the bedroom affecting the ceiling area on 9 April 2024.
2. A follow-on report from 14 May 2024 shows that the landlord inspected the resident’s property. The report stated that the cleaning team visited but there was returning damp and mould in the bedroom and kitchen directly below the flat roof. It had repointed the wall 2 years prior but there were still signs of damp causing water marks on the ceiling, and mould. The operative reported that roofers needed to check the roof for obvious imperfections. They added that the issue impacted the row of downstairs flats and communal entrance, and that the drainage system was part of the problem.
3. The landlord raised a work order to inspect the flat roof on 12 August 2024. It raised a further order for a quote to re-felt the “walkway” on 19 September 2024.
In his communication with the Ombudsman in December 2024, the resident explained that the landlord had not resolved the problem, and he continued to experience water coming in through the flat roof above his kitchen and living room. He added that the landlord had not completed a damp survey and he was dissatisfied that there were no visits to the property over the course of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation has impacted his health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has also raised concerns that the property was affected by damp and mould before he moved in, and that the landlord should have remedied the issues before letting the property. As this concern did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on this further as part of this investigation. The landlord needs to have the opportunity to formally respond through the complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has not provided the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Nevertheless, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it has 2 repair timescales; same day and general repairs. The landlord aims to make safe a same day repair within 4 to 24 hours. The landlord aims to complete general repairs within 20 working days of the repair being reported. Some jobs require a pre-inspection to establish what work is needed. The staff member completing the inspection will advise what work is required and the landlord will contact the resident by phone to book an appointment.
Where a tenant reports condensation, damp, or mould, the landlord will carry out an inspection and give relevant advice and, if necessary, arrange for repair work to be undertaken to alleviate the issues. Tenants are usually responsible for decoration; however, the landlord may offer a decoration pack to assist with decoration following major works. The policy further states that the landlord would tailor its service to meet the needs of vulnerable tenants. This may include a swifter response time where the tenant’s needs put them at increased discomfort because of any repair defects.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days of receiving the request. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 30 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) set out requirements for member landlords that allowed them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. All member landlords were expected to comply with the Code when handling housing related complaints. At the time, the Code specified that:
1. At stage 1, the landlord must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. At stage 2, the landlord must respond to the complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. On receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
3. The person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1.
4. The final stage must include details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the resident remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and water ingress

As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. While the landlord provided some records, only limited communication records were received. The landlord said that it verbally informed the resident of how it was addressing his concerns but has not provided evidence that it did so. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The Ombudsman has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, it is of concern that the landlord failed to respond to a request for additional information. The omissions also indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
It is evident that the resident has experienced recurring water ingress, and damp and mould since at least September 2021. It is of concern that the matter remains unresolved to date. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. However, in this case, the landlord has not demonstrated that it gained an adequate diagnosis of the fault impacting the resident’s property or that it took steps to put things right over the course of the complaint.
Following historic work in March 2022 to apply waterproofing to the roof above the resident’s kitchen, the resident continued to report water ingress in November 2022, suggesting that the problem had not adequately been resolved, or that the issue was seasonal. The landlord’s records show that it took further steps to complete a mould wash in November 2022 and repoint the brickwork and reseal the roof in February 2023. This was a reasonable approach at the time.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of further reports of damp, and jobs raised to inspect a crumbling wall, and guttering and waste pipes causing damp in May 2023. However, there is no evidence to show that any works were completed to resolve the problem at the time. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said this was completed and the resident reported no issue with the wall or leak. However, the Ombudsman has not seen the evidence it relied upon when making the assertion that there was not a problem at this time.
Despite an inspection raised on 4 August 2023 to “discuss faults” with the property, there is no clear evidence to show that the internal parts of the resident’s property were inspected. The records from the visit on 30 August 2023 indicated that there were possible problems with the gutters on the other side of the property to the resident’s kitchen, a tree needed to be trimmed, and a communal bench needed repairing. Despite repairs to the guttering being identified as needed on 30 August 2023, there is no evidence to show what, if any, work was undertaken.
