Lambeth Council (202201533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201533

Lambeth Council

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Repairs to the bathroom, including concerns about damp and mould.
3. An electrical inspection and related repairs in the property.
4. Reports of incorrect information on the annual gas safety certificate.
5. The resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s record keeping has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began on 20 April 2011 and is for a 2 bedroom flat.
On 17 June 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp within her bathroom, which she said was as a result of a faulty extractor fan that had been installed in 2020. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her request for additional plug sockets to be installed in her utility room. She said that this was a fire safety concern as she was using an extension lead. The complaint also mentioned some damage to the wall within her bathroom following the installation of a new shaving light.
On 10 July 2021, the landlord raised an order for an electrical test to be carried out in reference to the resident’s request for additional sockets and a faulty shaving light. A second order was raised to renew a defective extractor fan as the resident had reported an increase in mould growth within her bathroom.
On 22 April 2022, as the resident had not received a response from the landlord in relation to her complaint, she contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. The resident confirmed that her complaint was in relation to damp and mould within her bathroom due to a faulty extractor fan and health and safety concerns due to electrical hazards within her utility room. The resident also said that a shelf had fallen off of the bathroom wall as the damp was getting worse within her bathroom. The resident also provided a copy of the complaint she had sent to the landlord on 17 June 2021.
On 9 May 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord with details of the complaint and asked it to provide a stage 1 response. On 17 May 2022, the landlord responded to the Ombudsman and confirmed that it did not have any record of the complaint but would respond by 16 June 2022. It also acknowledged the complaint directly with the resident.
In July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord on numerous occasions regarding ASB concerning her neighbour and what action she wanted the landlord to take.
On 3 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response which said:
1. In relation to the faulty extractor fan, the order had previously been assigned to an former contractor who had attended the resident’s property on 9, 14 and 21 September 2021, but the work had been refused by the resident. A new appointment had been booked for 11 August 2022. It also confirmed that the patch surveyor was investigating the type of fan and would be in contact if necessary.
2. A full electrical inspection had been booked for 11 August 2022.
3. It also partially upheld the resident’s complaint and in recognition of the delay and inconvenience with the repairs, offered the resident £460 compensation.
On 30 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to deal with the issues she had reported regarding the alleged ASB.
On 15 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, and copied in the Ombudsman, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. The resident said that it had not kept the repair appointments and it had not provided a BACS form for the compensation to be paid, as it said it had in the stage 1 response. The resident also said that she was unhappy with the workmanship in relation to an unrelated repair.
On 22 September 2022, the landlord responded to the resident, attached the relevant BACS form, and said that it had amended the compensation to £480 in recognition of the missed appointment. It also said that it had referred the poor workmanship to the relevant department to investigate. The resident replied to the landlord and asked it to provide a breakdown of the £480 compensation.
On 23 September 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she had escalated her complaint on 17 September 2022 and that the electrical works remained outstanding. She explained that an electrical inspection had been carried out that week, and that the property had failed for a number of reasons. The Service advised the resident to contact the landlord again and confirm she wished to escalate the complaint.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The resident explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the remedial works required, as a result of the failed electrical test. The resident also said that she had been telling the landlord for over 11 years that a number of appliances had broken and the landlord should take responsibility to this.
Within the same email, the resident also told the landlord that she was unhappy with the way in which her Gas Safety Inspections (LGSR) had been conducted as she claimed the contractor had been falsifying the documents for a number of years by stating she had a carbon monoxide detector, when she did not.
Between October and November 2022, the residents sent the landlord a number of emails regarding the ASB she was experiencing and her comments about the steps the landlord was taking, namely relating to the installation of a noise monitoring machine.
On an unknown date in November 2022 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement and said that it would respond to the resident by 22 December 2022.
On 30 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and copied in the Ombudsman. The email detailed the number of issues she was awaiting a response about, this included:
1. A breakdown of the £480 compensation.
2. Communication relating to the remedial works required following the electrical inspection in September 2022.
3. A response to her complaint on 17 June 2021.
4. A response to the allegation that contractor had been falsifying the LGSR paperwork.
5. A response to the ASB issues with her neighbour.
On 7 December 2022, the Ombudsman also wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 2 response regarding:
1. The reported damp and mould in the bathroom, as a result of a defective fan.
2. Health and safety concerns in relation to the electrical hazards in the utility room and the delay in completing the remedial works.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling, namely the difficulty in escalating the stage 2.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and acknowledged the stage 2 escalation. The landlord confirmed that it would be investigating the claim that the electrical inspection (EICR) and LGSR had been falsified, but it would not investigate the issues in relation to ASB. These would need to be submitted as a new stage 1 complaint.
On 19 December 2022, the resident responded to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord would not be dealing with her ASB and insisted it respond to every issue she raised.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, where it said that:
1. Tests are not falsified and that the test is a legal compliance The tests are carried out by a gas safe registered engineer.
2. Its records showed that the resident had refused the extractor fan repair on 3 separate occasions, due to the style of extractor fan that was going to be fitted. However, a new order had been raised to install a humidistat fan.
3. An order had been raised to repair the wall within the bathroom and for a full electrical inspection to be carried out.
4. In relation to ASB, this had previously been logged as ASB/nuisance and not a complaint. Any further issues should be reported to the housing officer.
On 22 December 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that the compensation should be doubled. The resident also emailed the landlord and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with its response.
In February 2024, the landlord provided an update of works it had been liaising with the resident to complete. Although the communications and works were part of the resident’s complaint, it was significantly after the final response was issued.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti social behaviour

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint may not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’’.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the above aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The evidence shows that in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she referred to a number of issues that she felt the Ombudsman had not captured, namely the handling of the ASB.
The resident’s complaint relating to ASB did not form part of her first complaint to the landlord in 2021, nor did it form part of the escalation in September 2022. It was not until the resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022, where she listed the concerns she wanted to escalate that this complaint about the handling of the ASB was raised. The landlord responded to the resident and said that it would not address the issues regarding the ASB at stage 2, and would need to be submitted as a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
As this aspect did not form part of the landlord’s stage 2 response and has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, it will not be considered in this report as the landlord needs to be given the full opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom, including concerns about damp and mould.

When the resident first raised her complaint with the landlord in June 2021, she said that ever since she had a new extractor fan installed in 2020, her bathroom developed damp and mould. It had been changed numerous times, and she had been told by the contractor that a certain brand of extractor fan should be supplied and this is what she wanted to be installed.
As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 3 August 2022, the landlord states that it had previously raised repairs to renew (replace) the defective extractor fan. It said that its contractor had tried to attend on 3 occasions but were not able to complete the job, as the model of fan it was going to install was not what the resident wanted to be fitted. It had therefore referred the issue to the patch surveyor, but had also booked an appointment for 11 August 2022.
The landlord’s repair records are very basic but do show that it first raised a job for a faulty extractor fan on 19 October 2020, as the resident reported that it was permanently on and could not be turned off. Following the contractors attendance, a further job was raised on 23 October 2020 for the fan to be replaced as it had stopped working completely.
On 17 November 2020, the records show that the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a new fan and sensor had been installed the previous week, but it would not turn off without the fuse switch being used. While it is not uncommon for landlord’s to install a humidistat style extractor fan, which run continually until it removes all of the excess moisture, the landlord’s records do not provide any context regarding what it had installed or whether the contractor identified any defects following its visit.
Another repair was raised on 28 January 2021 to repair the ‘‘defective’’ extractor fan, however as previously detailed, it is not clear what works were identified following this visit.
Based on the evidence provided, it was not until 14 May 2021 that the resident reported an increase in mould growth and a repair was raised to renew the extractor fan. For an unknown reason, this repair was cancelled, only to be reraised on 10 July 2021.
It is not clear what issues the resident was continuing to experience as when she initially escalated her complaint in September 2022, she did not mention an issue with the bathroom. Her further escalation in November 2022 also did not fully detail the issues she was experiencing within the bathroom.
The landlord’s final response was very brief and said that the repair raised in July 2021 was refused 3 times by the resident. In order to rectify the issues, it had raised an order to install a new humidistat extractor fan, carry out a mould wash and repair all within the bathroom. It failed to provide any context as to what happened to the repair it said it had raised in August 2022 following the stage 1 response. There are no records to confirm that the contractor attempted to attend, nor is there a repair for August 2022, so it is unclear how landlord came to this conclusion,
As previously stated, the available evidence is unclear in accurately detailing the exact events involving the resident’s bathroom and installation of the extractor fan. The landlord’s records and resident’s explanation of events appear to conflict. Therefore, the Ombudsman must make a decision based on what information is available and address any failings it has identified.
On assessment, the landlord is entitled to attempt repairs rather than arranging a replacement in the first instance, unless an item cannot be economically repaired or if repeated repairs have been attempted but have not resolved the issue. The landlord is also entitled to make an informed decision on what parts and/or replacement items, such as make and model of a fan, when completing a repair.
While the exact make and model may not be what the resident has requested, the landlord must consider what is efficient and appropriate – both economically and fit-for-purpose. If the landlord were confident the fan would be an appropriate replacement, it was reasonable for it to propose to use it in the resident’s bathroom.
Following the resident’s reports that she only wanted a certain model of fan to be installed, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was communicating with the resident to address any concerns that she may have. This could include describing the way in which the fan works and how it may have differed from the previous model. The Service would also expect to see the landlord taking a proactive approach in resolving the mould growth within the bathroom and ensuring it had taken the most effective steps to ensure it did not return.
Had these steps been taken, it may have prevented the subsequent issues that the landlord and contractor experienced regarding the resident allowing access to her property.
The Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report provides insight into how this Service expects landlords to act in these circumstances:
1. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
2. Landlords should review the number of missed appointments about damp and mould cases and, depending on the outcome of any review, consider what steps may be required to reduce them.
3. Landlords must ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow-up or aftercare.
In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance, damp and mould are potential hazards and, as such, this Service would expect to see records that demonstrate the landlord was exploring every possible solution to resolve the issue. The records show that the landlord was aware of the problems since May 2021 and it remained outstanding for over 2 years. This was an unacceptable time for the repairs to remain outstanding.
While the contractor may not have been able to gain access, it is not reasonable for the landlord to allow repairs to remain outstanding. The landlord should have a robust procedure in place to address repairs which remain outstanding, especially those that may present a potential hazard under the HHSRS guidance. This results in maladministration.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in ensuring the mould was addressed within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which had an adverse effect on the resident a payment of above £100 is recommended.
While the landlord did try to put things right by offering the resident £460 compensation at stage 1 of its complaint process, it failed to take meaningful steps to ensure that the repair was actioned.
It took the landlord an additional year for it to complete the repairs that were reported and therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation in recognition of the additional delay experienced .

