Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202405105)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405105

Hastoe Housing Association Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs, including damp and mould.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.

c.      The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the time of the complaint. The resident vacated the property in December 2024, after securing alternative permanent accommodation. The property is a 3-bedroom house with garden. There are tall trees on an expanse of land to the rear of the garden, which is not within the landlord’s ownership.
3. The resident told the Ombudsman that she experienced a mental health crisis during the lifetime of the complaint. The landlord has confirmed that it was aware of this and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
4. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communications and its delay to resolve an issue with the heating, some broken window latches, and a tree at the bottom of the garden.
5. The resident raised more points of dissatisfaction over the next few days. The resident expressed concern that the landlord was not addressing the “full list” of outstanding repairs related to the property and repairs were not being issued to appropriate contractors. Aswell as the issues already raised, this included concerns about loft insulation, wiring, and the lack of external maintenance of soffits, facias, and the porch. She expressed concern about the lack of maintenance of the property, which she felt might result in damp and mould. She suggested that the landlord’s failure to address the issues with the heating had resulted in increased electricity charges. She asked the landlord to arrange a face-to-face meeting, a single point of contact, an inspection of the property, and compensation.
6. The stage 1 response was issued on 5 December 2023. The landlord:

a.     Accepted that the resident had constantly chased for updates, due to its delay in resolving “the issues raised”. It accepted there had been a number of appointments required to resolve the heating problem. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.

b.     Set out the action that it had taken between 17 October 2023 and 24 November 2023, to address reported repairs. It committed to remaining in contact with the resident while the final works were in progress.

c.      Noted that the resident had been advised to contact the local authority about the overhanging trees, as they were planted in the nature reserve. It clarified its understanding that the resident had since made contact with the nature reserve itself.

d.     Offered £1,000 compensation, in recognition of the many times the resident had contacted it and its contractors, and for “the unacceptable length of time it had taken to complete outstanding repairs to the property, which had resulted in increased electricity charges”.

7. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 30 April 2024. The resident said:

a.     She had hoped to have seen a significant improvement in her housing conditions, given her previous communications and subsequent attendances by the landlord’s staff. The resident said she felt “let down, ignored, and third–rate”.

b.     The property was not being adequately maintained and she felt that many components of the property were at the end of their life. She said there was significant damp and mould in the loft. She listed several potential issues that could be contributing to damp, mould, and water ingress in the property. She said the heating had not been fully resolved and her electricity bills were still high.

c.      Its contractors had shown a lack of care, had missed appointments, had failed to return, and had grumbled at the distance they had travelled to attend to repairs.

d.     The property no longer felt like a home and she was at breaking point. She stated that the landlord’s customer service was “atrocious”, resulting in her having to constantly chase the landlord to resolve repairs, without a proper resolution.

e.     Suggested that the landlord ought to pay the maximum compensation payable, which recognised the lack of repairs, damage and losses caused by its poor maintenance of the property, the impact on the health of her family, and the loss of enjoyment of the property.

8. The resident added on 17 May 2024, that she was also dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response, because this did not fully respond to all the points she had raised. She emailed the landlord again on 30 May 2024, explaining that she had experienced a mental health crisis due to everything that had happened with the landlord. She said this had impacted her ability to cope and to work, resulting her being signed off work. She said the landlord must provide answers and reiterated that it should pay the maximum amount of compensation payable.
9. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 6 June 2024. The landlord noted that the resident’s complaint was about the lack of repairs, dangerous overgrown trees, damp and mould, heating inefficiencies, substandard windows, and end of life components. The landlord:

a.     Recognised the number of times the resident had contacted it in the last 4 years about repairs and the number of jobs that had been raised. It identified an occasion when it should have arranged an inspection but had not.

b.     Explained that the heating system had been working correctly when the boiler was tested in January 2024. It reassured the resident that the radiators had been working correctly when these were inspected more recently.

c.      Set out the steps it had taken to address repairs in the property. It provided a list of the outstanding repairs with future appointment dates, as far as it was able. It said that it was committed to addressing all repairs which may contribute to mould in the property.

d.     Said in relation to the resident’s concerns about end-of-life components, that it would be carrying out a stock condition survey later in the year.

e.     Clarified that the trees had been inspected. It reassured the resident that they did not present a current hazard but it would request the trees be cut back by the landowner, once it had established who this was.

f.        Committed to taking learnings from the complaint and offered £250 compensation, which recognised the additional delay in completing works following the stage 1 response.

