Islington Council (202220148)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220148

Islington Council

28 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns around “victimization”.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns around leaks, damp and mould;
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about works to a neighbouring property;
4. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
5. Handling of various repairs including a replacement boiler;
6. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s concerns around victimization.
Paragraph 42(e) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
The timeline suggests the resident began to raise her victimization concerns around October 2022. Soon afterwards, she told us the landlord failed to respond to her related correspondence and her concerns should be at the second stage of its complaints process. Ultimately, she opted to pursue related legal action against the landlord.
The Ombudsman has seen court documents related to legal proceedings in 2023. Overall, the information seen suggests there were some issues with the resident’s proceedings. However, the documents confirm she was given an opportunity to “restore” (resume) her claim. Ultimately, the resident decided not to continue her legal action. Nevertheless, the evidence confirms she had the opportunity to raise her concerns during the proceedings.
The Ombudsman’s approach is that considering duplicate matters is contrary to effective case handling. In addition, it is unfair to expect a landlord to respond to the same issues across a number of different forums. Given the above, the evidence confirms we cannot consider the resident’s victimization concerns. This includes any failure to respond to her related correspondence. We can consider the resident’s other complaint points.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and her tenancy began in 1992. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a low–rise block. The resident lives with her son who is autistic. She has health related vulnerabilities including arthritis and depression. She also has problems with verbal communication and prefers email contact. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide shows it is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also responsible for keeping installations for supplying water and heating in good repair and proper working order. Residents are responsible for internal decorations and finishes. However, the landlord will “make good” following a repair. This means preparing the surfaces around a repair so they are ready to be redecorated.
The guide also details the landlord’s repair timescales. It confirms the landlord should attend emergency repairs within 2 hours. This category applies to situations where there is an immediate danger to individuals or a risk of serious damage to property. The landlord should respond to urgent repairs, including a loss of heating and hot water, within 24 hours. The timescale for non-urgent repairs is 20 working days. Recalls, due to defective repairs, should be completed within 5 working days.
The landlord did not provide a relevant complaints policy, so the Ombudsman found a document from our own records. The policy, updated February 2017, shows the landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it aimed to respond to complaints within 21 calendar days (excluding bank holidays). At stage 2, (a review by the Chief Executive), it aimed to respond within 28 calendar days. The policy allowed the landlord to consider any new evidence as part of a further review at stage 1.

Summary of events

In her later correspondence to the landlord, the resident said the property was impacted by a leak from a flat above on 30 May 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding report from the resident on this date. However, the resident did email the landlord’s complaints team on the same day. Her email referenced a previous leak on 18 March 2021. Overall, the resident wanted £2,000 in compensation to cover damaged items. Her other key points were:
1. Ceilings in various rooms around the property were cracked. An operative inspected them on 20 May 2021 and advised the landlord did not repair hairline cracks.
2. Though she had not caused the damage, the landlord had left the resident “to fit the bill of replacing items and mould problem”. For example, the resident had removed 2 damaged sofas from the property.
3. The resident was forced to throw away other damaged items. She expected to find more damages around the property. Her “insurers would not pay”.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 June 2021. She said a leak on 29 May 2021 caused water ingress into the property’s bedroom. She felt the leak had come from a different flat above. She said she needed a surveyor’s inspection in due course. However, she would arrange this later because she was due a second COVID-19 vaccination. In the meantime, she said, the landlord should investigate the source of the leak.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. Similarly, we have not been provided a copy of the landlord’s initial stage 1 response. However, our records show the resident approached the Ombudsman with her leak concerns in mid-June 2021. Eventually, we merged her leak complaint into our current investigation (the subject of this report).
The resident chased the landlord on 2 October 2021. Her email said the landlord had failed to act despite the resident’s complaint on 30 May 2021. In addition to reiterating some of her previous concerns, the resident said:
1. “Mould is still growing on wall even though I am wiping wall from leak 2018-2019”. In addition, the property’s bedroom smelled mouldy.
2. The resident was still finding items “with mould”. For example, 2 sofas, clothing, rugs, pictures, bags and suitcases. She was upset because some sentimental items were damaged.
3. The landlord completed repairs and decorations to the property on 14 July 2021. However, cracks were appearing in the paintwork where the water had flowed.
