Islington Council (202218257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218257

Islington Council

9 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak.
2. Concerns around damp and mould.
3. Concerns around pipework blockages.
4. Concerns around rodents in the property.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and her tenancy began in 2009. She occupies the property with 2 daughters who are named on the tenancy agreement. The property is a ground–floor maisonette with 3 bedrooms. The landlord is a local authority. A leak occurred while the resident was overseas. Her daughters were at home when it happened. A daughter is acting as the resident’s representative. This report makes no distinction between the resident and her daughter. For readability, it refers to “the resident” throughout. The family’s vulnerabilities include mobility issues and anxiety.
The landlord provided a copy of its Housing Repairs Guide. It shows the landlord will raise an emergency repair order if there is an immediate danger to a person or a risk of serious damage to a property. It will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours and make the area safe. In emergencies, the landlord has the right to force entry into a property. This is to make a situation safe. It will complete routine repairs in 20 working days and high-value repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord also provided a copy of its “Temporary Accommodation in Emergencies” procedure. Appendix 1 shows impacted residents will be placed in “reception centre accommodation” (hostels) unless an exception is agreed. The repairs guide provides further relevant information. Section 19.1 says, “Due to the scarcity of available accommodation in London, your choice of emergency temporary accommodation will be limited”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective December 2020, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 21 calendar days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 28 calendar days. Bank holidays were excluded from these timescales. The policy allowed the landlord to consider any new evidence as part of a further review at stage 1. The timescale for stage 1 reviews was within 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 22 October 2021 the resident called the landlord to report a leak from the home above. The call took place around 1:50pm. During this interaction the landlord rang the neighbour, who advised they could not return home until 6pm. Based on this information, the landlord told the resident to call back at this point. It also said an operative would attend within 2 hours afterwards. Subsequently, the resident contacted the emergency services. She has said the fire brigade shut-off the block’s water supply around 40 minutes later.
Ultimately, the landlord forced entry into the neighbour’s home. The resident has said this occurred around 4:20pm. Later, an insurance report attributed the leak to a water provider. It said, while working in the block, the provider opened some taps to test the water supply. However, it failed to close them when it restored the supply. The report shows several rooms in the resident’s property were damaged. They included the living room, kitchen, hallways, and 2 bedrooms. Other evidence suggests the neighbour was out when the taps began to run.
On the same day, the resident called the landlord around 9:45pm. She said water was still coming through the ceiling and she had nowhere to sleep that night. Within 2 hours, the landlord’s operative disabled the property’s electrics and supplied a temporary light. The evidence suggests they advised the resident it would take 2 or 3 days for the electrics to dry. Around 30 minutes after its operative left, the landlord called the resident and offered her temporary accommodation in a hostel. In a subsequent phone call, the resident told the landlord she would try and arrange a hotel for the night.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord around 25 October 2021. In summary, she said its response to the leak was inadequate. This was on the basis it failed to take her initial report seriously. She felt the landlord’s approach increased the overall damage to the property. Further, the landlord had unfairly left the family in their uninhabitable home. The resident said she suffered a severe electric shock in the days following the leak. Her complaint included other concerns about damp and mould, rats, and drainage issues.
Specifically, the resident said there was a “high level of mould and humidity issue” from the outset of her tenancy. In addition, the situation had impacted the family’s health and the landlord declined to provide a dehumidifier. She also referenced “reoccurring pest problems with rats”. The resident did not provide any additional information about this issue. She also said: an upstairs bathroom was unusable due to blockages, the bath often produced waste water that smelled of bleach, and the problem was ongoing despite several previous inspections by the landlord.
Overall, the resident felt the property was uninhabitable and the landlord should move the family. She said the leak had left “severe cracks” in the property, there was “excessive damp/mould”, a “horrific” smell, and valuable (personal) items had been damaged.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 16 November 2021. The parties’ correspondence shows it was issued the following day. This was 17 working days after the resident’s complaint. The landlord partially upheld the complaint based on 2 service failures. Though it apologised, the landlord did not award any compensation. Its response only addressed the resident’s concerns about the leak. It did not mention any of the other issues from her complaint. The key points were:
1. The landlord’s initial call handler should have obtained guidance from a senior colleague. Later, an incorrect repair order was raised because an operative failed to follow instructions.