The landlord’s records from 3 November 2023 indicate that the resident reported he was still experiencing water entering the property and the landlord asked that the guttering to the block was inspected as the problems “could” be related to the guttering. While it raised work for the guttering, the records indicate that it was not certain that this was the cause of the problem and there is a lack of evidence to show it adequately diagnosed the cause at the time.
Communications from the resident and his MP on 28 November and 5 December 2023 clearly set out that he was unhappy that the landlord had failed to resolve the water leaking from the flat roof into his kitchen, and he said that more than one property was impacted. His MP explained the resident’s medical vulnerabilities and his concerns about the presence of damp and mould.
Following the resident’s reports of a leak into the property, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord took proactive steps to diagnose the cause of the leak by inspecting both the property and area directly above, and completing actions such as dye tests where the cause of the leak was unclear. It should have communicated with the resident regarding the leak and confirmed how and when it would resolve the issue.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021), the Ombudsman expects landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord should communicate effectively and, when assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter. This is to establish the underlying cause of the problems experienced within a property and the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp. A landlord should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer a relevant resolution.
Given the nature of the concerns raised and that this was the third year the resident had been impacted by water ingress, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in its handling of the matter. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, informed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord needs to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord completed a damp inspection of the entire property, or assessed the potential risk, which is likely to have contributed to a lack of oversight in its handling of the resident’s reports.
While damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly, it is particularly important that damp and mould is addressed with urgency for those likely to be more vulnerable to the health impacts. This includes those with underlying health conditions known to be impacted by damp conditions, such as asthma. In view of the potential hazards caused by damp and mould, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord considered the potential risk and acted with urgency.
In its evidence submissions to the Ombudsman in October 2024, the landlord said that it was “not aware of anything” in relation to the resident’s health or disability needs, indicating that it did not keep a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord was on notice of the resident’s vulnerabilities from at least 5 December 2023 and failed to demonstrate that it gave due regard for his vulnerabilities at any stage which amounts to a significant failing.
Within its stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023, the landlord did not dispute that the faults related to the roof and guttering had been ongoing but said that it was taking the steps it would expect to see. It explained that some matters can take longer to resolve which could cause uncertainty and distress and partially upheld the complaint as it had not communicated clearly with him.
The landlord listed the repair history and the actions it had taken, but failed to offer any explanation as to how it had diagnosed the leak into the property or how it intended to resolve his concerns. In its response, the landlord referenced work orders related to inspections of the guttering, and erecting scaffolding to renew broken tiles and felt. In its submissions to the Ombudsman, it provided evidence showing that the scaffolding was due to be placed on the other side of the building to the flat roof and the resident’s kitchen. In addition, work to tiles and felt related to the main block roof and not the flat roof. The landlord’s internal communication prior to its stage 2 complaint response indicates that it the guttering work was not related to the flat roof.
While it can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in it investigating the resident’s ongoing reports, the impact of it failing to provide a lasting resolution, or that the resident needed to report the same problem each year as a result. It also failed to admit to delays in its handling of works it had proposed to the guttering, initially needed in August 2023. In addition, the landlord failed to explain how, or why, it believed that work to the guttering (primarily on the other side of the building), or work to the main block roof, would resolve his concerns regarding the flat roof above his kitchen.
In its stage 1 response, it acted reasonably by confirming that it would arrange an inspection for the inside of the property within 1 calendar month and confirm the action it would take to resolve the reported issues within 20 working days. This indicates that it should have completed the inspection by 22 January 2024 and provided the outcome for work to complete by 19 February 2024. This was a significant period of time following his reports that the issue was ongoing on 3 November 2023, and it is of concern that the landlord did not arrange for this to take place sooner (and within the initial 20 working day period).
While its records show that it raised 2 communal work orders on 3 January 2024 to investigate water leaking through the communal porch and into the resident’s property, and a blocked gulley outside of the resident’s flat, the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it inspected the inside of the resident’s flat as agreed or provided him with the outcome of these visits. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the outcome of these visits or inspection reports indicating the suspected cause of the leak into the resident’s property despite the work reported as completed.