4. The landlord did not investigate the leak in May 2021. Overall, various leaks had caused the resident damage, distress, inconvenience and anxiety.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord issued its findings from a further review of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Its response listed the resident’s concerns and responded to them in turn. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The key points were:
1. The landlord was sorry the resident felt it had discriminated against her. In line with its policies, the landlord expected its staff to treat others in a “fair and respectable way”. It noted the resident wanted email contact and its records reflected her preference. At her request, it could ensure 2 staff members were present during all future visits to the property.
2. Given the time that had passed, the landlord would not investigate issues from 2018-19. If there was mould in the property, the resident should request a damp assessment from the landlord’s repairs team.
3. The landlord was sorry personal items had been damaged. All residents were advised to arrange their own contents insurance. The resident should notify her insurer. If she did not have insurance, she should contact the landlord’s tenancy team for assistance using the address provided (the landlord did not clarify the nature of this assistance).
4. The property was inspected on 20 May 2021 and patch decoration works were recommended to various areas. The landlord’s records showed these works were completed on 15 July 2021. There were no further repair requests since then. The resident should report any new issues in the usual way.
5. The landlord’s responsive repairs team were responsible for day to day repairs. This included making safe in the event of a leak. However, it did not investigate individuals. If the resident had noise concerns about neighbouring properties she should report them to the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team.
6. Overall, the landlord’s investigation showed it attended the resident’s service requests in a timely manner. Since no service failures were identified, the landlord did not agree the resident was due compensation. Further, its stance on the resident’s complaint had not changed.
7. However, since it understood a leak had reappeared, the landlord had raised an inspection order on the resident’s behalf. Its repairs team would contact the resident in due course to arrange an inspection. Similarly, the case had been reported to the landlord’s damp team. A desk based assessment would determine whether a damp inspection was required.
The parties exchanged emails on 12 November 2022. The landlord said it was sorry the resident was unhappy it had arranged an inspection on her behalf. Still, an upcoming inspection should be kept as it was part of the landlord’s complaint investigation. The landlord reiterated its previous comments about insurance and advised the complaint would be closed if it was unable to determine the nature of the issue.
The resident replied the inspection was cancelled on the basis she should be left in peace “at this sensitive time”. She also said the landlord should respect her wishes. In addition, when she wanted an inspection she would arrange one. There was a significant gap in the evidence following this exchange.
On 19 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints department about a separate matter. She reported a neighbouring leaseholder was undertaking works to their property through a contractor. She said the works began just over 3 weeks earlier and they were still ongoing. The resident raised a number of concerns about these works. Her main points were:
1. The contractor had cut external pipework serving the block. The resident was unsure why. She felt leaseholders were not entitled to “interfere with external pipes”.
2. The resident had found sediment on her plants and cut metal pipework in the property’s garden.
3. The resident was contacting the landlord because the flow of water to the property’s bath was interrupted on 26 March 2022. She wanted the landlord to be aware of the situation in case any further issues occurred.
In its subsequent complaint correspondence, from 13 September 2022, the landlord said the resident chased its response on 18 May and 20 June 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen copies of these emails.
The parties exchanged emails between 30 June and 1 July 2022. The resident asked the landlord to proceed with her complaint and advised 9 weeks had passed. The landlord said she had been using an internal email address intended for its employees. From the information seen, her original complaint and the above chaser were submitted to a relevant address. Subsequently, the resident reiterated her concerns and asserted the leaseholder had not obtained the landlord’s permission for the works.
There was another exchange on 4 July 2022. The landlord said it was unable to comment on its investigation (into the leaseholder’s works) for data protection reasons. It asked the resident to confirm if there was still waste in the property’s garden. It said it could contact the leaseholder and arrange for their contractor to clear the mess. The resident replied she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She reiterated she wanted an explanation in relation to the cut external pipework. She also said she had spent time chasing the landlord’s response.
The following events occurred between 19 July and 5 September 2022:
1. The resident chased the landlord again. She said her concerns were a formal complaint and the landlord was allowing its leaseholders “to do as they please”.
2. The resident approached the Ombudsman for help with her recent complaint. Subsequently, on 12 August 2022, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns by 26 August 2022.
3. The landlord issued the resident a complaint acknowledgement on 30 August 2022. It said the landlord aimed to respond by 13 September 2022. In response, the resident asked the landlord to clarify which complaint the acknowledgement referred to.
4. Within days, the landlord confirmed its acknowledgement related to the resident’s April 2022 complaint. It said it wanted an operative to inspect the property’s pipework following the leaseholder’s works. It offered the resident an appointment on 6 September 2022.
5. Following a further exchange, the landlord cancelled an inspection on 5 September 2022. Its emailed thanked the resident for confirming the relevant complaint issue (this suggests the resident felt inspecting the property was unnecessary).