2. Following the forced entry, the resident told the landlord’s local representative she would stay with family. Later that day, she declined the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation in a hostel.
3. The landlord’s insurance repairs team was liaising with the resident. Its local representative was handling her rehousing request. Contact details were provided.
4. The resident should contact her insurer about her damaged belongings. If she did not have contents insurance, she should contact the landlord to discuss her options.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 December 2021. She said an apology was inadequate given “the mental, physical, emotional, and financial strain” caused by the landlord’s “negligence”. Further, the initial call handler was not sufficiently trained to handle her report. She accepted the family were offered temporary accommodation in a hostel, but she felt this was not an acceptable solution. She also said the family were still without temporary accommodation and the landlord showed a lack of concern for their safety.
The evidence shows repairs to the property were completed through the landlord’s insurer on 17 December 2021. This was around 8 weeks after the leak. The evidence suggests the family stayed with friends and relatives for most of this time. Specifically, it indicates they left the property around 25 October 2021 and “sofa surfed” until they returned. It also shows the family declined at least 2 offers of temporary accommodation from the landlord (not in a hostel) between 25 October and 17 November 2021. Distance and cleanliness issues were cited as reasons why they could not take the properties that the landlord offered.
On 24 December 2021 the landlord issued a further response at stage 1. This was around 17 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address a complaint handling delay. Again, the response did not address any of the resident’s wider concerns about the property (damp and mould, pests, or drainage). There were no significant changes to the landlord’s previous complaint outcome. The key points were:
1. The landlord would provide internal feedback to address the service failures it previously identified.
2. The resident could raise a personal injury claim against the landlord using the contact details provided.
Around a month after the landlord’s further response, the resident confirmed she was still unhappy. She said, instead of taking responsibility, the landlord’s stage 1 responses had directed her to contact various different departments. In addition, this was adding to an already distressing situation. She also said the insurance repairs were incomplete because repairs to a bedroom had been missed along with a wall in the living room. Her other key points were:
1. The family were unable to live in the property for an extended period. The landlord should reimburse their rent.
2. The landlord had failed to engage with the resident’s key concerns. For example, it did not address the impact on the family’s mental health.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 2 November 2022. This was around 9 months after the resident’s stage 2 request. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation to recognise the delay. The response addressed some of the other issues raised in the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord partially upheld the complaint on the basis the leak was upsetting for the family. However, it said it had “not found fault in the timeline of events, as it was not explained in the initial call that the leak was severe enough to warrant a forced entry”.
Since the landlord previously felt its initial call handler should have sought guidance from a senior colleague, the above rationale was different to the landlord’s position at stage 1. The stage 2 response also said the landlord was mindful it had not caused the leak. However, the landlord awarded the resident a further £150 in compensation comprising £50 for a failure to respond to communications within the landlord’s relevant timescale, and £100 for the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience. Other key points were:
1. The resident’s full rent was payable during the repairs.
2. Remedial works were completed to the affected areas only.
3. Repair records showed several pipe blockages had been cleared over the years.
4. In 2022 an operative observed the property’s pipework was dated.
5. The landlord would inspect the pipework and renew it if necessary.
6. The repair history showed there were no reports of pests within the last 4 years.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 4 June 2024. She felt the landlord had been trying to resolve some issues because it was aware of our involvement. She also felt the property needed a full inspection due to various issues. She said the landlord previously investigated the pipework but there had been no further updates. In addition, it had been scheduling repair appointments without confirming her availability.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows she has various concerns about the landlord and its 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. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions contributed to a situation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

The evidence shows the landlord was not responsible for the circumstances that led to the leak. There was no indication it was involved in the water provider’s testing. It is also reasonable to conclude it had limited influence over the neighbour’s decision not to return home sooner. However, it could control its response to the resident’s report. In summary, the landlord has said it followed its correct procedures in response to the resident’s initial call. It awarded her a total of £150 in compensation to address subsequent repair and communication failures.
From the resident’s perspective, the evidence shows she was impacted by a significant leak through no fault of her own. She feels the landlord’s actions contributed to the overall severity of the situation. A timeline she provided in her original complaint shows she contacted the emergency services within 10 minutes of her initial call to the landlord. Other evidence shows she was unable to enjoy the property for around 8 weeks after the leak. In addition, she paid the full rent even though the family were “sofa surfing” for most of this time.