10. The resident told the Ombudsman on 13 January 2025, that the landlord’s overall offer of compensation was inadequate and did not reflect the stress that had been caused by its handling of the substantive issues. She said the landlord should compensate for her loss wages and for the impact the situation had on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to events that happened between 18 October 2023 and 6 June 2024. This being the date the resident raised the substantive matters of complaint, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. This report may reference events outside of this timescale, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord in the stage 2 response. But any new issues that arose after the stage 2 response, will be outside the scope of this investigation.
12. The resident reported multiple repairs to the landlord over the lifetime of the complaint. This investigation will not assess the landlord’s handling of every individual repair request raised by the resident but may consider a selection of repairs to make an overall assessment of the landlord’s repair handling.
13. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter for the courts. However, this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation.
14. It is also not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for damaged belongings or the loss of wages. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. But the Ombudsman may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

15. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It also had an obligation to keep any installations for space heating, water heating, and sanitation, in repair and proper working order. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the repair. The resident was responsible for decorating the property.
16. The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth are considered as potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
17. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the landlord would carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours (p1), urgent repairs within 10 days (p2), and routine repairs within 28 days (p3).
18. According to the landlord’s damp and mould policy, landlord will raise a repairs order when receiving a report about damp and mould. It will then inspect the property to carry out a more detailed investigation and determine the cause. The policy stated that in some cases, this may be complex and may take longer to resolve. It will ensure residents are kept up to date as to when repairs will be carried out.

The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs, including damp and mould

19. The resident had reported multiple repairs to the landlord prior to the stage 1 complaint being made. The landlord recognised in the stage 2 response, that the resident had contacted it 40 times in the past 4 years about repairs and it had raised 28 repairs orders. It identified that 10 of those works orders had related to issues with heating or hot water. It noted that 15 works orders had been raised for the property in the last rolling 12-month period. It is evident the landlord sought to understand the background to the complaint, to help inform its investigation.
20. This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of heating repairs, window handle repairs, and repairs to address damp and mould under separate subheadings, which will help inform an overall assessment of the landlord’s handling of repairs.

Heating

21. The resident reported on 17 October 2023, that the heating would only work when the hot water was on, that not all of the radiators were coming on, and the radiators were not getting hot enough. The landlord responded by raising an emergency repair, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. The landlord’s contactor attended the property on 18 October 2023, to address the issues with the heating, which within the expected timescale. It was unfortunate that its contractor could not gain access and a new works order had to be raised.
23. Follow on works were ordered on 24 October 2023, after its contractor identified an issue with the electrical wiring on the heating timer. The landlord raised a separate works instruction on 13 November 2023, for its contractor to assess the adequacy of the heating system after the resident suggested that the heating needed to be overhauled and that the radiators were rusty. It is unclear if the landlord’s contractor provided the landlord with an inspection report, despite this being requested by the landlord at the time. But the resident did report on 29 November 2023, that the heating system was now working as it should be.
24. The landlord accepted in the stage 1 response that it had taken longer than anticipated to fully resolve the issues with the heating. It recognised that the resident had repeatedly chased it and its contractor for updates. It did not dispute that its contractor had delayed booking appointments, had cancelled appointments at short or no notice, and on occasion had failed to attend. The landlord took responsibility for the poor service experienced by the resident in its handling of repairs to the heating. It endeavoured to put things right by offering compensation, by addressing its findings with its contractor, and committing to improve its communications with its residents. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was taking learnings from the complaint.
25. When the landlord contacted the resident on 5 December 2023, she reaffirmed that the heating was working and she was happy with the compensation that had been awarded. It is noted that no issues were identified with the heating system during the landlord’s subsequent annual gas safety check in January 2024. This suggests that the matter with the heating had been resolved.
26. There is no evidence that the resident reported any new or continuing issues with the boiler, heating, radiators, or high electricity bills, between issue of the stage 1 complaint and the date the complaint was escalated to stage 2. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s account that there had been ongoing issues with the heating. But the landlord could only address these issues if the resident had brought them to its attention. However, the Ombudsman does note that the landlord had raised a schedule of remedial works several days before the stage 2 complaint was issued, in response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould. Within this schedule of works, the landlord’s contractor was asked to bleed and balance the radiators.
27. The landlord’s contractor bled the radiators sometime during the week commencing 6 May 2024. The landlord proactively updated the resident by email on 23 May 2024, that its Repairs Officer had inspected the radiators and found this to be working ok. It said any peeling paint on the radiators could be addressed by redecorating, which was the resident’s responsibility. This was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
28. It is noted that the resident had a new leak on the boiler following issue of the stage 2 response, which resulted in further inconvenience to the resident and damage to the property. However, this was outside the scope of this investigation.