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 September 2022. This was around 5 months after the resident’s initial complaint. The response included an update which the landlord said was issued to the resident on 23 June 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen an original copy of this update. The response also referred to other correspondence the Ombudsman has not seen. Overall, the landlord identified 2 service failures in relation to the resident’s complaint. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s update on the 23 June 2022 apologised for the interruption to the property’s services. It advised the landlord was unable to comment on the leaseholder’s works. However, the landlord would investigate and take any necessary action. The update said the landlord hoped this was sufficient to cover the matters raised.
2. Based on the landlord’s internal correspondence from around this time, the leaseholder appeared to have altered pipework on their branch of the block’s soil stack. The correspondence said the alteration was permitted, but the landlord should establish if any other alterations had been carried out.
3. The landlord was unsure why the above information was not relayed to the resident during the parties’ exchange in early July 2022. Subsequently, it arranged for an operative to inspect the completed works to the external pipework. The landlord found the works were satisfactory and there were no leaks.
4. Again, there was no indication the resident had been made aware of the landlord’s inspection findings. Overall, the landlord felt the resident should have been given the above details about the works in a timely manner. It was sorry the service provided did not meet its expectations.
5. In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, a formal complaint was not raised until the Ombudsman intervened. The landlord accepted a stage 1 complaint should have been logged much sooner. It was sorry the resident had been waiting for a response.
6. The resident was awarded a total of £50 in compensation comprising £25 for each of the above errors. It could take up to 4 weeks for the compensation to be credited to the resident’s rent account.
The information seen suggests the resident replied the following day. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of her correspondence. However, during internal correspondence on 15 September 2022, the landlord subsequently said it would not accept her escalation request at this point. It felt the resident was asking if the leaseholder needed permission to make pipework alterations. It said the landlord should discuss its response with the resident and confirm her escalation reasons.
On 16 September 2022 the resident contacted the local authority’s social services department. She said she needed its help to deal with the landlord. She stressed her vulnerabilities and said she was frustrated about an outstanding sink repair. She said the sink had been leaking for 3 weeks and the issue was reported on 5 September 2022. Further, an upcoming repair appointment had been rescheduled.
The resident emailed the landlord’s repairs team the following day. She reported having to bathe in cold water because the boiler was not working. She said she had arthritis and she had been sneezing all day. She asked the landlord to arrange a repair. Subsequently, she chased the repair on 19 September 2022.
Repair records show the landlord raised a corresponding boiler repair the following day. They also show it attended the property on 21 September 2022 and found multiple faults with the boiler. The records said the boiler was made safe and a fan heater was provided. The information seen suggests there was no hot water following the landlord’s visit.
On 24 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team about its correspondence from November 2021. The subject heading was “Previous leaks and new leaks. 18 March/30 May 2021”. The resident said she had experienced bereavements and her mother had dementia. Further, the situation was “dominating her thoughts”. She said the property did not need an inspection. However, she was out of pocket because the landlord overlooked damage to her personal belongings. Her main points were:
1. The resident reiterated her previous concerns about damaged sofas and other items which had to be thrown away.
2. A recent picture of the resident’s carpet was attached. The resident felt the “black mould” damage must relate to a leak. The resident had attempted to clean the carpet but it was now “ruined”.
3. There were similar issues on the property’s stairs. The resident had replaced several floor coverings following a leak in 2017. She felt the damage was deliberate and she could not afford new flooring.
4. The resident wanted to escalate her related complaint to stage 2. Aside from the carpet, there was no other mould in the property.
The resident contacted social services a number of times between late September and early October 2022. Her correspondence shows she felt “vulnerable and isolated so subject to ill treatment”. It confirms the landlord had attended the property to discuss installing a new boiler. The information seen suggests the resident ultimately raised a separate complaint against social services.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 12 October 2022. She wanted to raise a complaint about the toilet door, kitchen sink and boiler. She said the landlord’s related repairs were protracted. Her email confirms a replacement boiler was installed on 11 October 2022. However, there were “residual problems” following the works. For example, a supervisor was recalled because there was no hot water to the bath tap. Though they had addressed the problem, the resident was now unable to “turn off the water”. As a result, she said, “leaking water from the bath tap (was) constantly affecting the boiler”.
The parties exchanged emails over the next 2 days. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the leaseholder’s works again. With reference to an email from 15 September 2022, the landlord asked the resident to confirm her escalation reasons and her desired outcome. The resident replied she did not know why the block’s pipework had been “cut”. Her email broadly reiterated her previous concerns. It shows she felt the landlord had avoided answering her questions.