In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a number of call recordings. In relation to the parties’ initial interaction, the recordings show the landlord’s call handler did not match the resident’s sense of urgency. There was little direct discussion around whether the leak was containable. The resident told the call handler the leak was getting worse and the ceiling was on the verge of cracking. The handler replied “what do you want us to do?…”. This was on the basis the landlord needed to access the neighbour’s home to stop the leak.
The call handler should have questioned the resident about the severity of the leak and set out the next steps. Crucially, they should have told her what to do if the situation became unsafe. The above information shows the landlord’s initial call handling was unreasonable and the operative’s approach was likely distressing for the resident. Ultimately, the handler should have been capable of guiding the resident through the situation. Instead, she had to use her own initiative to resolve matters. The above points to a training issue on the landlord’s part.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident should have given its call handler all the information they needed to make a decision. This approach put the onus on the resident to take control of the call. This was not a reasonable expectation. It was especially unreasonable because the resident was in a distressing situation due to the leak. Given the above, the landlord’s rationale at stage 2 was unfair. The landlord should have acknowledged there were problems with its call handling processes and attempted to address them accordingly.
Given the distress she was caused, the landlord should have compensated the resident. It could have also provided additional staff training based on her negative experience. Instead, its unfair and unreasonable approach likely added to her overall distress. The Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the evidence provided. In summary, the landlord was responsible for an initial call handling failure, along with a subsequent failure to identify and address its mistake.
However, the resident’s own timeline of events suggests the parties’ initial interaction did not make a significant difference to the outcome of the leak. This is because the landlord is obliged to respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours. In this case, the fire service shut-off the block’s mains water supply within an hour of the resident’s initial call to the landlord. It was still off when the landlord completed a forced entry to the neighbour’s home. This was around 2 hours and 20 minutes after the resident called the emergency services.
Ultimately, the water was shut-off within the landlord’s emergency repair timescale. The landlord’s forced entry was also broadly in line with this timescale. The entry was completed in response to a report from the emergency services. It was unclear when this report took place. While an additional report should not have been necessary, there was little evidence to suggest the landlord’s actions prolonged the overall duration of the leak. As a result, we were unable to fairly say that the landlord contributed to additional damage. Our compensation calculation will reflect this rationale.
The resident has said the landlord acted unfairly in respect of temporary accommodation. She feels it should not have left the family in their damaged home in the hours following the leak. The landlord has said that, around the time of the forced entry to the neighbour’s home, its local representative asked the resident if she had anywhere else to go. In addition, the resident replied she would stay with family. Based on this information, it is understood the landlord did not engage its temporary accommodation process due to the resident’s comments.
The resident has disputed the landlord’s version of events. This was on the basis she did not confirm she would definitely be able to stay with other family members. From the evidence provided, we were unable to establish what each party said during the disputed interaction. As a result, we were unable to evidence any related failures on the landlord’s part. The evidence suggests several hours passed before the parties spoke again. There was no indication the resident tried to tell the landlord its representative had misunderstood the situation.
The resident has also said the landlord should not have offered the family temporary accommodation in a hostel (the offer was made before midnight on the day of the leak). Her concerns were based on safety, welfare, and suitability grounds. However, the landlord’s emergency accommodation procedure shows the offer was in line with the landlord’s standard process. It was also noted the interaction was with the landlord’s night staff. It is reasonable to conclude there were less options available to the landlord at this time of day. As a result, the landlord’s actions were reasonable given in the circumstances.
Over the next few weeks, the resident declined several offers of temporary housing for various reasons. Aside from her rationale, little information was seen about the accommodation offered. For example, we have not seen sufficient evidence to assess the condition of the properties the resident was offered. Its related internal correspondence, from November 2021, suggests the landlord advised the resident it did not have “an endless supply of temporary accommodation” and any move would not be permanent.