Window handles

29. The resident reported on 17 October 2023, that the kitchen window locking handle was broken but the window was secure. She reported that the window handle in the living room was locked shut and she was unable to move the handle to open the window. The landlord responded by raising a routine works order to address the window handles, in line with its repairs policy.
30. The landlord’s contactor attended the property on 18 October 2023, to renew or repairs the kitchen and living room window handles. However, the resident did not provide address. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 20 November 2023 and completed the job. This was within expected timescales.
31. The landlord identified a new issue the bedroom window handle during an inspection of the property on 26 April 2024, which it committed to replacing. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine what priority this job was given but an appointment was made for 6 June 2024, to attend to this.
32. The landlord’s contractor attended the appointment on 6 June 2024, as planned. However, its contractor was unable to complete the job, as it did not have the required part. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine if its contractor had forgotten to bring the replacement window handle, or there was an issue with sourcing the right part. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2024, confirming that the job had been completed, which resolved the matter.

Damp and mould.

33. The resident reported on 17 October 2023, that the fascia was mouldy and the bedrooms were cold, which she put down to substandard loft insulation. The landlord responded by raising routine works orders to inspect and address these matters. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
34. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 October 2023. It found that the loft insulation did not meet the current regulations and had been laid over the air vents. This meant that there was inadequate airflow in the loft, resulting in mould on the external side of the property and upstairs windows. Its contractor committed to providing its report and a quotation to replace the loft insulation.
35. The landlord’s Repair’s Officer attended the property on 24 October 2023, to check the rest of the property. This was positive. Photographs taken at the time of the inspection showed black staining on the soffits and fascia, and mould around the bedroom window. It raised a works order the same day, to top up the loft insulation and free up any blocked vents. Its contractor was asked to allow 2 weeks’ notice, so the resident had time to clear the loft. This was fair.
36. The landlord clarified the action that it had taken in the stage 1 response and appropriately committed to keeping in contact with the resident while the work was in progress.
37. An appointment was made to top up the loft insulation and clear the vents on 5 January 2024. The landlord’s complaint handler tried to phone the resident later the same day, to check if the loft insulation had been completed. A follow up email was sent to the resident, in the event that she did not receive its voicemail. This is evidence that the landlord’s complaint handler was monitoring completion of the repair and was proactively contacting the resident as it had committed. The landlord later identified that the resident had cancelled the appointment with its contractor. While this delayed resolution of the issue, this was not within the landlord’s control.
38. A new appointment was arranged to top up the loft insulation and clear the loft vents on 1 February 2024. Its contractor attended as planned. The resident phoned the landlord later the same day, explaining that its contractor had reported finding the loft wet and mouldy due to the lack of ventilation in the loft. It was unclear how severe the mould was, from the available evidence.
39. Upon receiving this information, the landlord logged a damp and mould case and raised an inspection with its damp and mould surveyor. This was in line with its damp and mould procedure. The inspection was logged as “medium priority”, meaning that the inspection should be completed within 4 weeks. It was unclear how the landlord decided the priority of the job from the evidence seen.
40. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident about its next steps until 12 February 2024. This is likely to have left the resident unclear on how the matters was being resolved. Unable to reach the resident by phone, it sent an email on the same day, explaining that its surveyor would be in contact to arrange a property inspection and any follow-on works to address the mould. The resident chased the landlord on 21 February 2024 when she did not hear from its surveyor. This could have been avoided if the landlord had been clearer from the outset on the priority of the job.
41. The landlord told the resident on 7 March 2024, that it had decided to instruct an independent damp and mould specialist contractor to survey the property. This was encouraging and is evidence that the landlord was treating the matter with the attention the resident deserved. It was unfortunate that the earliest appointment date for the damp and mould survey was 27 March 2024.
42. It is unclear when the landlord received the damp and mould report from its specialist contractor. The report stated that the property was generally in good condition. But there was evidence of mould growth in the window reveals in the living room and the bedrooms, on the ceiling and walls within the first-floor bathroom, in the loft, and on the plastic fascia and soffits. It noted that there was a poor flow rate from the extract fans in the kitchen and downstairs toilet. It believed that the bathroom fan had been incorrectly commissioned and made several recommendations for follow-on works. This included:

a.     Replacing the extract fans to the kitchen and ground floor toilet with humidity-controlled units. Recommissioning the extract fan in the bathroom to increase its flow rate and increase the over-run timer length.