The resident chased the landlord again on 18 October 2022. She said the landlord had not acknowledged her previous email. Further, there was a lack of urgency and communication in its approach to repairs. In addition, repeated issues had caused the resident unnecessary stress. Overall, the resident wanted compensation based on the landlord’s handling of the boiler and tap repairs. Her new points were:
1. It took almost 3 weeks for the landlord to attend the kitchen sink. In the meantime, water “poured” into the cupboards when the taps were on.
2. Toilet door repairs were substandard. The landlord had replaced an internal handle with a bolt lock. Since “there (was) no mechanism to shut the door from the outside”, the resident held the door closed with an elastic band for over 2 months.
3. The bathroom tap had been left to run for 24 hours unnecessarily. There had been no update on new bath and sink taps since 13 October 2022.
The resident reiterated the above concerns during a follow-up email to the landlord on 27 October 2022. Her correspondence also said social services had given “private information” to the landlord. She also said, with reference to its repeated and unnecessary issues, she felt she was being “victimized” by the landlord.
During internal correspondence on 25 October 2022, the landlord shared repair records from its boiler replacement works. The repair notes said the landlord renewed the bath mixer tap’s “body and heads… to stop water constantly running and make safe”. They also said the resident wanted the landlord to raise a works order for replacement bath and basin taps.
On 11 November 2022 the resident approached the Ombudsman with her concerns around “victimisation”. She said the landlord did not respond to related emails on 3 and 10 November 2022. She also said she had brought numerous complaints to us over the years. She felt the volume of complaints showed there was “clearly something wrong”. In addition, she was suffering unnecessarily through the landlord’s “negative conduct”. The resident said her victimisation concerns should be at the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was around 3 months after the resident’s initial escalation request. The landlord acknowledged a complaint handling delay. It awarded the resident £150 in related compensation. Its response addressed: difficulties the resident experienced when reporting leaks and repairs, works to a neighbouring property, and repeated problems with the recent door, sink, boiler and tap repairs. Aspects of the resident’s complaint were upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord had reviewed the parties’ correspondence from November 2021. It felt the resident was offered an inspection based on a misunderstanding. It was sorry for any confusion, but the resident’s emails contained “lots of unrelated information, which (could be) distracting and difficult” for the reviewing officer.
2. In relation to her damaged items, the landlord previously advised the resident to raise a claim with her contents insurer. It reiterated she could contact the landlord for assistance if she did not have contents insurance. Relevant contact details were again provided.
3. The landlord was sorry the resident felt she was left with a variety of problems which had been taken for granted. This was not intended and the landlord would not cause deliberate leaks. It was grateful the resident had confirmed the property was mould free apart from the carpet.
4. Throughout her correspondence, the resident referred to a leak from above on 29 May 2021. The landlord’s records did not support this date. However, an email on 8 June 2021 confirmed it had spoken to the relevant leaseholder who agreed they would arrange a plumber to investigate.
5. Since there were no corresponding reports of a leak on the landlord’s repairs system, to indicate visits to the property were needed, the landlord did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Its notes indicated it approached the leaseholder when required.
6. In relation to the other leaseholder’s pipe works, the landlord could not share the details of works completed to another property. Though the resident’s questions were reasonable, the underlying rationale for the works was a private matter between the leaseholder and the landlord. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused by the works.
7. It noted it had offered to arrange for any debris to be cleared from the property’s garden. However, the resident confirmed she had already done this with help from her son. Having checked its records, the landlord did not receive any reports of temporary or long-term disruption to the water supply on 26 March 2022.
8. The landlord was aware of the leaseholder’s works and it would make further enquiries if necessary or appropriate. The resident’s complaint had highlighted email management issues relating to one of the landlord’s inboxes. The landlord would raise the matter internally and it was sorry the resident did not receive a timely response.
9. On that basis, the landlord upheld a related time and trouble aspect of the resident’s complaint. It had increased its previous compensation award from £50 to £100 in total.
10. The toilet door repair was raised on 23 May 2022 and a sliding bolt was specified during a visit early the next month. Following a missed appointment in July 2022, the specified lock was installed on 18 July 2022. However, the resident subsequently reported quality issues including a hole left in the door.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s door complaint at stage 1 in early August 2022. It accepted the repair exceeded the landlord’s applicable timescale and it awarded the resident £25 in compensation. However, the complaint handler failed to raise a follow-up inspection for the door.