The landlord’s handling of electrical inspection and related repairs in the property.

Certain obligations in relation to electrical safety are implied into every tenancy agreement. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords must keep installations for the supply of electricity in repair and proper working order throughout the tenancy.
Under section 9A of the Act, landlords must ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from electrical hazards when the tenancy is granted and throughout the tenant’s occupation. Furthermore, at present social landlords are legally obliged to keep the electrical installations in repair, but not to inspect them.
As part of the stage 2 escalation on 23 September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that an EICR had been carried out on the property, which had identified a number of faults throughout and that she would await further communication from the landlord about its next.
It is not clear whether the resident was asking the landlord to investigate this point as part of the stage 2 complaint, but as she did not receive a response. She escalated this issue as part of her email to the landlord on 30 November 2022 and the landlord said it would provide a response at stage 2.
It is again not clear from the evidence provided what the landlord did as part of its complaint investigation, as the response simply told the resident that it had raised an order for an electrical inspection to be carried out and the contractor would be in touch.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take specific action in order to investigate the resident’s claims and would have expected to see some form of communication between the landlord and its contractors. The Service would also expect to see correspondence between the contractor and landlord in relation to the any electrical inspections that had been carried out, if any issues were identified, full details of the results and what next steps needed to be taken to ensure the property was safe. However, there is no evidence that this happened.
The resident felt that she had reason to believe she was living in a property which was unsafe and that the landlord was not taking any action. Its lack of investigation into her claims left the resident frustrated and angry. This could have been avoided if the landlord had taken shown that it had listened to her concerns and addressed them accordingly.
The landlord’s failure to act in a fair and reasonable manner in the circumstances resulted in maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings, a payment of over £100 is recommended. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s claims, which left the resident feeling frustrated and unheard, therefore an order has been made to pay the resident £300 compensation and a further order has been made at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of incorrect information on the annual gas safety certificate.

The landlord’s gas safety policy states that the landlord will comply with its legal duties, in particular under Section 36 (Duties of Landlords) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 2018 and in doing so will be guided by best practice. Landlords have a legal obligation to ensure that all gas appliances and flues they own are inspected and serviced within 12 months of the previous gas safe certificate (LGSR) being issued. Tenants are required to provide access to their homes to allow for gas safety works and the annual gas safety check.
The landlord’s health and safety resident handbook has a specific section relating to carbon monoxide detectors, and states that residents are advised to fit an audible carbon monoxide alarm in their home.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 October 2015, and were amended in 1 October 2022 for social landlords. From that date, all relevant landlords must ensure a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers).
When the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, she informed the landlord that she believed that its contractors had been falsifying her annual gas safety certificate (LGSR). The resident said that the copies of the yearly LGSR certificates said that she had a working carbon monoxide detector, but she did not and this proved that the contractor had falsifying the tests.
It is again not clear from the evidence provided what the landlord did as part of its complaint investigation, and simply told the resident that tests are not falsified and are carried out by qualified gas safe engineers.
The Ombudsman is not able to determine whether or not the contractor falsified the records, as this may be more suited to a court to determine, but can determine whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable.
The Service would expect to see evidence to show that the landlord arranged to visit the resident’s property, and confirm whether or not she had a carbon monoxide detector and then proceed accordingly based on its findings.
As detailed above, there is no information to show that the landlord attempted to investigate the resident’s claim prior to issuing a stage 2 response, and this would have left the resident feeling frustrated and unheard. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to rebuild the resident and landlord relationship.
Had the landlord taken more time to investigate the resident’s claims, it may have alleviated the issues it faced in 2023, whereby the resident refused to allow the contractor access to her property to carry out the annual LGSR until ‘the situation had been resolved about acting unlawfully’.
The landlord’s failure to act in a fair and reasonable manner in the circumstances resulted in maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings, a payment of over £100 is recommended .The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s claims, which left the resident feeling frustrated and unheard, therefore an order has been made to pay the resident £300 compensation and a further order has been made in relation to the resident’s claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord provided a complaint policy dated March 2016, which is not up to date with its current published timescales. The landlord’s website details that it operates a 2 stage formal complaint process. The first stage is known as local resolution, and complaints will be responded to within 20 working days and the second stage, known as a final review, will be responded to within 25 working days
The evidence shows that the resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 17 June 2021 which the landlord did not acknowledge. It was not until the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing her complaint, that the landlord formally logged the complaint. The landlord also acknowledges that it did not record the incoming complaint.
The landlord said that it would respond to the stage 1 complaint by 16 June 2022, but failed to do so and did not provide the resident with a response until 3 August 2022. This was significantly outside of the timescales set within the landlord’s complaint policy and the timescales set within the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
When the resident escalated her complaint in September 2022, the landlord again failed to acknowledge the resident’s request. This led the resident seeking the Ombudsman’s assistance in escalating her complaint and it was not until December 2022 that the landlord provided a response.
It is further concerning that the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses failed to provide the resident with a full and thorough investigation into the issues raised. The responses did not give the resident any indication that the landlord had listened to her complaint, nor did they detail what steps the landlord was going to take to put things right. Furthermore, the final response signposted the resident to the incorrect Ombudsman, which caused further frustration as the resident had initially, and rightly, been in contact with this Service.
In line with point 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have addressed the resident’s complaint points fully. This did not happen and there was service failure by the landlord in that regard. Furthermore, it failed to detail what action it was going to take to ensure that it had learned from the outcomes and this meant that it missed an opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
The Ombudsman would expect to see a landlord applying its dispute resolution principles, conducting a thorough investigation at all stages of the complaint process and attempting to put things right for the resident. The landlord failed to do this and this amounts to maladministration and will attract compensation.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section 6 of the Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors and not offer the resident compensation in relation to its complaint handling was not reasonable and as the landlord had been unable to determine what went wrong, it cannot fully ‘learn from outcomes’ and take action to avoid such failings in the future.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings, a payment of over £100 is recommended. The resident waited months for her initial stage 1 response, which did not provide her with any reassurance that the landlord was going to put things right for her. When it failed to do so, she also received a poor response at stage 2, which would have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord missed a vital opportunity to rebuild the landlord resident relationship, and therefore an order of £250 has been made.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

The landlord’s record keeping has also been investigated

The Ombudsman has identified several examples of poor recordkeeping by the landlord and it is concerning that the landlord has not been able to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of a detailed repair history. Within its response for information, the landlord has provided a list of repairs raised against the property, but has not provided any context of what happened, pre or post works photographs, or evidence of any contact with the resident in relation to the repair.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to in adequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment [and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety [vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The Report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and carrying out appropriate staff training. It is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord has also been recommended to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections and repairs, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of ASB is outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s repairs to the bathroom, including concerns about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling an electrical inspection and related repairs in the property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of incorrect information on the annual gas safety certificate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1610 within 4 weeks of the date of this report as follows:
1. £760 for the failures identified with the handling of repairs to the bathroom. This includes the £460 it offered as part of the stage 1 response.
2. £300 for the failures identified with handling of an electrical inspection and related repairs in the property.
3. £300 for the failures identified with handling of reports of incorrect information on the annual gas safety certificate.
4. £250 for failures with the complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to attend the resident’s property within 2 weeks of the date of this report and confirm whether a working carbon monoxide detector is installed within the property. If a working carbon monoxide is installed the landlord should write to the Ombudsman and resident with confirmation within 2 weeks of the date of the visit. If it is identified that the resident does not have a working carbon monoxide detector, the landlord must:
1. Install the relevant number of carbon monoxide detectors as required by the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022 and to ensure that the property meets the relevant Decent Homes Standard (in relation to the Carbon Monoxide detector).
2. Pay the resident an additional £500 compensation in recognition of leaving her property in a noncompliant way.
3. Refer the findings to its contractors, with a view of reporting any inaccuracies made by Gas Safe Engineers to the Gas Safe Register.
The landlord is ordered to review its health and safety handbook, which is published on its website, and ensure it is reflects the guidelines given regarding the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. The handbook should ensure is in line with the revised October version of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022.
The landlord is ordered to review the latest electrical safety test and carry out any remedial repairs within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and Ombudsman confirming the outcome within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023 and write to the Ombudsman and confirm within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.