This advice was consistent with the information in the landlord’s repairs guide. The relevant section said accommodation in London was scarce, so the choices offered would be limited. Again, from the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any related failures by the landlord. Ultimately, it offered the resident hostel accommodation on the day of the leak in line with its procedure. Subsequently, it offered the resident a number of temporary properties to address her situation. These were appropriate steps and the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address communication failures linked to temporary accommodation. This was on the basis it did not return some of the resident’s calls as quickly “as it would have liked”. The Ombudsman has seen little evidence in relation to this failure, so we were unable to measure the related delays. Ultimately, there was no evidence to show the landlord’s related compensation award was unfair. Nor was any information seen to show the resident was unhappy with this award.
The resident has said she suffered an electric shock in the property on 23 October 2021. In addition, she was subsequently hospitalised due to the “extreme pain”. The evidence shows the incident happened after the landlord failed to attend a repair appointment as scheduled. The related repair order was raised at 00:18am on 23 October 2021. The notes said an operative should attend the property after 1pm on the same day. This was on the basis the landlord needed to check it was safe to turn the electrics back on, and the resident would be staying in a hotel.
The landlord’s repair history shows the above order was never marked complete. It also shows a similar order was later raised and completed on 8 November 2021. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord did not attend the original order because it was incorrectly raised as a routine repair (with a 20 working day response timescale). The evidence shows the parties discovered the error when the resident called the landlord to chase the works on 23 November 2022. It should not have been necessary to chase the landlord.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged it was responsible for a related service failure. The failure was also reflected in its offer of £100 in compensation. Having considered its actions, there was no evidence to show the landlord’s approach was unfair. For example, there was no evidence to suggest its actions contributed to the resident suffering an electric shock. This is because it disabled the electrics and told the resident they would take 2-3 days to dry. These were reasonable steps to take, prior to any necessary repairs and safety testing being conducted.
In a later call to the landlord, the resident confirmed the shock happened when she switched on a circuit herself. She said she did this because she thought it was undamaged. Nevertheless, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure her concerns around liability (including personal injury and damaged belongings) were addressed accordingly. For clarity, where a resident alleges a landlord’s activities caused damage or injury, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurance team or process.
In this case, the evidence confirms the landlord’s approach was in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations. Its initial stage 1 response said, if she did not have contents insurance, the resident could contact the landlord to discuss “the options available in respect of submitting a claim”. Subsequently, its further response at stage 1 signposted the resident to its personal injury process. Though there was a short delay before it provided the personal injury information, this was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord awarded proportionate compensation in respect of the failures it identified. However, it should have acknowledged its initial call handling was flawed. Had it done so, the landlord would have reasonably compensated the resident for the distress she was caused. Instead, its unfair and unreasonable approach at stage 2 likely added to her overall distress. This amounted to maladministration by the landlord. However, there was no evidence to show it treated the resident unfairly in relation to wider issues such as temporary accommodation or damaged personal items.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around damp and mould

In her initial complaint to the landlord, the resident referenced a “high-level of mould and humidity issue”. She also said the problem was ongoing prior to the leak. Further, it was causing health issues and the landlord declined to provide a dehumidifier. In contrast, the landlord did not address damp or mould in any of its complaint responses. Later, in May 2024, it provided a brief overview in its case evidence to the Ombudsman. At this point, it said a damp inspection had been raised and it would complete any identified repairs accordingly.
Though there was some related information in the property’s repair history, the Ombudsman was unable to make a full and fair assessment in relation to this complaint point. This is largely because the landlord failed to engage with the resident’s concerns during the complaint process. It is recognised the landlord’s lack of engagement with these key concerns was unfair. However, this was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling. As a result, the related failure will be considered in the relevant section below.
The Ombudsman cannot respond to complaints on the landlord’s behalf. We need it to respond to the resident’s concerns so we can complete our own investigation. The Ombudsman has not seen any of the resident’s reports about the issue. Similarly, the landlord did not mention the provision of a dehumidifier in its recent correspondence with the Ombudsman. As a result, we were unable to assess whether its approach to the matter was fair. We will order the landlord to raise a new complaint. This will ensure the resident’s concerns are investigated accordingly.