12. Though the landlord later scheduled an appointment, it was ultimately cancelled at the resident’s request. If she still needed an inspection, the resident could contact the landlord’s repairs team using the email address provided. Regardless, the landlord had increased its previous compensation award.
13. An additional £41.66 was awarded to recognise the identified 1 month scheduling delay. This brought the landlord’s total compensation in relation to the toilet door to £66.66. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was partly upheld.
14. With regards to the kitchen sink, the reported leak was containable. As a result, the landlord’s emergency repair timescale did not apply. The repair should have been completed within 20 working days from 5 September 2022. The resident told the landlord she was unavailable on 14,15 and 16 September 2022.
15. Subsequently, there was a national holiday on 19 September 2022 to mark the Queen’s funeral. Ultimately, the landlord attended the sink repair on 22 September 2022. This timeframe was within its applicable response timescale.
16. The landlord acknowledged its heating contractor attended the property without prior notice on 26 September 2022. Further, it was unable to complete a pre-installation survey because the resident declined to facilitate access. The pre-inspection was subsequently completed on 5 October 2022 and the installation was completed 6 days later.
17. The landlord was sorry about the unexpected visit. The landlord had asked its repairs team to ensure its contractors were aware of the resident’s contact preferences. It had increased its boiler related compensation to £208.56 in total. This figure was based on a rate of £9.48 per day over 22 days. It would be credited to the resident’s rent account.
18. If the resident was having difficulty using the property’s taps due to her arthritis, she should report the matter to the local authority’s adult social care team in the first instance. This department could arrange an assessment to determine the resident’s needs.
19. In relation to her concerns around social services, the resident had been directed to the relevant department (from the information seen, it was unclear if this department related to the landlord or the local authority). If the resident was unhappy with its response, she could contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
20. The landlord noted several issues related to its previous correspondence with the resident. For example, there were a number of address errors and an urgent letter for the resident was sent to another home in the block. The landlord was sorry for these errors and internal feedback had been provided.
21. The landlord had increased the resident’s overall compensation to £525.22 in total. From this amount, £274.08 was previously credited to her rent account. The remaining £251.14 could be paid directly or credited to the resident’s rent account.
The resident replied the following day. She said she wanted compensation because the property lacked a boiler between 17 September and 11 October 2022. She also said the landlord’s repairs team failed to respond to her correspondence during this time.
The following events occurred between 12 January 2023 and 2 November 2023:
1. The ICO responded to the resident’s data protection complaint about the information shared by social services.
2. In late March 2023, a court ordered the landlord to pay the resident £8,000 in respect of her legal claim.
3. In late April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord about several new concerns. She referenced someone “meddling with pipes”, a motorbike, and a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).
4. In June 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman she had concerns about an operative who attended the property in 2021. She said her staff conduct concerns should form part of our investigation.
5. During an email in early July 2023, the resident told the landlord there had been another leak from a flat above. She said there had been numerous leaks from this property and she felt it was deliberate. She wanted the landlord to investigate.
6. In early November 2023 a court set aside the previous judgement against the landlord. Court documents confirm the claim was temporarily “stayed”. Further, the resident was given an opportunity to respond.
The resident updated the Ombudsman by email in February 2024. She said the March 2023 court order related to a victimization case. However, the claim had been struck out because the resident asked the judge to stop the proceedings. Broadly, she reiterated her related concerns about the landlord and social services. Subsequently, she told us she had previously provided all the relevant information about her complaints.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline suggests she has been impacted by several leaks over the years. It also shows she has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
This assessment was limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the timeline above. Any new issues raised after the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2022 were out of scope. This is because landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. If the resident remains unhappy, we can consider these issues when they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

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

It is understood the resident’s key complaint points relate to her damaged items and the potential for further leaks. These are reasonable concerns given the circumstances. In relation to her damaged belongings, the landlord gave the resident consistent information during the timeline. For example, in November 2021 it said the resident should raise a claim with her contents insurer in the first instance. However, she could contact the landlord for assistance if she did not have insurance. The landlord reiterated this information in December 2022.
From the information seen, it was unclear if the resident holds the landlord responsible for the damage. However, contrary to its advice, there was no indication she contacted its relevant department for further assistance. For clarity, where a resident feels a landlord is responsible for damages, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer them to its own insurer. Alternatively, it can address the damages through its internal complaints procedure. In this case, there was no evidence to support a related failure by the landlord.