b.     Checking the ducting to the external soffit vent, to ensure that it was well sealed, so extracted air did not enter the soffit.

c.      Cleaning all soffit ventilators to improve air flow.

d.     Fitting additional loft insulation to an area that had been previously missed and adjusting the existing insulation to provide a suitable gap at the eaves to allow ventilation.

e.     Installing ventilation at the ridge with vented ridge tiles or vented high level tiles.

43. The landlord attended the property on 24 April 2024, to document the condition of the property for itself and identify any additional repairs that might be required. There was no suggestion that the landlord’s surveyor believed the property was unfit for habitation.
44. The landlord raised a works order on 25 April 2024, in accordance with the recommendations of its independent damp and mould specialist. This was appropriate and was in line with the landlord’s repairing obligations. The landlord told the resident on 26 April 2024, that it had added some additional repairs to the works order, based on its findings from its own inspection on 24 April 2024. This included bleeding the heating system, cleaning the roof loft membrane, redecorating the bathroom ceiling with an anti-moisture paint, regrouting the tiles around the bath, and renewing the bath panel. This was encouraging.
45. But it may have been clearer for all parties, if these repairs had been captured in a formal action plan, with expected timescales for completion. This action plan could then have been reviewed by landlord at regular intervals, in conjunction with the resident and its contractors, until all of the works had been completed. This may have provided greater reassurance to the resident and may have lessened her need to keep seeking updates. This may also have prevented the issues that later surfaced, in regard to keeping track of what repairs had been ordered, what repairs had been completed, and what repairs were outstanding.
46. The resident asked the landlord to note on 30 May 2024, that she had had a mental health crisis as a result of everything that had been happening between her and the landlord. She said all the back and forth had impacted her ability to cope and work. The landlord did not seek to address this with the resident. As a minimum, it ought to have enquired whether the resident needed any support or reasonable adjustments and then acted accordingly thereafter. The resident later arranged her own advocate shorty after this, through which all communications were channelled.   
47. By issue of the stage 2 response on 6 June 2024, the majority of the damp and mould works had either been completed or appointment dates had been agreed with the resident. However, the resident was still waiting for a date for cleaning the fascia and soffits, and regrouting around the bath. The landlord asked its contractor to schedule appointments for the 2 remaining jobs, which it promptly did.