Overall, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This finding was based on our inability to make a full and fair assessment from the information available. From the information provided, there was no evidence to support a related failure on the landlord’s part.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around pipework blockages

In her initial complaint, the resident referenced “continuous blocked sinks” and “incomplete jobs”. She said the landlord had assessed the problem several times but the issue was ongoing. Further, an upstairs bathroom was unusable because the sink had been blocked since 2016. She also said the bath regularly produced wastewater that smelled of bleach. In addition, the landlord had attributed the problem to external pipework but failed to “finish the job off”. Recently, she told us there was a lack of relevant updates from the landlord.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had cleared a number of blockages within 24 hours over the years. It referenced several incidents from November 2020 onwards which included an incident involving a hair blockage. The response wording suggests it felt the blockages were intermittent rather than continuous. The landlord also said a repair visit in August 2022 recommended a surveyor’s inspection to assess whether the pipework needed to be renewed. This was on the basis the operative felt the pipework was old and dated.
The response said the landlord would ensure its repairs team followed up on this inspection. It did not include a complaint outcome. The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman included some additional information. It said the landlord’s drainage team attempted to assess the pipework in November 2022. However, the resident refused access so the repair order was cancelled. It also said a similar inspection order was raised in May 2024. However, the resident told the landlord its appointment date was not convenient for her.
The evidence shows the recommendation from August 2022 remains outstanding to date (around 22 months later). The landlord has said a no access incident in November 2022 contributed to the situation. Its repair records suggest the property has a history of intermittent blockages. It also indicates the landlord completed descaling works to an external soil pipe in August 2021. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord responded to reported incidents within a reasonable timeframe.
However, from the records provided, there was no evidence to show the resident declined access for an assessment in November 2022. There were no corresponding notes on the relevant repair order, which did not include a repair outcome. This represents inappropriate record keeping by the landlord, which has been unable to evidence its version of events. The resident has referred to repeated pipework assessments by the landlord and a lack of follow up works. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping was a significant factor.
It is reasonable to expect that following no access incident, the landlord could have contacted the resident about the failed inspection and told her to arrange a new appointment. There was no indication it did this. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was at least partly responsible for the above identified delay. In addition, the lack of progress was likely to be frustrating for the resident. As a result, the landlord should have put things right for the resident. Its failure to acknowledge its role in the delay or the resident’s frustration was unreasonable. This was a significant failure in itself.
The repair history suggests the resident did not report any further blockages in the period between August 2022 and late April 2024. This indicates the blockages were not especially frequent or severe. Nevertheless, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. It failed to complete a recommended pipework assessment over a period of around 22 months. Its related record keeping was inappropriate and its lack of progress was likely frustrating for the resident. As a result, it should have attempted to put things right for her.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around rodents in the property

The resident’s initial complaint referred to a “reoccurring pest problem with rats”. It did not include any additional information and there were no further details in the parties’ subsequent correspondence. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the property’s repair history showed there were no reports about pests (from the resident) within the last 4 years. The Ombudsman was also unable to find any records that related to pests in the property’s repair history. However, it is acknowledged that many local authorities have a separate pest control function.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the repair history may not include the relevant information. It was noted the landlord made further comments in its case evidence to the Ombudsman. It said the resident last contacted its pest control service in September 2020. In addition, the property was treated for mice the next month and a follow–up inspection was completed around 2 weeks later. From the limited evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any related failures by the landlord.
Though we have not seen a copy of the resident’s corresponding report, the evidence from around the same time suggests the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe. Specifically, it suggests pest control operatives attended the property 3 times within 1 month. It also shows that, during the final pest control visit, the operative reported that no bait had been taken since they last visited. Given all of the above, there was no evidence to support a reoccurring rodent problem at the property.
It may help to explain that, in itself, the presence of pests is not necessarily evidence of a failure by the landlord. Typically, the Ombudsman will consider a landlord’s actions in responding to reports of pests and whether its actions were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances This includes consideration of any delays and failures to respond to any specialist recommendations. In this case, there was no evidence of any similar issues. Overall, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord awarded the resident £125 in compensation to address complaint handling delays. In isolation this was a reasonable approach and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, given the overall delays (around 8 months in total). However, the evidence confirms there were other issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Significantly, the landlord overlooked several key concerns from the resident’s initial complaint. Though it addressed some of them later in the timeline, it failed to respond accordingly to the resident’s damp and mould complaint.
These issues were important to the resident. They also warranted a proper response. As a result, the landlord’s lack of engagement was both unfair and inappropriate. It was also contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. In contrast, the evidence shows the resident’s damp and mould concerns remain unaddressed to date.