It was noted the landlord’s advice (to contact it if she did not have insurance) was a little vague. Whilst this was not a failure in itself, it is reasonable to conclude it could have done more to set the resident’s expectations. For example, its response could have summarised the landlord’s approach to insurance. Given the above, though there was no evidence of a related failure, we will make a recommendation intended to clarify matters for other residents in similar circumstances. The resident is encouraged to contact the landlord’s relevant department using the email address the landlord previously provided.
In October 2021 the resident told the landlord that various leaks had caused damage, distress, inconvenience and anxiety. During the timeline, she made a number of requests for the landlord to investigate her neighbours. Based on her overall correspondence, it is reasonable to conclude she was concerned about the potential for additional leaks. In its further review at stage 1, the landlord said its repairs team did not investigate other residents. From the information seen, the resident did not ask the landlord to escalate her related concerns.
No information was seen to suggest the landlord was obliged to investigate individuals. However, the evidence suggests the property has incurred multiple leaks over the years. For clarity, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show the cause of the leaks. Further, historic leaks were beyond the scope of our assessment. Nevertheless, though there was no evidence of a related failure by the landlord, we will make a recommendation intended to ensure that the landlord considers the wider circumstances around the number of leaks to the property.
There was conflicting evidence in relation to mould. For example, the resident referenced a mould problem in May 2021. Several months later, she told the landlord mould was still growing “on wall” following a leak in 2018. The landlord said it would not investigate issues that occurred so long ago. However, it had arranged an inspection on the resident’s behalf. Whilst this was not a damp inspection, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have confirmed the presence of mould. The resident subsequently cancelled the inspection.
Later, in September 2022, the resident told the landlord the property was mould free aside from the carpets. No evidence was seen to show she raised any mould reports during the interim period. Given the above, there was no evidence of any mould related failures by the landlord. It was noted the landlord’s further response at stage 1 contained general advice around reporting mould. It said the resident should report any mould concerns to the landlord’s repairs team in the first instance. Her carpet forms part of her claim for damaged items.
In summary, from the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any related failures by the landlord. However, the evidence highlighted things which the landlord could have handled differently or better. As a result, we will make some recommendations intended to improve the landlord’s overall performance and help the resident. Overall, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around works to a neighbouring property

In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted responsibility for various failures related to this complaint point. For example, it awarded the resident £50 at stage 1 because it failed to relay important information about the leaseholder’s works to the resident in a timely manner. This included confirmation that the works were permitted, and that the amended pipework was inspected and no issues were identified. It is reasonable to conclude this information could have provided some reassurance to the resident.
The landlord subsequently awarded the resident a further £50 for additional time and trouble in relation to her connected complaint. From the landlord’s response wording, a portion of the overall compensation awarded related to complaint handling issues. These issues will be considered separately in the complaint handling section below. In relation to the substantive issue, the landlord seems to have awarded the resident £50 in total. Accordingly, we considered whether its response was sufficient to fairly put things right.
The timeline suggests it took the landlord around 5 months to relay the important information described above. This was based on the period between 19 April and 13 September 2022. Similarly, it was around 11 weeks before the landlord offered to address the mess left by the leaseholder’s works. The timeline shows the resident and her son had already cleaned up by this point. Given the above timescales, along with their corresponding impact to the resident, the evidence shows the landlord’s compensation was disproportionate.
This is because, as mentioned, the landlord failed to reassure the resident. Similarly, though the landlord was not obliged to clear up after the leaseholder’s contractor, its failure to address matters promptly, in effect, put the onus on the resident to clear the debris. On that basis, the Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation based on the information seen. Given it attempted to put things right, but conflated the substantive and complaint handling issues, the above identified issue amounts to service failure on the landlord’s part.
From the information seen, there was no evidence to support a significant interruption to the property’s services as a result of the leaseholder’s works. The landlord had data protection obligations to its other tenants/leaseholders. It was not obliged to share information about the leaseholder’s works. In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified a process failure related to this complaint point. It showed a willingness to learn from outcomes by providing feedback to its relevant department.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

The resident has a number of vulnerabilities and the evidence suggests she has been dealing with some difficult personal circumstances. The landlord should have therefore shown her due care and compassion. The below assessment used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to consider whether the landlord acted with appropriate sensitivity given her vulnerabilities.
It was noted the landlord’s November 2021 complaint response addressed discrimination concerns. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord breached equalities legislation. However, we can consider a landlord’s response to allegations of this type. In general, we expect landlords to take such matters seriously and respond accordingly through their internal complaints procedure. Though we have not seen details of the resident’s related concerns, its response shows the landlord complied with our above expectations.
