Clarion Housing Association Limited (202213946)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213946

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of mould;
2. Handling of recommended aids and adaptations;
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about a replacement kitchen;
4. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

From the information seen, the resident has an assured lifetime tenancy which began in early 2018. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it was unable to locate a copy of her tenancy agreement. It provided a sample document which it said detailed the likely tenancy terms. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has 3 children with disabilities. Their vulnerabilities include Downs Syndrome and a serious heart condition.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, effective December 2022, shows it operates a responsive repairs service. It confirms the landlord should respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of a repair being reported. Major works, such as kitchen replacements, are not considered responsive repairs. The landlord has a separate department to deliver major works programmes. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant policy document online.
The landlord’s relevant aids and adaptations policy shows it requires an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) referral for all aid and adaptation requests. This includes both minor and major adaptations. Minor adaptations are defined as items that cost less than £1,000. This category typically includes grab rails and bathroom alterations. The landlord will only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable, practical and supported by an OT’s assessment from the local authority.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It confirms the landlord adopted an interim policy in response to a cyber-security incident on 17 June 2022. For complaints raised after this date, the landlord aimed to respond within 20 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 40 working days. A previous policy document shows the landlord doubled its response timescales following the cyber-attack.

Summary of events

The landlord provided a copy of the property’s repair history. It shows a works order was raised in late May 2019 to address mould in the kitchen. It suggests the resident reported the kitchen units were “falling apart” and there was mould behind them. The repair notes show that, within days, the landlord completed mould washing works to the kitchen cupboards and a pipe on the wall.
The repair history next referred to mould on 21 September 2022. Two related repair orders were raised on this date, which was around 41 months after the previous order in 2019. The first order said mould needed treating in the kitchen. The second said the kitchen was damaged by mould and the children’s health was impacted. It also said various inspections had taken place but the landlord had not completed treatment works. In addition, the matter was urgent.
The repair history suggests a corresponding inspection was completed on 29 September 2022. However, neither the inspection date or its findings were clearly captured on the repair record. Nevertheless, a works order to renew the kitchen fan was raised on the same day. In addition, subsequent notes outlined the inspection’s findings.
The repair records show another mould related order was raised on 4 October 2022. It suggests the resident made a similar report around this time. The order notes said an appointment had been arranged with the resident. They suggest a related inspection was scheduled for 7 October 2022. Again, no outcome or completion status was captured in the repair history.
A repair note from 5 October 2022 said the landlord had discussed a mould related repair order with an operative. It said the operative reported that there was no mould in the kitchen and the area behind the units had been checked. However, the kitchen fan was not working so an order was raised to renew it.
The repair history suggests the fan renewal works were completed on 14 October 2022. This was based on the “job end” date shown in the history. However, the repair order was not marked complete and no clear outcome was recorded. Nevertheless, no information was seen to suggest the resident subsequently raised any concerns about the fan.
During a subsequent call, on 25 October 2022, the resident told us she raised an online complaint with the landlord on 28 September 2022. However, its only response confirmed it had been impacted by a cyber-attack. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s corresponding complaint. However, our call notes show she was concerned about: a kitchen replacement, damp and mould, and the landlord’s handling of recommended aids and adaptations to the property. Specifically, the notes referenced a lost OT report.
On the day of the resident’s call, we relayed her concerns to the landlord and asked it to respond accordingly. Our correspondence included the resident’s comments about the date of her original complaint. Soon afterwards, the landlord replied it had raised a formal complaint but its response may be delayed. This was on the basis its services were impacted by a cyber-attack.
Following further contact from the resident, we chased the landlord’s response in late November 2022. Our related correspondence suggests the resident had given us some additional information. For example, our correspondence said the damp and mould was “extensive” and roof repairs were needed.
The landlord’s repair records show a mould related repair order that was raised on 1 December 2022 was cancelled. No cancellation date or reason was recorded.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was around 32 working days after the Ombudsman’s intervention. The response said the complaint was received through the Ombudsman on 25 October 2022. The landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation to acknowledge a delay from this date. The resident’s core complaint was not upheld. This was on the basis the landlord was unable to identify any related service failures. Other key points were:
1. The landlord tried to contact the resident about her concerns on 16 November 2022. Having checked with its major works team, kitchen replacements in the area were forecast to take place in the financial year 2024/25. This timeframe could change. In the meantime, the resident should notify the landlord if the kitchen needed repairs.
2. The landlord was unaware of any required roofing works to the property. It had no record of any corresponding reports from the resident. Nevertheless, it had raised an inspection order, but it was unable to contact the resident. The resident should contact its repairs team to arrange a convenient appointment.
3. From the Ombudsman’s correspondence, the landlord understood the resident was awaiting adaptations which included a grab rail and safety sockets. The landlord had not received any referrals for the property. It contacted the OT and was advised the OT was also unaware of any requests. If adaptations were needed, the resident should arrange an assessment using a contact number provided.
4. The landlord was unaware of any reports about damp and mould in the property. If the resident was awaiting works, she should contact the landlord’s relevant team on the number provided.
The landlord attended the property on 20 January 2023. Its repair history shows the visit related to damp and mould. The notes said the resident refused access on the basis they were going to pursue matters through a solicitor. They also said an operative previously attended, soon after the landlord’s new damp and mould system was introduced, and no mould was found.
In addition, the notes said the resident reported she was expecting a surveyor. Further, she had a letter which promised the property would receive a new kitchen. However, the operative had not seen this letter and there were no planned works in the pipeline. The notes also said a number of previous jobs had been raised for the property. However, the landlord was unable to gain access on 2 occasions and a “job the other day was a tenant refusal”.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2023. She said its compensation award was insulting given everything her family had been through. She also said the landlord’s response had advised “someone would be in touch to plan stuff but no one (had)”. In addition, the landlord could not “just turn up” at the property because the resident worked. Her other key points were:
1. The landlord’s information was wrong because the resident had been complaining about damp and mould for 4 years. In addition, its operative was rude during a discussion about mould and kitchen replacement works (from the resident’s email the date of this discussion was unclear).
2. Other aspects of the landlord’s response were also wrong. The resident was “told last year the kitchen would be done”. Similarly, the family were on an OT’s waiting list. Over the last year, one of the children had “been in an out of hospital…with chest problems due to mould and damp.”
3. Doctors had advised the resident’s daughter should not be exposed to damp and mould due to her heart condition. Though the landlord was given a supporting medical statement, it had failed to take the situation seriously.
4. The resident was going round in circles with the landlord, which did not have the correct information. For example, there was no outstanding roof leak because repairs were completed 4 years ago.
5. The resident felt the landlord had no record of any outstanding repairs because it often attended the property while she was working, without arranging an appointment in advance. Further, when this happened it would issue a letter confirming the repair was closed.
6. These letters put the onus on the resident to rearrange the repair. The landlord had not called the resident back or replied to her related emails. Overall, she felt its approach was “uncooperative”.
On the same day, the landlord issued the resident a stage 2 acknowledgment. It said a member of its complaints team would contact the resident within 20 working days.
The landlord’s call records show it spoke to the resident on 30 January 2023. They said she reported that mould in the property’s kitchen was impacting the family’s health. Further, she was especially concerned about her daughter’s heart condition. The notes also said she reported being told the property would receive a new kitchen when the family first moved in.
During internal correspondence on 10 March 2023, the landlord said it had checked the property’s repair history. Further, based on this information, it felt the landlord’s stage 1 response was “appropriate”. It also said the resident had refused access for separate roof and kitchen inspections. In addition, the local authority should notify the landlord about any recommended aids and adaptations. Overall, the landlord felt a surveyor’s inspection was needed.
In follow up correspondence 3 days later, the landlord’s maintenance leader said they had visited the property in October 2022. Further, at the time, the resident was in a rush to attend an appointment. However, the leader’s short visit was sufficient to confirm her corresponding reports were “not justified”.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor reported their findings from an inspection that day. They said the property was in “good order” and the resident reported there were no repairs to inspect. However, she was concerned about damp and mould on a pipe and behind a sink unit in the kitchen. The surveyor said no mould was visible behind the unit due to the “back boards”. Other key points were:
1. A small amount of mould was visible on a cold feed pipe. The resident reported she cleaned the pipe herself.
2. The resident was sure there was mould behind the unit which needed to be treated. This could only be done when the unit was removed. However, the resident did not want to remove the unit due to the associated upheaval.
3. The resident had requested an OT’s assessment with a view to having the kitchen renewed to accommodate her daughter’s needs. She also wanted some other small adaptations to the property.
4. The kitchen functioned in its present state but it did not meet the family’s needs. The resident wanted mould to be treated “on the external wall when the kitchen gets renewed”.
5. The resident reported she had been told, when the family first moved in, that the kitchen would be renewed within a year. She felt neighbouring homes previously benefited from new kitchens but the property missed out.
6. The resident was mostly concerned about the landlord’s communication because she felt it was not listening.
The Ombudsman has seen an undated image that appears to show a limited amount of mould on a painted copper pipe. The image shows the pipe is located in a kitchen corner. Further, it runs through a worktop and behind a kitchen unit.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. This was around 39 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Again, the landlord recognised a delay and compensated the resident for any related inconvenience. The response addressed ongoing damp and mould, a possible roof leak, a scheduled kitchen upgrade, aids and adaptations, and the landlord’s previous compensation award. The main points were:
1. The landlord was satisfied its stage 1 response was “fair, accurate and in line with its policy and procedures”. It was also satisfied with its previous compensation award.
2. The landlord was unable to identify any repair issues during a visit to the property in October 2022. Following its stage 1 response, it raised a works order to inspect the property’s roof. The landlord had been unable to contact the resident to arrange the inspection.
3. In relation to planned kitchen replacement works, the landlord carried out stock condition surveys in the area between July 2019 and March 2020. The survey information was used to help schedule the landlord’s programme. The works were predicted to take place in the year 2024/25. This estimate was subject to change. The resident should report any remedial repairs to its relevant team during the interim period. A contact email address was provided.
4. The landlord reiterated it had not received any aids and adaptation referrals for the property. From the Ombudsman’s correspondence, the landlord noted the resident was waiting for an OT assessment. When complete, the resident should share the OT’s recommendations with the landlord so it could arrange the works.
5. To acknowledge the service failures related to its delayed complaint response, the landlord awarded £150 in compensation. This was “in addition to the £50 offered in (its) initial stage 1 response”. The compensation comprised: £100 for time taken to resolve the complaint and any related inconvenience, and £50 for response issued outside of the landlord’s relevant timescale.
The resident replied on 19 April 2023. Her email confirmed she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the compensation “would not even cover (her) phone calls let alone work expenses”. She disputed declining access for an inspection. This was on the basis the operative told her there was “no point” in entering the property to check on previous works that had not been completed. She also said “you keep disregarding every point I make as I have evidence of these”. She referenced failed call backs and said the landlord’s communication was “disgusting”. She reiterated mould was ongoing for 4 years.
The resident spoke to the Ombudsman the next day. She said the landlord’s response did not fully address her concerns. Further, the property’s condition caused the family stress and disruption over 5 years. She stressed the negative impact damp and mould could have on the children’s vulnerabilities. She said, at one point, her daughter was living with relatives due to the property’s condition. Our call notes show her other key points were:
1. Over the years, the resident had spent lots of time chasing the landlord about repairs. When she was in work, she had also taken lots of time off (to facilitate them). She was considering a legal disrepair claim against the landlord.
2. The resident wanted: a new kitchen, damp and mould to be resolved, and the property to be made safe. This included walls to be cleaned of mould and various adaptations for the children. She also wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
There was a gap in the evidence following the above interaction. However, the landlord’s call notes show it spoke to the resident about a door repair on 28 June 2023. The notes said the resident had a letter from an OT which recommended major works to the property. They suggest the resident reported that the OT told her to provide a copy to the landlord. The notes said the landlord gave the resident an email address for its aids and adaptations team.
The resident contacted the landlord’s aids and adaptations team on 10 July 2023. Her email included an undated document with recommendations from an OT. The resident asked the landlord to comply with these recommendations. Her email also said there was mould behind all of the kitchen units. It reiterated the resident’s concerns about mould and the family’s vulnerabilities. Other key points from the resident’s email were:
1. Vents had been installed in the kitchen wall but they made no difference to the mould situation. The landlord previously said it wanted to “rip the kitchen out” and treat the wall.
2. Years ago, the resident was given a written promise that the kitchen would be removed, the walls would be treated, and the kitchen would be replaced. The landlord failed to fulfil this commitment. Other homes in the street had received new kitchens.
3. Having builders in the property would “badly unsettle the children”. The resident was not willing to put their health at risk. As a result, she wanted the mould treatment and kitchen replacement works to take place at the same time. This would minimise any related disruption to the family.
4. When the family moved in, the property’s metal bath was cracked and its corroded handles were sharp. The landlord subsequently changed the bath because one of the children cut their hand.
5. The landlord’s replacement bath did not include any anti-slip features. Similarly, the landlord did not install any grab rails. This was unfair because it knew about the children’s vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, its replacement bath did not meet their needs.
The OT’s undated letter (attached to the resident’s above email) referenced “minor adaptations”. It said plug and light socket covers would reduce risk and improve the family’s situation. It also said a non-slip bath would reduce the risk of falling. It said, because these items related to physical problems, the OT service would install grab rails in the bathroom, along with stair rails elsewhere. Though the letter mentioned mould in the kitchen, the OT did not make any related recommendations. In other words, it did not ask the landlord to adapt the kitchen in any way.
On 17July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about repairs. Its email said it had been asked to carry out adaptations to the property. It detailed appointments scheduled on 19, 20, and 21 July 2023. The appointments related to electrical works, damp and mould, and a risk of falling in the bathroom. Related records show the resident subsequently called the landlord for more details. They said she was unwilling to take time off work for assessments. The landlord cancelled a bathroom related works order on the same day.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord attended the property in relation to damp and mould. Its corresponding repair notes said “no issues found”. In the landlord’s later internal correspondence, from January 2024, an operative relayed their findings from this inspection. They said they had attended the property multiple times and the resident refused entry on some visits. Nevertheless, they were able to access the property on this occasion. Further, they removed a plinth and inspected underneath a kitchen base unit. However, there was no damp or mould present.
During internal correspondence on 24 July 2023, the landlord said electrical switch and socket covers had been ordered for rooms throughout the property. In addition, a new non-slip bath was needed so a planner had been asked to rebook a plumber for a full day job. The landlord also said, “the resident would be aware that a follow on appointment would be arranged if (the landlord was) unable to complete works on the first visit”.
The repair history shows the landlord attended the property again on 25 July 2023. Repair notes suggest the resident reported mould was visible on pipework behind a kitchen cupboard and it was difficult to access the area. The operative’s repair notes said “I can’t see or find any mould in kitchen area”. They also said the resident was likely to book another mould appointment because she wanted a piece of the worktop to be removed (to allow a closer inspection).
The repair history suggests a works order to renew socket and switch covers was completed on 11 August 2023. This was based on the recorded job end date. The repair notes also referred to a “booking completion summary”. The timeline shows this was around 24 working days after the resident supplied the landlord a copy of the OT’s recommendations.
Similarly, the repair history suggests an order to renew the property’s bath was completed on 7 September 2023. This was around 43 working days after the resident supplied the OT’s recommendations.
The landlord supplied its case evidence to the Ombudsman in early February 2024. Its file included a cover note that outlined the landlord’s position. It said the property had been inspected several times by the landlord’s dedicated leaks, damp and mould team. In addition, a repairs leader had also attended. However, no mould issues were found. The repair history that the landlord provided ended in late January 2024. It shows there were no further mould reports between July 2023 and January 2024.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a number of calls on 19 February 2024. The resident said, over the years, there had been various issues with the property and the landlord. In addition, these issues went back to the time when the property was void. In relation to her formal complaint with the landlord, her new points were:
1. There was ongoing mould in the property. It previously spread to the kitchen ceiling and it was now impacting a bedroom above the kitchen.
2. The resident wanted to move on the basis the property was unfit for the family. It was understood she was concerned about mould and the suitability of the kitchen given the children’s needs.
3. The landlord had ignored kitchen recommendations from an OT. These recommendations were included in an OT’s letter.
4. One of the landlord’s operatives had told the resident she was “like a dog with a bone”. It was understood this was the staff conduct concern referenced in the resident’s escalation request on 26 January 2023.
5. Though the resident had considered appointing a solicitor, the case was not subject to any legal proceedings.

Assessment and findings

The resident has understandable concerns around her children’s health and wellbeing. The timeline shows she is also concerned about a number of the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould

The resident has said the property has a long-term mould problem that remains ongoing. Further, the landlord failed to address this problem over a number of years. We thought carefully about her comments. However, no information was seen to show any mould issues were reported between June 2019 and mid-September 2022. As a result, there was no evidence of an ongoing damp or mould problem during this period. Similarly, no information was seen to suggest there were any related failures by the landlord at this time.
Given the above, our assessment considered events from September 2022 onwards. It was noted that multiple inspections occurred during the timeline. This shows the landlord was suitably engaged with the resident’s reports. This was appropriate since mould is a potential health hazard. It was also appropriate given the family’s vulnerabilities. Overall, the timeline shows the inspections were completed promptly, along with any resulting works. For example, the evidence suggests a kitchen fan was replaced 15 days after the landlord’s initial inspection.
The resident’s comments to the Ombudsman, about mould on walls, in April 2023 were noted. However, there was little information to suggest the property had an extensive mould problem. For example, the only supporting evidence we have seen was an image that appeared to show limited mould growth on a copper pipe. In contrast, a number of the landlord’s inspecting operatives reported there was no mould. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its relevant staff. No third party evidence was seen to undermine the landlord’s opinion.
Given there was some mould on the pipe, it is reasonable to conclude there could be similar issues behind the unit below. Nevertheless, the timeline shows the landlord inspected this area in October 2022 and July 2023. It also shows the resident did not want to remove any kitchen units due to the associated upheaval. This was confirmed by her email to the landlord’s aids and adaptations team on 10 July 2023. Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably to address the resident’s concerns.
The repair history suggests there were no further mould reports between July 2023 and January 2024. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s concerns during this time. In addition, there was no evidence to support any mould related failures on the landlord’s part. Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation to address the resident’s recent concerns about spreading mould.
The resident’s concerns were understandable given the family’s circumstances. She could consider obtaining a second opinion from a qualified expert. Options include the local authority’s environmental health department, or an independent surveyor.

The landlord’s handling of recommended aids and adaptations

The landlord’s relevant policy shows all requests for adaptations must be accompanied by supporting recommendations from an OT. From previous cases seen, this is standard practice in the social housing sector. The resident’s October 2022 comments to the Ombudsman, about a lost OT report, were noted. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had not received any referrals. It also said it contacted the OT and they were unaware of any requests. The Ombudsman has not seen any conflicting evidence.
Checking with the OT was good practice by the landlord. Since no information was seen to undermine the information it provided at stage 1, there was no evidence it failed to respond appropriately to any OT recommendations before 10 July 2023. At this point, the resident emailed the landlord a supporting document detailing the OT’s recommendations. It was noted that, broadly, its subsequent electrical works were completed in a reasonable timeframe. This is because the landlord had to order the recommended components.
In contrast, the timeline suggests the replacement bath works were completed outside of the landlord’s routine repair timescale. The evidence points to a delay of around 1 month based on the period between 17 July and 7 September 2023. Since its stage 2 response was issued beforehand, the landlord did not address this delay during its internal complaints procedure. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman used our inquisitorial remit to include the matter in our assessment. This was largely because we have seen sufficient evidence to make a fair assessment.
The evidence points to service failure in respect of this complaint point. This was because a replacement bath recommended by the OT was not installed in line with the landlord’s relevant repair timescale. The timeline shows there was a short delay of around 1 month. There was no evidence to suggest the delay arose from matters that were beyond the landlord’s control. Still, no information was seen to suggest the delay had a significant impact on the resident or her family. The Ombudsman has not seen any OT recommendations related to the property’s kitchen.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a replacement kitchen

The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient information to make a full or fair assessment in relation to this complaint point. This was largely because:
1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s related concerns in full.
2. There was conflicting information during the timeline.
3. The Ombudsman has not seen written confirmation that the property would receive a new kitchen.
For example, there was no evidence that the landlord directly addressed the resident’s concerns that the property missed out on a previous kitchen upgrade. Nor was any information seen to suggest the landlord sought to establish what information it had previously given the resident about providing a new kitchen. This was unfair given the content of the resident’s complaint. However, it was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling. As a result, the above identified failure will be considered further in the relevant section below.
With regards to conflicting information, the wording of the resident’s escalation request suggests she was given information about a replacement kitchen in 2022. In contrast, the landlord’s subsequent call notes, written several days later, said the resident reported being promised a new kitchen when the family first moved in. In any case, apart from the resident’s related comments, the only kitchen replacement advice the Ombudsman has seen was given in the landlord’s complaint responses.
In summary, from the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to point to a related failure on the landlord’s part. For example, no information was seen to show the resident was given incorrect information or advice in relation to a replacement kitchen. On that basis, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point. However, our complaint handling assessment will consider the procedural aspects of the landlord’s response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline shows the landlord awarded the resident a total of £200 in compensation to address complaint handling delays between 25 October 2022 and 22 March 2023. Based on its previous (pre cyber-attack) complaints policy, the timeline suggests these delays amounted to around 41 working days in total. Given their duration (less than 1.5 months), the landlord’s compensation award was adequate to address them. However, the landlord failed to identify the full complaint timeline, which began on 28 September 2022.
As a result, it failed to recognise the initial delay between 28 September and 25 October 2022. Similarly, it failed to acknowledge that the Ombudsman’s intervention was necessary to raise a formal complaint. The landlord also failed to recognise that the resident subsequently chased its response through the Ombudsman in late November 2022. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that approaching the Ombudsman should not have been necessary at this stage. Further, involving us likely caused the resident some additional inconvenience.
Since the above identified delay and failures were overlooked, the evidence confirms the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate. To avoid similar issues going forwards, the landlord should ensure it can identify the correct complaint timeline during its investigations. To that end, it should pay close attention to complaint details it receives through the Ombudsman.
As mentioned above, the timeline points to further complaint handling issues. Significantly, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address a number of the resident’s key concerns. Many of these concerns were raised during her escalation request on 26 January 2023. For example, no information was seen to suggest the landlord attempted to respond to the resident’s points about a rude operative, or kitchen advice that she reported she was given during the previous year. This points to a lack of engagement on the landlord’s part.
This inappropriate lack of engagement was contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. It was noted that the landlord previously attempted to contact the resident at stage 1. This was to clarify her concerns at the outset of its stage 1 investigation. In contrast, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord adopted the same approach at stage 2.
Had it done this, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have clarified the scope of the resident’s complaint. In addition, it could have reasonably identified other issues that the resident began to raise around the same time. For example, from mid-March 2023 the resident said the property had missed out on a previous kitchen upgrade programme which benefitted other homes in the area. Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence suggests a number of the resident’s key concerns remain unaddressed around 13 months later.
This delay was avoidable, inappropriate, and unfair to the resident. Given the above identified delays and failures, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Broadly, this stemmed from the landlord’s lack of engagement with key complaint points and details. This included the date of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord. Given the overlooked issues, the landlord’s compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping. Specifically, there were a number of gaps in the repair history which amounted to a quality issue. For example, records of damp and mould inspections on 29 September and 7 October 2022 were incomplete. This was inappropriate given the potential health and safety implications. Subsequently, a mould related repair order raised on 1 December 2022 was cancelled without a cancellation reason being recorded. This was also concerning given the circumstances.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
In this case, there was no evidence that the resident was impacted by the above identified record keeping issues. Nor was there any indication that they hindered the landlord’s overall response to her concerns. Similarly, the Ombudsman was able to establish the timeline of events from the information available. However, given the potential safety implications, the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate. As a result, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point. The landlord should improve its record keeping to avoid related issues going forwards.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of recommended aids and adaptations.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould.
5. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a replacement kitchen.

Reasons

There was no evidence of an ongoing damp and mould problem between June 2019 and mid-September 2022. Subsequently, the evidence shows the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s related concerns. There were several inspections during the timeline and the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its relevant staff. Overall, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any mould related failures on the landlord’s part.
There was no evidence to show the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any OT recommendations before 10 July 2023. Having received the OT recommendations on this date, the recommended electrical works were completed within a reasonable timeframe. However, the recommended bath replacement works exceeded the landlord’s relevant timescale by around 1 month. There was no information to suggest this had a significant impact on the resident or her family.
The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient information to make a full or fair assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a replacement kitchen. Although there were several reasons for this, the situation was partly because the landlord did not address the resident’s related concerns in full. This was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord lacked an appropriate level of engagement with the resident’s complaint. For example, it overlooked complaint handling delays and failures that occurred early in the timeline. Later, it failed to engage a number of the resident’s key concerns. Since some of these concerns were referenced in the resident’s escalation request, this was unfair and contrary to the Code. As a result, several issues remain unaddressed around 13 months later.
There were a number of gaps in the landlord’s repair history that amounted to a record keeping quality issue. This was concerning since they related to mould inspections and repairs. Given the potential safety implications, the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate. Nevertheless, there was no evidence these failures impacted the resident or hindered the landlord’s response. The Ombudsman was able to establish the timeline from the information available.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failures identified in this report. It should recognise that the landlord: overlooked complaint handling delays and failures that occurred early in the timeline, failed to address key aspects of the resident’s complaint, and failed to complete recommended bath works within its applicable timescale. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant letter/call summary within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £400 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £50 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of recommended aids and adaptations.
2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £200 which the landlord previously awarded at stages 1 and 2. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has previously paid from this figure.
The landlord to address the resident’s overlooked concerns through its formal complaints process. These concerns include a staff conduct issue, and an assertion that the landlord failed to fulfil a previous commitment around a replacement kitchen. To ensure all the relevant issues are addressed, the landlord should contact the resident to clarify the scope of the complaint. It should share its new complaint reference with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings, around complaint handling and record keeping, with its repair and complaints staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to update the resident and the Ombudsman about the current damp and mould situation within 4 weeks. Its update should address the resident’s recent concerns about mould on the property’s kitchen ceiling and in an upstairs bedroom. If it was previously unaware of these issues, the landlord should complete an inspection before issuing its update.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.