Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202226540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226540

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

26 January 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 handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property including works to repair cracks in the bedroom and hallway, door renewal and treatment of damp and mould and for the radiators in his home to be changed.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a 5 year secure flexible tenancy which started on 9 November 2015. The property is a 4 bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority.
There are no known vulnerabilities recorded for any household members on the landlord’s records.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident complained to the landlord that his family may have been exposed to asbestos, as no tests were carried out before renovation works started in his kitchen and bathroom. He also complained about a leak into his boiler. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme, these aspects of his complaint will not be included in this investigation. This is because the landlord did not address these points in its response to the complaint. However, we may assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Policies and guides

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords have a duty to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. Additionally, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System 2006 (HHSRS) confirms that landlord’s should keep the external fabric of its properties in good repair to avoid rain penetration in order to prevent damp and mould growth. The HHSRS also references preventative measures such as properly installed and maintained rainwater goods to reduce the presence of damp and mould within properties.
Under this obligation the landlord should 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.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that it has a responsibility to ensure that the property is kept in a good state of repair. It has an obligation to manage hazards that could present a risk to health for the resident or their household including damp and mould. It aims to respond to:
1. emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours.
2. routine repairs within 20 working days.
3. planned repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord’s has a 2 stage complaints handling process (policy dated May 2020). It aims to respond to housing management and repairs:
1. Stage one complaints within 15 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards financial redress where residents have experienced financial loss or acute inconvenience due to service failure, poor landlord performance or unavoidable disruption. It may make awards of over £700 in cases where there have been an extended time to complete actions and or failure to communicate or follow procedure. It will award 20% of the weekly rent as compensation for loss of use of bedroom.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey in the property on 9 June 2022. This was in response to the resident’s email on 11 May 2022, that the landlord had not satisfactorily addressed several repair issues in the property including mould growth. Following the inspection, it raised works on 15 June 2022 for a mould wash in various areas, replacement of 2 extractor fans, renew bath and wash basin, re-decorate, make good reveals, renew floor vinyl, bathroom, kitchen, and water cistern (WC), overhaul door and re-plaster in kitchen.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 October 2022 that the works were still outstanding.
The landlord’s repair records between 5 and 9 September 2022 noted the resident chased the landlord for an update on the repairs in the property. It further noted that an operative attended on 5 September 2022 and observed that part of the ceiling around the ceiling rose was bouncing and needed to be taken down and replastered.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2022 that:
1. A damp specialist visited his home, following concerns raised out repairs May 2022, but requests made for a copy of the report were ignored and works agreed remained outstanding.
2. The landlord advised that the following works had not been done:
  1. the toilet would be fully decorated and the damaged flooring causing a leak would be repaired with new flooring installed.
  2. the radiators in all the rooms would be replaced or repaired as some were very rusty and old.
  3. his bathroom would be renewed as it had damp and had not been updated for at least 15 years.
  4. new extractor fan would be fitted to the kitchen and the back door changed.
  5. plastering works within various areas of the property and redecoration due to damp.
3. An operative visited to measure up the kitchen and he was advised that the works would commence in September 2022, but he had not heard back since.
4. His family were living in overcrowded conditions due to the loss of use of one bedroom. The bedroom had a crack in the ceiling and not in a safe condition due to damp.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 September 2022 that it would look into the matter further.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 September 2022. He said:
1. He had contacted the landlord’s contractors and sub-contractor on numerous occasions about the outstanding repairs in the property.
2. He was offered an appointment for 20 September 2022 for the replacement of the kitchen but no one turned up. He had since been given conflicting information about the kitchen works.