After issue of the stage 2 response

48. The resident clarified on 14 June 2024, that all outstanding works had been completed except for tiling the bathroom, cleaning the loft, cleaning the soffit vents, and scraping the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s notes reflect that it planned to raise these outstanding jobs at its next contractor meeting, which it did. The landlord sought an independent opinion on the works required to the roof on 16 June 2024, from a different roofing contractor. This was encouraging.
49. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 June 2024, asking if its contractor could attend later that day, to check the repairs carried out and establish what work was left to do. The resident declined due to experiencing poor mental health. The landlord committed to discussing the matter with the resident’s advocate, which it did. The resident’s advocate asked the landlord to put the outstanding works on hold and said she would contact the landlord when the resident was feeling more able to cope. The landlord suggested that its contractor should give the resident a couple of weeks before resuming the works. This shows that the landlord was being supportive and was taking the resident’s circumstances into account.
50. The landlord emailed the resident’s advocate on 25 June 2024, confirming 10 July 2024 and 11 July 2024 as provisional dates to bleed the heating, clean the loft, and regrout around the bath. After the resident requested additional works to the bathroom, the bathroom works were rescheduled to 16 July 2024, which it said would last 3 days.
51. The landlord told the resident on 12 July 2024, that its contractor had changed the appointment. It said its contractor would now complete the outstanding repairs between 24 July 2024 and 26 July 2024. While this may have been “due to reasons beyond its control”, this was unhelpful to the resolution of the substantive matter. The resident’s advocate told the landlord at the time, that the resident was upset by the consistent changes and interruptions to appointments. She said this was causing her extreme anxiety and panic attacks.
52. The resident’s advocate asked the landlord’s contractor on 24 July 24 to cancel the repairs appointment, as the resident was too unwell. The landlord’s contractor responded by rearranging the appointment for 3 days in August 2024. It notified the landlord of this on the same day. But the landlord did not notify its roofing contractor that the resident was unwell, who continued to attend the property to give a second option on the roof. While this may have been an oversight on the landlord’s part, this was troubling given the landlord was aware of the resident’s fragile state of mental health.
53. It is understood that despite the landlord’s contractor rearranging the outstanding works for August 2024, its own sub-contractor still attended the property on 26 July 2024, to clean the soffits and fascia, and to install new roof vents and vented tiles. The landlord tried to investigate how this error had happened, but it was unable to get a clear response from its contractor. The resident’s advocate reminded the landlord again, that the resident needed adequate warning of its attendance, due to her anxiety.
54. The landlord’s roofing contractor issued its report on 28 July 2024, giving a second opinion on the roof and providing recommendations for further action. The landlord’s roofing contractor agreed that there was no immediate need for the landlord to act on its recommendations. It agreed that it would be reasonable to wait until the landlord had more data from the stock condition survey, which was planned later that year. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to adopt a planned approach towards further repairs, if it was possible that more repairs might be identified. This approach was also likely to have benefited the resident, given her vulnerabilities.
55. It was positive that the landlord continued to progress the repairs to which it had already committed. It was unfortunate that the new appointment made for August 2024 had to be moved again, after the resident’s advocate confirmed the resident had commitments.
56. The landlord’s record’s indicate that the landlord had brought its contractor under a performance review in or around August 2024, which shows that the landlord was taking decisive action to improve its contractor’s performance. The soffit vents were cleaned and cleared on 23 August 2024. The majority of the outstanding works that had been agreed to the bathroom were completed between 2 September 2024 and 4 September 2024. The mould was cleaned from the loft on 11 September 2024. The final works in the bathroom were completed on or around 3 October 2024.
57. There was no suggestion that the property was unfit for habitation at any stage. But it took nearly 32 weeks for the landlord to clean the mould out of the loft, after this was identified by its contractor on 1 February 2024. The Ombudsman suggests that the resident’s own availability, contributed to the speed at which this job was completed. But it was still incumbent on the landlord to ensure that any potential risks were mitigated and that repairs were completed within a reasonable timescale.

Overall

58. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s various repair reports and arranged remedial works with its contractors in a timely manner.
59. It investigated the resident’s reports about mould and poor ventilation in line with its procedures. It took into consideration the recommendations of its specialist damp and mould specialist, and its own qualified surveyors, when arranging remedial works. It sought additional specialist advice when it felt this was necessary. It was accommodating towards the resident when she was unable to keep appointments.
60. However, the resident was caused avoidable distress and inconvenience on several occasions, by the landlord’s contractors attending appointments without the correct parts or tools, refusing to carry out works, and by arriving at appointments despite being these being cancelled. This also hindered the landlord from completing all of the repairs it had identified, in a reasonable timescale. The landlord ought to have considered how it was able to better support the resident, after she explained the detrimental impact of the situation on her mental wellbeing.
61. The landlord acknowledged there were failings its handling of repairs during its complaint process. It accepted that the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by this. The landlord set out to put things right by committing to complete identified repairs and offering compensation. The landlord’s combined offer of compensation at stage 1 and stage 2, was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded for distress and inconvenience, based on the available evidence, up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response.
62. It was a further 17 weeks from issue of the stage 2 complaint response, before the landlord completed all of the outstanding repairs. This was significantly longer than the landlord had anticipated. While some delay was caused by the availability of the landlord’s own contractor, there was also significant mitigation, given the resident’s own availability to provide access.
63. On balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs, including damp and mould. However, the landlord should reflect on its handling of the resident’s reports concerning her mental wellbeing. It should satisfy itself that it has appropriate mechanisms in place for responding to any resident who declares having a mental health crisis. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees

64. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023, seeking information about who was responsible for the 2 large trees to the rear of the garden. The resident was concerned that one of the trees might fall and damage the property. The landlord’s call handler suggested that the resident may wish to make her own enquiries with the local authority about this. This was reasonable advice, given that the trees were beyond the property boundary, on land that did not belong to the landlord.
65. The landlord’s call handler also raised a task on the same day, for its housing team to look into the matter and establish if anything could be done about the trees. This shows that it was trying to be supportive and was giving the resident’s concerns the attention they deserved. It would have been reasonable for its housing team to have contacted the resident in a timely manner of the task being raised, to explain its intentions. There is no evidence that this happened, which is likely to have left the resident uncertain as to how the matter was being addressed.
66. The landlord’s internal notes indicate that a “p1 repair” was raised, which suggests it intended to inspect the trees within 24 hours, to determine the level of risk. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the trees were inspected within this timescale. This was troubling, given the level of priority that it itself had assigned to the job.
67. After receiving no feedback from the landlord about the trees, the resident logged the stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. The landlord’s surveyor gained access to the property on 24 November 2023, when the trees were inspected. This was 28 day working days, after the resident brought her concerns to the landlord’s attention.
68. According to the inspection report, no immediate cause for concern was identified in relation to the trees. It is reasonable to assume that these findings were shared with the resident at the time of the inspection, which ought to have given her some reassurance. It is unclear if any additional commitments were given.
69. The landlord noted in the stage 1 response, that the resident had now made her own enquiries with the nature reserve about the trees. It might have been helpful for the landlord to have referenced the findings from its own inspection of the tree, so this was clear to the resident.
70. The landlord committed at stage 2, to identifying who owned the trees and requesting that they be cut back. This was positive, given that the landlord also had an interest in the trees being adequately maintained. The landlord’s response would have been better, had it provided the resident with an estimated timescale for completing this.

Overall

71. The landlord did not inspect the trees in a timely manner, despite recognising that the trees ought to be inspected within 24 hours. It ought to have kept the resident better informed. However, the landlord’s inaction was unlikely to have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
72. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

73. At the time of the stage 1 complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy stated that the landlord would acknowledge and log stage 1 complaints within 2 working days. It would provide the full stage 1 response within 10 workings days. If there were exceptional circumstances, this timescale could be extended by a further 10 working days. The resident must be provided with an explanation as to why this was necessary and given a new timescale for responding.
74. At the time of the stage 2 complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy stated that stage 2 complaints must be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days. The stage 2 response must be issued within 20 working days. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason must be clearly explained to the complainant.
75. The landlord’s compensation policy stated that claims for compensation would only be considered where services had not been delivered in accordance with its policies and where a resident had suffered financial loss, distress, or significant inconvenience as a result. The policy does not give any guidance on what level of redress should be considered. 
76. This was a complex complaint, involving multiple repairs and multiple areas of dissatisfaction. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged and logged the complaint the following day, which was in line with its complaints policy.
77. The resident contacted the landlord several times prior to issue of the stage 1 complaint adding new complaint points. It was positive that the landlord’s complaint handler proactively contacted the resident prior to the stage 1 investigation, to clarify the complaint. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). But the landlord ought to have written to the resident setting out the scope of its investigation, so the resident had the opportunity to challenge its understanding. Had it done so, it may have avoided later challenge from the resident, that the landlord had not addressed all of her complaint points at stage 1.
78. The landlord did not issue the stage 1 response until 18 working days after the complaint acknowledgement. This was outside of the landlord’s expected response timescales. If it was unable to meet the stage 1 response deadline, it ought to have written to the resident to extend the complaint in accordance with its policy. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was unlikely that the resident was caused detriment by the landlord’s delay to issue the stage 1 response, given that the resident and its complaint handlers were in regular communication throughout this time.
79. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 30 April 2024, which was acknowledged and logged by the landlord within the expected timescale. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 6 June 2024. This was just outside of its expected timescale for response, so was likely to have caused detriment to the resident.
80. The landlord applied its compensation policy at stage 1, because it recognised that its services had not been delivered in accordance with its policies and the resident had suffered financial loss, distress, and inconvenience. It applied is compensation policy at stage 2, because it recognised there had been additional delay in completing identified repairs. The landlord did not have any prescribed compensation levels. But the landlord’s combined offer of compensation was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded for distress and inconvenience, based on the available evidence.
81. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

82. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs, including damp and mould.
83. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

a.     Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.

b.     No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

84. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.
85. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

86. The landlord should pay the £1,250 compensation that it previously offered during the complaint process, if this has not already been paid.
87. The landlord should reflect on its handling of the resident’s reports concerning her mental wellbeing. It should satisfy itself that it has appropriate mechanisms in place for responding to any resident who declares having a mental health crisis.