From the information seen, the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s concerns and offered reasonable solutions accordingly. For example, the landlord offered to ensure all appointments at the property were attended by 2 operatives going forwards. No information was seen to show the resident responded to this suggestion. However, it was also noted there was no evidence to suggest she asked the landlord to reconsider her concerns around discrimination at stage 2 of its complaints process.
Nevertheless, the timeline points to some issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities. Primarily, the tone of its stage 2 response was insensitive given the resident’s communication difficulties. For example, the landlord said the resident’s correspondence contained “lots of unrelated information, which (could be) distracting and difficult”. It was noted the landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman, from around August 2023, said there were no vulnerabilities recorded on the resident’s file.
Given the above, it was unclear if the landlord was aware of the resident’s communication related vulnerability at the point its response was written. From the information seen, there was no indication its above comments were upsetting to the resident. However, it is reasonable to conclude they could have caused distress. On that basis, the above identified issue was a failure on the landlord’s part. It was also concerning that the landlord was unaware of the resident’s other vulnerabilities when it submitted its case evidence in 2023.
This was evidence of a further related failure on the landlord’s part. For example, the landlord should be capable of using its records to guide its interactions with residents and other parties where applicable. The timeline also shows the landlord could have done more to support the resident. For example, in September 2022 the resident said she was struggling with her mother’s health and bereavements. However, no information was seen to suggest the landlord attempted to signpost her to any relevant support agencies/services at this point.
It was noted that, in relation to the property’s taps, the landlord advised the resident to seek a needs assessment from the local authority. This was appropriate advice given the resident’s arthritis. It also shows the landlord was aware of some of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Typically, an occupational therapist can specify alterations to a property. This could include lever style taps. From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to identify any further issues related to the tone of the landlord’s communications.
Overall, the evidence points to service failure in respect of this complaint point. This is largely because the tone of the landlord’s stage 2 response was partly insensitive given the resident’s communication difficulties. There was also evidence of a record keeping failure related to the resident’s vulnerabilities. The information seen suggests it had a limited impact on the resident. The landlord could have signposted the resident to relevant support services.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs including a replacement boiler

The landlord accepted there were several failures related to its repairs handling. For example, it awarded the resident a total of £208.56 in relation to the boiler issues. Its calculation was based on a daily rate of £9.48 for a lack of heating and hot water over of 22 days. This exceeded the daily rate set out in the Government’s Right to Repair scheme. The 22 days calculation addressed the period between 17 September and 11 October 2022. This was in line with the dates detailed in the resident’s requests for compensation.
However, the timeline confirms there were other impacts besides a lack of heating and hot water. For example, the resident chased the repair on 19 September 2022 because the landlord failed to respond within its relevant timeframe. This additional effort should not have been necessary. Further, it took the landlord around 4 days to issue the resident temporary heaters. It is reasonable to conclude the property lacked any heating in the interim period. Subsequently, the landlord accepted there was an unexpected contractor visit to the property.
Given the above, the landlord should have considered the resident’s related distress and inconvenience separately in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. Overall, the evidence confirms the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given what went wrong. As a result, we will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident. It was noted the resident has said the lack of hot water impacted her arthritis. As mentioned, we cannot establish if there was any corresponding impact on the resident’s health. It was noted the landlord took steps to address the unexpected appointment.
Regarding the toilet door, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £66.66 in compensation. £25 was based on a failure to complete the repair with its relevant timescale, and the rest related to a subsequent scheduling delay. From the timeline given in its stage 2 response, it took the landlord around 56 days to complete the repair. It was noted an initial inspection was needed before the works could begin. As a result, the timeline points to a delay of around 16 days. The landlord has said the resident chased the repair and there was also a missed appointment.
The evidence suggests £25 was not sufficient to address the additional inconvenience the resident was caused. Again, the Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to put things right. The information seen indicates there was a limited impact to the resident. For example, there was no evidence to suggest the door could not be closed from the inside. The landlord has said the resident cancelled an appointment to reinspect the door for quality issues. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that contradicts this assertion.
The resident’s correspondence to social services shows she reported the sink repair on 5 September 2022. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the repair was ultimately completed on 22 September 2022. The resident has not disputed this completion date. As a result, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 17 days to complete the repair. This was in line with its routine repair timescale. From the information seen, it was reasonable to treat the matter as a routine repair since there was no evidence of a continuous leak. Overall, there was no evidence of any sink related failures by the landlord.
In summary, the evidence confirms the landlord’s repair related compensation was disproportionate given the various impacts to the resident. For example, there were other boiler issues besides the loss of enjoyment caused by a lack of heating and hot water. Since it attempted to put things right, the above identified issues amount to service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

From the information seen, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £200 in compensation for various complaint handling failures. In terms of complaint handling compensation, this was a significant figure. The evidence suggests it was justified given the circumstances. For example, the timeline points to around 6 months of combined complaint handling delays. It also shows the resident was prompted to chase the landlord’s response on multiple occasions. Further, it took an intervention from the Ombudsman to prompt the landlord to launch a formal investigation.
However, the timeline points to further issues with the landlord’s approach to compensation. For example, in its stage 2 response the landlord identified several errors related to its previous correspondence with the resident. This included an urgent letter that was sent to another home in the same block. The landlord apologised and said feedback was provided. However, its response wording suggest it should have reasonably awarded compensation based on the number of errors identified and their corresponding impact to the resident.
For clarity, the Ombudsman considers an apology broadly sufficient to address a single error with a limited corresponding impact. For example, a short one-off delay of around 2 days. Typically, an apology is not appropriate for repeated errors of the same type. On that basis, we will increase the landlord’s complaint handling compensation accordingly. Again, the landlord’s disproportionate redress only amounted to a service failure because the landlord made a reasonable attempt to address its overall complaint handling failures.
Overall, this report highlighted issues with the landlord’s general approach to compensation. These findings were consistent with the Ombudsman’s recent special report on the landlord (published October 2023). The report noted the landlord had not been offering adequate compensation. Further, it often failed to appreciate the impact of any failings it identified. The landlord is currently working with the Ombudsman to address the key themes in the special report. This includes the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns around victimization were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s concerns about works to a neighbouring property;
  2. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
  3. Handling of various repairs including a replacement boiler;
  4. Complaint handling.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around leaks, damp and mould.

Reasons

Paragraph 42(e) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”. The Ombudsman has seen court documents concerning related legal proceedings in 2023.
In relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around leaks, damp and mould, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any related failures by the landlord. Since there were things the landlord could have done differently or better, we will make some recommendations intended to improve the landlord’s overall performance and help the resident.
The landlord awarded a disproportionate amount of compensation in relation to the resident’s concerns around works to a neighbouring property. For example, it failed to consider the impact of its failure to promptly reassure the resident. In effect, its delays also placed the onus on the resident to clean up a mess left by the leaseholder’s contractor.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 response was partly insensitive given the resident’s communication difficulties. However, there was no information to suggest the resident found the landlord’s comments distressing. The evidence points to a record keeping failure related to the resident’s vulnerabilities. From the information seen, it had a limited impact on the resident. The landlord could have signposted the resident to relevant support services.
The landlord’s repair related compensation was disproportionate given the various impacts to the resident. For example, there were other boiler issues besides a loss of enjoyment caused by a lack of heating and hot water. However, the landlord did attempt to put things right for the resident. It also took steps to address matters with its contractor.
The landlord identified several errors related to its previous correspondence with the resident. This included an urgent letter that was sent to another home in the same block. Given the repeated errors and their impact, the landlord’s apology was not sufficient to put things right. Despite this issue, the landlord made a reasonable attempt to address its overall complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £825 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 any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about works to a neighbouring property.
2. £50 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
3. £425 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of various repairs.
4. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from the £525.22 it previously awarded during its internal complaints process.
The landlord to ensure its primary records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord may need to contact the resident and clarify the correct details before updating its records. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord to update the Ombudsman on the steps it has taken to address the compensation findings in our special report from October 2023. The special report noted the landlord had not been offering adequate compensation, and it often failed to appreciate the impact of any failings it identified. These findings were consistent with the failures identified above.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider the wider circumstances around the number of leaks impacting the property. This includes: any common causes, previous repair costs, mitigation works, moves and support needs if applicable. The landlord should provide a written summary to the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord’s summary should outline the landlord’s obligations where a leak stems from a leaseholder’s property.
Where applicable, the landlord’s complaint letters to include standard paragraphs around its approach to insurance claims. These paragraphs could include the contact details for the landlord’s insurer/insurance department. They could also outline the circumstances in which a claim is likely to be successful. This is with a view to ensuring residents are given clear information and expectations are set accordingly.
The landlord to ensure its staff are capable of signposting vulnerable residents to relevant support services.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.