3. They were already extremely overcrowded, before its contractor came and made the ceiling worse putting a bedroom out of use. This had had a serious impact on their quality of life as the home was already in a very poor condition with damp everywhere, broken ceiling, broken floors and all in a very bad general state of repair.
4. His family could not remain in the property in the condition that it was in.
In an internal email dated 27 September 2022, the landlord’s damp team asked if a post inspection was required as the resident’s email indicated the repairs had failed. It said damp works were raised following the inspection that took place on 9 June 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 September 2022 and advised that a response would be sent to him by 20 October 2022.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord chased its contractor for an update on the repairs. It also contacted the resident and advised that there was an appointment booked in for 11 October 2022 between 1 and 6pm.
The landlord noted on 10 October 2022 that the repairs to the large crack in the ceiling had been pending since July 2022. It also noted that various works raised since 10 June 2022 were still outstanding. These included a mould wash to various areas, replacement of 2 extractor fans, bath and wash hand basin renewal, make good reveals, door renewal, renew vinyl in the bathroom, kitchen and toilet, and plastering works.
The landlord noted in its repair records on 11 October 2022 that on inspection, the bedroom ceiling needed to be taken down completely, re-boarded and painted.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 20 October 2022. Below is a summary of its response:
1. It apologised for the missed appointments and acknowledged that improvements were needed in its communication with its residents and to do what it promises to do. It was working with its contractors to ensure the same mistakes do not happen.
2. It apologised for the delays in arranging the works and the inconvenience caused due to the poor service.
3. It offered £200 for the missed appointments, £100 for the lack of communication and inconvenience in chasing the repairs, £400 for the delays in works being scheduled.
4. An appointment had been scheduled for its contractor to attend on 26 October 2022 to progress further works and it would ensure the works were monitored. The repair to the crack had been scheduled for 28 November 2022. The appointment stated that the plaster bedroom ceiling needed to be taken down completely, re-boarded and skimmed with two coats of paint, and for the bedroom wall to be rendered and skimmed as well.
The landlord asked its gas team for clarification on works to the radiator on 31 October 2022. It asked if all the radiators in all rooms would be replaced as stated by the resident.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord noted that the only radiator that needed to be replaced was in the bedroom downstairs. The other radiators were old but sized correctly.
On 4 November 2022 the contractor advised the landlord that the kitchen and bathroom were complete. It said the decoration works were outstanding and a date would be agreed by 9 November 2022.
The repair records further noted that operatives visited on 28 November 2022, but works to the ceiling could not commence until an asbestos survey had been completed.
The resident chased up the progress of works between 29 November and 8 December 2022. The landlord noted that an asbestos survey had been booked in for 9 December 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 that the stage 2 request made months ago had not been answered. He said:
1. He and his family continued to live in unacceptable conditions due to the delays in completing the repairs in the property. Photographic evidence of the damp as well as the cracks and holes in the wall, ceiling and ripped wallpaper had been provided. He had been washing the areas affected by damp with bleach, otherwise it would have been worse in the property.
2. They were unable to use a bedroom in the property due to a hole and large cracks. Repairs stopped weeks ago for an asbestos test but he had not been given the report from the test. The landlord allowed extensive works to the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet without carrying out any asbestos checks. His family may have been exposed to asbestos due to the landlord failing to test the ceiling before workmen touched it.
3. Works to the kitchen backdoor, bedroom ceiling, rusty radiators, damaged hallway (wall and ceiling), damp and mould, had still not been resolved. When it rained water poured into the boiler which was next to the electric socket.
4. The damaged hallway (wall and ceiling) and all the damp were supposed to be addressed months.
The landlord noted that it was unable to gain access on 24 January 2023 for the bedroom ceiling to be pulled down. It noted that the resident asked for the appointment to be rescheduled as he was not aware of it. The appointment was moved to 17 February 2023.
The landlord attended on 17 February 2023 and noted that a second operative was needed.
The resident chased up the repairs on 20 and 24 February 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction with the pace at which the works were being handled. He stated that the landlord should make plans ahead of the appointments and determine how many operatives were required before attendance. It informed the resident that an appointment had been scheduled for 29 March 2023 as they were not aware.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord asked the contractors for an update on the resident’s outstanding works. It said the works had been closed on the system without any proof of completion of works. It further said some repairs had been outstanding since July 2022. The contractors responded that it had spoken to the resident and scheduled an inspection for 9 March 2023 and the appointment on 29 March 2023 was still on schedule.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 March 2023. It noted that his review request was received on 21 February 2023. It advised that a response would be sent by 21 March 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 March 2023. He said:
1. His stage 2 complaint was submitted on 23 October 2022, not 21 February 2023 as stated by the landlord. Several emails were sent to the landlord but ignored.
2. The large crack on the wall had still not been repaired and the damp and black mould remained unresolved.
3. He had not received answers to his enquiry about the asbestos tests and if his family had been exposed.
4. The landlord had not kept to its promise in its stage one response as they continued to live in unsafe and unbearable conditions.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord made enquiries with its asbestos team regarding the resident’s concerns. It noted that works could proceed as there was no asbestos identified.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord noted that a welfare check would be conducted in light of the resident’s concerns of overcrowding due to loss of use of one bedroom.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 March 2023. It noted the resident’s concerns that a visit took place on 9 March 2022 but no works were carried out.
The landlord’s internal email dated 20 March 2023 noted that no asbestos was found in the room.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 March 2023. The key points from the response are summarised below:
1. It apologised for the delay in its investigation of the stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged that the complaints process failed and that further training and improvements needed to be made. It highlighted that it failed to escalate the complaint on time and that staff briefings had been carried out on complaint handling and record keeping.
2. It acknowledged that he had had to wait an exceptionally long period for the repairs which had been pending since May 2022. It said the repairs should have been completed within 60 working days but they were still outstanding 9 months after. It said multiple visits and inspections had taken place but it had not been able to provide reports of any findings.
3. On asbestos, it advised that no asbestos was identified following its inspection completed on 9 December 2022, and that his family were not exposed to asbestos or any danger in respect of the works. It apologised for the delay in communicating the outcome of the assessment to him. It also provided feedback to the relevant team to ensure reports were sent to residents within 10 working days of the assessment.
4. Damp and mould. It said complex works were agreed following a damp survey in June 2022 but the works had not been prioritised. It advised that works had been scheduled and appointments had been put in place.
5. Radiator works. A heat loss survey was carried out further to the damp and mould surveyors’ inspection in June 2022, to see if the radiators in the property were of the appropriate size and functioning sufficiently. Its gas team attended on 14 June 2022 and 2 and 15 November 2022 and completed works. The only radiator that was replaced was in the bedroom downstairs. The other radiators were deemed old in condition, but correctly sized. It apologised for the delay in replacing the bedroom radiator. It shared feedback from the service failure with the relevant teams.
6. It apologised for the inconvenience caused due to failed appointments and advised that works to repair the bedroom ceiling and plastering of the lounge had been scheduled for an all-day appointment for 29 March 2023 for 2 operatives to attend. It said snagging works for the kitchen and various remedial works had been raised to be completed on 2 April 2022.
7. During a welfare visit in January 2022 no welfare issues were observed but concerns were noted regarding the outstanding repairs to the bedroom downstairs which it should have followed up.
8. It acknowledged that it did not communicate effectively with the resident on the progress of the works. It said its services were impacted by the pandemic in 2020 and whilst this was not an excuse, it created significant issues. It identified staff resourcing issues on its contractors side which its directors were working on improving.
9. It concluded that it had not yet found a full resolution as the works were still outstanding. It said dates had been scheduled in for the works which would be followed up. It offered an additional £2050 for negative impact the process had had on him and his family broken into, £350.00 for the poor complaint handling, £1000.00 for the loss of use of one bedroom for 10 months since the initial report in May 2022, £500.00 for the delay in fully resolving the repairs since the initial report in May 2022, £200.00 for the length of time and inconvenience caused. It also provided a point of contact for further queries about the repairs.
On 21 March 2022 the following events occurred:
1. It recommendation that feedback on asbestos tests should be provided to residents within 10 working days of the assessment being completed to avoid any distress to its residents.
2. The contractor noted that it was going through a transformation in the way it manages complaints to ensure that commitments made to residents in relation to repairs complaints are tracked and monitored through to completion with the oversight of a manager.
3. It fed back to its housing team that whilst no welfare issues were found during its visit, it should have followed up its concerns about the bedroom in disrepair.

Post complaint actions

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 on receiving the stage 2 response. He said:
1. He disagreed with the landlord’s comments in the stage 2 response that he and his family were not exposed to asbestos. He said the asbestos report was not conducted until December 2022 and no asbestos checks were carried out before extensive repairs were completed in the property.
2. The landlord needed to address the cause of the damp, possibly the guttering, rather than a damp wash. Extractor fans had been replaced, bathroom works completed, but other works remained unresolved.
3. The radiators in his home were very old and needed to be replaced as most were rusty.
4. He had been told that the repairs to the ceiling was a 3 day job starting on 29 March 2023 with 2 operatives not an all day job for 29 March 2023 as advised in the stage 2 response.
5. There were various other works such as a large area of damp and black mould by the right side of window corner wall, a large crack in the window wall, damage to the staircase wall, and the hallway ceiling were not mentioned nor dates allocated for the repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord between 28 and 31 March 2022 for an update on the repairs.
Operatives attended on 29 March 2023 and carried out works to the ceiling and walls in the bedroom. It reboarded the ceiling and stripped paper from the walls in the bedroom. Records indicate that it returned on 30 March 2023 and carried out some additional works.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2023 and advised that the works to the damp in the bedroom downstairs had been completed. He said other works remained unfinished including:
1. Repairs to the cracks in the hallway and staircase were getting worse.
2. There were possible structural problems in the property due to more cracks appearing.
3. The radiators still had issues and some did not have any thermostats fitted.
4. The back door issue had not been fixed. There were occasions when the door would not shut, open or lock. Light streamed through the door and it was difficult to keep the house warm in the last winter.
The resident wrote to this Service on 4 January 2024 that the landlord had completed some works but many repairs remained outstanding. These were:
1. The back door which was difficult to close.
2. Cracks in the property were getting worse
3. Gutters had been cleaned but not been repaired and that the landlord advised this would resolve the issue with the boiler.
4. Internal works to the hallway and staircase had been completed.
The landlord provided a copy of the post inspection report completed on 10 January 2024. The report noted that works were completed to repair cracks all around the property, radiators replaced, gutters cleared, works completed to the boiler and drains. It provided photographic evidence of works completed.
The landlord provided a copy of the email it sent to the resident on 17 January 2024 advising that all the works had been completed and confirmed through post inspection. It agreed to arrange an appointment to paint the bedroom ceiling within a few days of the date of the email. It apologised for the length of time taken to complete the repairs and for the impact on his family. It revised the offer to:
1. poor complaint handling £350
2. loss of use of bedroom £1750
3. delays to work and negative impact £1000
4. time and trouble £400
The resident informed this Service on 22 January 2024 that he would accept the landlord’s offer of £3500 provided it completed all the outstanding repairs. He said the repairs to the boiler, guttering and garden door remained an issue.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property including works to repair cracks in the bedroom and hallway, door renewal and treatment of damp and mould and for the radiators in his home to be changed.

Radiators

The evidence shows that the landlord completed a heat loss survey in June 2022 as instructed by the damp and mould surveyors. They said in their email to the landlord on 10 June 2022 that the resident’s radiators needed to be inspected as they were dated. In response to the resident’s enquiry on 14 September 2022 about works to his radiators, the evidence shows that the landlord investigated this with the relevant teams for clarification. Its gas team provided a report of the inspection, and its recommendation for one radiator in the bedroom to be changed. It is further noted from its stage 2 complaint response, that it had changed the radiator in November 2022, as recommended and it apologised for the delay in completing the works. It explained that the other radiators were old but were sized correctly.
Based on the evidence, its response to the resident’s concern is reasonable as it followed the recommendations made by gas team. It recognised service failure due to the delay and offered compensation for the overall handling of all the repairs to the property in its response. We have seen from the post complaint reports that the landlord changed 3 radiators in the property in response to further concerns raised by the resident.

Various repairs in the property including works to repair cracks in the bedroom and hallway, door renewal and treatment of damp and mould

It is evident from the information seen by this Service that various repairs had been outstanding in the property for a significant length of time. It is also noted from the landlord’s repairs log that some attempts or visits were made between June 2022 and March 2023 to resolve some repairs. However, the resident complained throughout the life of the case of significant delays in resolving the issues. The landlord has not disputed this.
Whilst this Service has not seen a copy of the report from its damp survey in June 2022, the evidence shows that the landlord committed to carrying out remedial works in the property which were raised on 15 June 2022 (this included a mould wash, plastering works and other redecoration works). The resident reported on 16 January 2023, that he had been cleaning the damp with bleach otherwise the property would have been severely affected. This was 7 months after the landlord assessed that works were required but they remained unresolved.
In response to our request for a copy of its damp and mould policy, the landlord advised that it has an action plan that aligns with this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021), setting out its ongoing approach. From the evidence seen, the landlord’s approach in dealing with the resident’s report about damp does not align with the recommendations in the report. The report published in October 2021 advises landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. We have seen from an internal email dated 27 September 2022, that its damp team was unaware of the status of the repairs and that works raised following its inspection had not been implemented. This shows poor interaction within its internal departments which clearly contributed to the delay in resolving the repairs.
The landlord also said that its action plan for damp and mould includes a decant process should the situation warrant it. This said, there is no evidence that it considered a short-term resolution for the resident or considered the impact of the mould on his family’s health. The resident repeatedly stressed to the landlord, through various correspondences, that they were a large family with children. He highlighted on 14 September 2022 that the accommodation had become overcrowded due to the loss of use of one bedroom and unfit for his family throughout the life of the case, but the landlord failed to address this concern.
Whilst the landlord appropriately arranged a welfare visit, it failed to follow up concerns noted about the bedroom downstairs. It should have assessed any risks to the family’s continued dwelling in the property and considered whether it needed to move them temporarily. This shows that it did not actively listen to the resident or take his personal circumstances into account. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident distress, uncertainty, and frustration. The information provided by the resident after the complaint process had been exhausted suggests that the bedroom works were completed in October 2023, about 13 months after he raised this concern to the landlord. This is an exceptionally long period of delay which would have caused severe discomfort to the household.
There is evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout its handling of the case, which left the resident with no other choice than to continually chase for updates. He continued to ask for clear updates on the repairs between September and October 2022. The landlord acknowledged in its response to the resident on 20 October 2022, that it had handled his repairs poorly. It advised that an appointment had been scheduled for 26 October 2022 and 28 November 2022 but it failed to elaborate or provide a schedule or full breakdown of the repairs, what had been completed and what remained outstanding.
It is unclear if the appointment scheduled for 26 October 2022 took place, but the landlord attended on 28 November 2022. However, there were further delays as it decided that asbestos testing was needed before intrusive works could begin. This is unreasonable as an action plan should have been in place to ensure that the works were managed in an organised way thereby minimising any further disruption to the resident. This is further noted in its visit on 17 February 2023, where it said that works could not be completed as a second operative was needed. This led to further contacts from the resident on 20 and 24 February 2023, where they commented on the landlord’s poor coordination of the works. The landlord had therefore not learned from its previous errors as it continued to make the same mistakes despite promises made in its response on 20 October 2022.
Whilst there is evidence of numerous visits made, what was being undertaken remained unclear. As of 20 March 2023, when it issued its final response, the repairs were still unresolved. This was 9 months since the landlord raised the repairs (15 June 2022). In its response to the resident the landlord stated that appointments to address the damp and mould and various other repairs had been scheduled in but this was not clearly outlined to the resident. Whilst it explained that an appointment had been scheduled for 29 March 2022 to repair the bedroom ceiling, it was vague in its description of other outstanding works and an appointed date for the works to commence. This caused further frustration and distress and led to the resident’s email of 22 March 2022 where he asked for clarification on the works. Again, this is evidence of poor communication and shows that it did not keep track of the repairs as promised.
The landlord apologised for its handling of the repairs and further said in the response that:
1. It was clear that he had had a poor experience in relation to its management of the repair works.
2. It recognised there had been significant issues which its directors were aware of and improvement plans were in place.
3. Many of the issues that had impacted him could have been resolved easily with tighter processes and management of repairs cases.
4. A designated manager would take ownership and monitor the case through to completion.
The landlord revised its offer of compensation from £700 to £2400. This included £1000 for the loss of use of one bedroom for 10 months (as stated in its stage 2 response. According to its compensation policy, it would award 20% of the weekly rent of £170.55 for each week the resident could not use the bedroom. This equates to £34.11 for per week multiplied by 42 weeks which sums up to £1432. Its offer of £1000 was therefore not in line with its compensation policy.
Although the landlord accepted that it got things wrong and that the repairs would be completed, the resident continued to report to this Service that some repairs were still outstanding as of 4 January 2024. The recent evidence provided by the landlord on 17 January 2024 shows that it had made a further offer of redress 10 months after its internal complaints process was exhausted. It offered the resident a total of £3400 for the delays, distress, and inconvenience, associated with the repairs in the property. This included a revised amount of its previous offer for the bedroom loss from £1000 to £1750.
The resident informed this Service that the bedroom works were completed in October 2023, and as the landlord had agreed to compensate him from June 2022, this means there was a total delay of approximately 70 weeks. This equates to £2,387, but its offer of £1750 falls short of this amount by £637. Its offer of £400 and £1000 for the time and trouble, and the distress in completing the repairs, are in line with this Service’s remedies’ guide where there have been serious failings by the landlord. An order will be made for the landlord to pay an additional £637 which is the shortfall from what it previously offered.
The landlord also stated that the outstanding repairs to the resident’s property had all been completed, but the exact dates that the works were individually completed remain unknown. Whilst the landlord has taken steps in recent months to remedy this matter, it took at least 6 months after the dates it previously agreed with the resident to complete the works in the stage 2 response. It failed to demonstrate that it has learnt from its failings at stage one and 2 and it did not keep its promise to monitor the case, leaving the resident with no other choice than to contact this Service for assistance.
There is evidence of poor handling of the repairs, inadequate and poor communication throughout the life of this case and the landlord failed to fully assess the detriment to the resident and his household for an extended period of time. In light of the above, there is evidence of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs in the property including works to repair cracks in the bedroom and hallway, door renewal and treatment of damp and mould and for the radiators in his home to be changed.

The associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint 18 working days (20 October 2022) after it was received (26 September 2022). This was 3 working days later than the 15 working days stated in its complaints policy in effect at the time. Whilst there is no evidence of any significant detriment caused by this delay, it failed to provide a full response to the complaint. The resident’s email to the landlord on 14 September 2022, was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction of the landlord’s handling of his repairs and issues raised in the email should have been incorporated into the stage one response. This would have caused the resident further distress.
Whilst it provided a generic response to his concerns about the outstanding repairs, it failed to address his query about the replacement of his radiators, and that the property had become overcrowded due to the loss of use of one bedroom. This Service’s complaint handling Code (the Code) advises landlord’s address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
From the evidence seen the landlord took over 20 weeks to respond to his stage 2 complaint. The resident said that he requested the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 23 October 2022, and that the landlord failed to respond to it or his emails regarding the complaint. This Service has not been provided a copy of the complaint or the correspondences referred to. The resident made a further complaint on 16 January 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 3 March 2023. The resident objected to the landlord’s comments that his complaint was received on 21 February 2023 and that it was submitted several months back. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response dated 20 March 2023, that it severely delayed its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This is concerning as the landlord continued to repeat the same mistakes.
It picked up some of the points unanswered from the stage one response, such as the query about the radiator. However, it missed another opportunity to address the resident’s concern about the suitability of the property due to overcrowding. It did not also address the resident’s complaint about asbestos exposure, as a result of renovation works carried out to the kitchen and bathroom. It is noted that it responded to a query about asbestos testing in the bedroom downstairs, but not his query about other areas of the property where extensive works had already been done. This is not appropriate and it shows that the landlord had not actively listened to the resident’s concerns. The response also failed to provide clarity on the works that had been completed and a full schedule of works with dates for the completion.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the service experienced and it identified that improvements needed to be made including training to provide a better service to its residents. It offered £350 for the inconvenience to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint. This amount does not fully reflect the detriment to the resident in light of its errors. Whilst it acknowledged its poor service delivery and communication, if failed to learn from this and put things right. These are significant failings, which left the resident in a complaints process, with no clear outcomes agreed and no clear timescale for works to be completed. This also meant that this Service could not investigate the complaints that had not yet exhausted its complaints process. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property including works to repair cracks in the bedroom and hallway, door renewal and treatment of damp and mould and for the radiators in his home to be changed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out repairs to the property due to damp and mould within the timeframes published for routine or planned repairs in its repairs policy. There were significant delays of least 17 months to complete repairs identified by its damp and mould team to the affected areas in the property, which resulted in the loss of use of one bedroom.
It did not communicate effectively with the resident and explain the reasons for this prolonged delay. Whilst it acknowledged these failings at the end of its complaints process, it took an extended period of time to complete the repairs and demonstrate any learning.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage one and 2. The responses were not adequate as they did not fully address the issues raised by the resident and it did not learn from this throughout the life of the complaints. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the stage two complaint, the amount offered in compensation did not fully reflect the inconvenience to the resident.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
Pay the resident the amount of £3500 already offered on 17 January 2024 and an additional amount of £787 broken down as:
1. £150 (in addition to the £350 already offered) for the inconvenience to the resident for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
2. £637 in addition to the £1750 already offered for the loss of use of bedroom.
3. £1000 it offered for the distress to the resident due to the delays in completing the repairs.
4. £400 it offered for the time and trouble to the resident for his experience.
Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code, with a view to providing responses that address all points raised in complaints.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident and follow up any other outstanding concerns about the repairs in the property. It should agree an action plan with the resident to resolve any repairs identified. This should confirm the works required and the dates for completion.
2. Review this case in line with its assessment against this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It should identify the failings in this case and seek to learn from them and provide an action plan to show how it will prevent such failings occurring in the future.
Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders

Recommendations

The landlord should assess itself against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information and consider carrying out a review of its communication in relation to repairs internally and with residents.