The landlord did not uphold the stage 2 complaint on the basis that the timescales it provided (of 1 calendar month and 20 working days) were reasonable taking into account staff absence and workloads. This response focused solely on staff and failed to consider whether it was appropriate for the resident to wait that long given the potential hazards and the possible impact on his health conditions. It also failed to establish that regardless of the timescales it gave, the action had not taken place. Despite the final date for its proposed actions having passed at the time of its stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024, the landlord offered no further clarity as to the actions it would take to resolve the resident’s concerns.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has considered events following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024. There is a lack of evidence to show that any inspection of the inside of the resident’s property took place until 14 May 2024, over 2 months following the stage 2 complaint response and over 6 months after it was aware of the ongoing issues in November 2023. This represented an unreasonable timescale.
The inspection notes indicate that there were signs of damp causing water marks on the ceiling in the bedroom and kitchen, and recurring mould. Despite the inspection notes suggesting that the landlord needed to assess the flat roof, that the issue was impacting other properties, and that this could be related to the drainage of the roof, there is no evidence to suggest that work was raised to inspect the area until 12 August 2024, 3 months later. The repair records indicate that it raised a work order to gain a quote for works to re-felt the “walkway” on 19 September 2024. However, the resident has confirmed that the matter is ongoing and the landlord has not provided clear evidence to show how it diagnosed the fault.
The above indicates that there was a continued lack of oversight and ownership by the landlord following the complaint. While the landlord initially acted reasonably within its stage 1 response by acknowledging that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, it has provided no evidence to show that its communication improved following its stage 1 complaint response or that it had learnt lessons from the complaint to improve its response to similar scenarios.

Summary

In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak entering the property, and damp and mould. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took adequate steps to diagnose the cause of the leak or inspect the property over the course of the complaint. It did not complete actions it agreed to and a lack of oversight led to the issues remaining unresolved following the complaint.
Despite being informed of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord has not demonstrated it considered the potential risk or hazard of recurring damp and mould on his health or that it completed an adequate damp assessment. While it apologised for its failure to communicate with him, it has not demonstrated that this improved following its stage 1 complaint response, indicating that it did not take adequate learning from the complaint. Several orders have been made below for the landlord to put matters right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint

Following the resident’s complaint on 28 November 2023, the landlord issued its response on 22 December 2023, a period of 18 working days. While this was within its own policy timescales at the time, it was not within the Ombudsman’s recommended timescale of 10 working days at stage 1 as set out in the Complaint Handling Code (2022).
The resident disputes receiving the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023. The landlord has provided an email record showing that it sent its response to the resident’s email address on 22 December 2023. This is the same email address the Ombudsman has used to contact the resident and it remains unclear why the resident did not receive this at the time. Once it was aware that the resident had not received its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acted reasonably by re-sending the stage 1 response on 7 February 2024.
Within its complaint acknowledgement to the resident, the landlord set out that it could not investigate his concerns related to staff conduct due to data protection. He raised specific concerns that a staff member said they did not want to help or listen to his concerns. It should be noted that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. However, when a landlord receives a complaint regarding staff conduct, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence to demonstrate that it has taken any concerns raised seriously and investigated appropriately.
It is understandable that the landlord would not be able to share the outcome of an investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters as this relates to employment which would be confidential. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated his allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrongdoing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said. The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s allegations which was likely to have caused distress to him. In addition, despite acknowledging that the resident wanted it to reimburse him for the cost of running the dehumidifier, the landlord failed to comment on this within its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 7 February 2024 (over the phone) because he disagreed with the “action timescales” in the stage 1 response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024 which was within both the landlord and the Ombudsman’s timescales for a response. However, the response was inadequate.
The staff member who completed the stage 1 investigation also issued the stage 2 complaint response. This was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of impartiality in the landlord’s handling of the complaint as the staff member was reviewing whether their own stage 1 complaint response was reasonable and appropriate. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to ensure that someone who has no prior knowledge of the complaint conducts their stage 2 investigations. This is basic good practice, helps ensure impartiality, and brings in a wider perspective of the matters at hand.
The response commented on why the timescales of 1 calendar month and 20 working days it gave at stage 1 were reasonable, taking into account staff absence and workload. While this answered the reasons for escalation it had recorded in a literal sense, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord took any steps to engage with the substantive issue or contact the resident to confirm his reasons for dissatisfaction.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024, the timescales it had provided for action at stage 1 had passed. Despite it internally querying whether it had completed the agreed actions, it failed to comment on this further within the response or confirm whether there had been any failure on its part.
The landlord was evidently aware that matters were ongoing. It had the opportunity to address whether it had completed the actions as agreed, explain the reason for any failure to do so, and confirm what it intended to do to put things right and learn from the complaint. The landlord’s failure to engage with the reported leak at this stage meant that there was a lack of clarity about the next steps and a continued lack of oversight following the complaint. This led to additional frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In addition, the landlord referred the resident to the incorrect Ombudsman – the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – within its stage 2 complaint response. While this did not significantly impact the resident as it had previously confirmed he could approach this Service, this was a failing by the landlord and indicates a potential training need among its staff members.
The Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had fully considered the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It also did not engage with the outstanding repair issues or provide any reassurance as to how it intended to resolve the resident’s reports at stage 2 despite being aware that matters were ongoing. While it issued its responses within its policy timescales, these were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time.
In view of the failings identified, several orders have been made below. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was updated and became statutory in April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Our Duty to Monitor team are currently in communication with the landlord regarding its self-assessment against the requirements of the Code. While we have not made any specific orders for the landlord to review its policy, as this in progress, we have included a learning order below in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and water ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,100 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £850 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
  2. £250 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
3. Assign, and provide the resident with details for, a member of staff to be a point of contact for him and to monitor the ongoing works through to completion.
4. Contact the resident to confirm any household vulnerabilities and record these on its system to inform its approach to any future repairs.
5. Instruct a surveyor to complete a comprehensive survey of the resident’s property and the flat roof across the block to establish:
  1. The cause of the water ingress into the resident’s property and the works required to remedy this. This should include an assessment of the flat roof and water drainage.
  2. The levels of damp within the resident’s property (via the use of appropriate tools), whether any other factors may be contributing to the damp and mould growth, and whether it should undertake any remedial works to reduce the impact.
  3. Any other works required to put right the internal parts of the resident’s property, and what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage to the decorations that was contributed to by its delays.
6. As part of the survey, the landlord should consider arranging access with other ground floor residents to determine whether the issue affects more that just the resident’s property and whether wider remedial works are required.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. Provide the findings of the survey and the scope of works required to remedy water ingress and damp to the property. It should provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
2. Offer a schedule setting out the timescale in which it intends to complete the works, including any internal remedial works.
3. Consider the resident’s claim for additional energy costs as a result of needing to run a dehumidifier and confirm what evidence of additional costs it will require to consider the request.
4. Give its decision regarding whether it is willing to complete, or fund, remedial works to the internal decoration of the property and what this would entail. It should consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and that he is unable to complete the work himself. If it decides not to complete any internal decoration work, it should support the resident with making a claim via its insurers should he wish to do so.
The landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 12 weeks. The review should consider (at a minimum):
1. Its processes for diagnosing, prioritising and resolving leaks and whether it has adequate systems in place to ensure that it can differentiate between leaks reported in different areas of a block or building.
2. Its current record keeping practices alongside the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website). It should provide a copy of its self–assessment as part of the review.
3. Any staff training, including in relation to its complaints handling (to comply with the Complaint Handling Code) and record keeping, that may improve its future responses to similar cases and complaints.
4. Points of learning that can be taken from the case, and actions it could take to improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord is to write to the Ombudsman to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint handling policy to bring this in line with the statutory Complaint Handling Code alongside its ongoing communication with the Ombudsman’s Duty to Monitor team. It should confirm how it intends to proceed with its statutory obligation within 4 weeks.