Given the above, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 40 months based on the timing of this assessment. It is reasonable to conclude this delay was distressing for the resident. This is because, during this period, she was unable to resolve her concerns through the landlord’s complaints process. The evidence shows there were similar delays at various points. For example, it took the landlord around 12 months to address the resident’s concerns around blockages and rodents.
This was based on the period between 25 October 2021 and 2 November 2022. This timeframe was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. In line with the above rationale, the delay was unfair and inappropriate. The landlord should have acknowledged these issues were previously overlooked and redressed the resident accordingly. In addition, by proceeding straight to stage 2, it also skipped a complaint stage. It was noted this could impact the overall quality of its response to these matters.
Similarly, the landlord did not signpost the resident to its personal injury process in its initial stage 1 response. From the wording of her complaint, it was clear she held the landlord responsible for the electric shock. Since insurance claims can be time sensitive, the landlord should have provided the relevant information as soon as possible. Instead, the evidence points to a lack of proactivity and an unreasonable delay of around 1 month before it supplied the necessary details. This was based on the period between 16 November and 24 December 2021.
Aspects of the landlord’s stage 2 response could have also been clearer. Specifically, the landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation to recognise that it failed to respond to some of her communications within its applicable timescale. However, the response did not include details of the incidents, or confirm the relevant timescale. This was arguably contrary to the Code, which requires “clear reasons for any decisions”. Given the lack of detail, the Ombudsman was unable to make a full assessment of the landlord’s related compensation award. This was further evidence of complaint handling issues.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This is largely because the landlord overlooked several key issues from the resident’s initial complaint. The evidence points to several related delays. The longest was around 40 months based on the timing of this assessment. The landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. While the delays were ongoing, the resident was unable to resolve her concerns through the landlord’s complaints process. The situation was likely to be distressing for her. Aspects of the landlord’s stage 2 response were arguably contrary to the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. Response to the resident’s concerns around pipework blockages.
  3. Complaint handling.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around:
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. Rodents in the property.

Reasons

In relation to the leak, the evidence suggests the landlord awarded the resident proportionate compensation in respect of the failures it identified. However, it should have acknowledged its initial call handling was flawed and redressed the resident accordingly. Instead, the unfair and unreasonable approach in its stage 2 response likely added to her overall distress. However, there was no evidence the landlord treated the resident unfairly in relation to wider issues such as temporary accommodation or damaged personal items.
The Ombudsman was unable to make a full and fair assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s damp and mould concerns from the information available. This is largely because the landlord did not respond to her concerns accordingly. While there was no evidence to support a related failure by the landlord, the situation was evidence of a separate complaint handling failure. This was addressed in our complaint handling assessment.
A recommended pipework inspection was delayed by around 22 months. The landlord contributed to this delay and its related record keeping was inappropriate. Its lack of progress was likely frustrating for the resident. Though there was little evidence of frequent or severe blockages, the landlord should have acknowledged its role in the delay and redressed the resident accordingly. Its failure to put things right for her was a significant failure in itself.
From the limited evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any pest related failures by the landlord. For example, there was no evidence it was responsible for unreasonable delays or that it failed to respond to any specialist recommendations. In itself, the presence of pests is not necessarily evidence of a failure by a landlord.
The landlord overlooked several key issues from the resident’s initial complaint. The evidence points to a number of related delays. The longest was around 40 months based on the timing of this assessment. While the delays were ongoing, the resident was unable to resolve her concerns through the landlord’s complaints process. The situation was likely to be distressing for her. The landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. Aspects of its stage 2 response were arguably contrary to the Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). The landlord must share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £875 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her report of a leak.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her concerns around pipework blockages.
3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. £275 which the landlord awarded in its previous complaint responses. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from this figure.
The landlord to complete a full inspection of the property. The inspection must be completed by a senior surveyor. It should include a pipework assessment and address any repair issues raised by the resident. The landlord should contact the resident beforehand to arrange a suitable appointment. It must share its survey findings with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to raise a new complaint to address the resident’s damp and mould concerns. Before beginning its investigation, the landlord should contact the resident to clarify the relevant complaint details. It must share its new complaint reference number with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should focus on the identified problems with its initial call handling and our complaint handling findings. The landlord must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks.