Lewisham Council (202008876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008876

Lewisham Council

22 May 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about leaks, damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of rodents.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy and has lived at the property, a 3 bed ground floor maisonette since 2014. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident advised this Service that he has diabetes and his wife suffers from hypertension.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. It is responsible for severe water penetration and flooding in the property, as well as resealing around the bath/sink/basin and replacing wall tiles.
2. It will adopt a ‘right first time’ approach, where it proactively manages repairs and the resident does not have to chase works.
3. It aims to complete repairs in a single visit. Operatives are encouraged to be proactive and, if necessary, go beyond the scope of the reported repair to negate the need for a future repair, minimise recalls and ensure homes remain in a good state of repair.
4. It categorises repairs as follows:
  1. Emergency – response within 24 hours.
  2. Urgent- response within 3 working days.
  3. Routine – response within 20 working days.
5. Where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within the expected timeframes, it will proactively keep the resident updated including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits.
The landlord’s damp, mould and leaks policy (April 2023) states as follows:
1. It will treat all reports of leaks, damp and mould seriously.
2. It will take a solution focused, holistic approach which puts the resident, not just the property, at the centre of the resolution.
3. Where it is unable to take immediate action to fully resolve the issue, it will communicate with the resident, and may offer an alternative interim solution or advice and support to limit the impact.
The landlord’s pest management policy states as follows:
1. It acknowledges that a pest problem may be a sign of other issues such as disrepair. As such, it will seek to “join the dots” in pest control cases and, where required, resolve problems holistically, focussing on sustainable prevention rather than purely on reactive treatments.
2. Infestations may be a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if repairs are needed to stop pests getting into the property.
3. It is committed to working in partnership with the Council’s pest control team which delivers both block and individual pest treatments.
4. The types of pests for which it would normally consider commissioning treatments include mice.
5. Residents of a block included in an annual core block programme can book a free treatment via the Council website, within the same year the core block programme is being carried out.
6. It has no specific duty to treat pests at individual properties. However, it will consider the circumstances affecting individual properties when residents report pest issues and will consider whether there are underlying issues to which it has an obligation to address.
7. Under the tenancy agreement it is responsible for keeping the property in ‘good repair’. Therefore, if an infestation is deemed to have been caused by it not making certain repairs, it may be responsible for associated pest control.
The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy states as follows:
1. Its staff will identify and record resident’s vulnerabilities, disabilities and personal circumstances.
2. It may adjust timeframes for repairs to accommodate a resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will not pay compensation for loss of earnings or annual leave taken by a resident to pursue their enquiry.
2. Where a resident believes that the landlord or its contractor was responsible for damage or loss, it should send the resident a copy of its insurance claim form.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp, mould and pest infestation are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Local authorities have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point.
The landlord’s complaints policy (April 2022) states as follows:
1. It uses the Housing Ombudsman definition of a complaint namely, an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
2. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days.
3. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days.
4. At stage 3 an “adjudicator” considers the complaint. This response will be provided within 20 working days of the escalation request.
5. If additional time is needed at any sage, the landlord will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

The resident advised the landlord about a mice infestation in the property in 2015. It is not clear what action was taken in respect of this at the time. The resident raised the issue of mice again in November 2020 and the landlord advised the following month (December 2020) that it would carry out extensive mouse proofing to the kitchen, including the installation of metal sheeting behind the kitchen units to cover points of entry.
This work was completed by January 2021 however the resident advised the landlord that he was not happy with the proofing. He raised concerns that mice were also entering the property via an air vent near the washing machine and holes in the corner of the living room and hallway. It is not clear if any action was taken by the landlord in respect of this concern.
There was a gap in the correspondence seen by this Service until 10 December 2021 when the resident advised the landlord that water was leaking into his bedroom cupboard from the property above (it appears this is also a property of the landlord). He advised that this had been happening for 7- 8 years.
The landlord responded on 11 January 2022 and advised that it had contacted the neighbour in the property above but had been unable to reach them. It asked the resident if he could put a note through the tenant’s door asking them to call the landlord. The resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He did not have access to the neighbour’s property.
2. The landlord had experienced issues with access to the neighbour’s property previously.
3. He requested that the landlord send an urgent letter to the neighbour via post or courier.
4. He advised that the leak had happened 5 or 6 times and he had previously spent a lot of money replacing carpet, clothes, bed linen and curtains.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord advised the resident that roofers had attended the neighbour’s property and had found no leak. It had therefore arranged for a plumber to attend the resident’s address (on 19 January 2022) however the resident had not permitted access. It asked the resident what he wanted it to do. The resident advised that he had cancelled the plumber appointment as only his daughter had been at the property. He stated that water was leaking into 3 bedrooms with the main issue being from the pipe in the main bedroom cupboard. He stated that the carpet inside the cupboard was wet and damaged.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2022 and chased a response to the leak issue. The landlord responded on 7 February 2022 and advised the resident to call if the issue was urgent as it could not always respond to emails. It stated it had asked the roofer to confirm its findings and if no leak was found it would re-send a plumber.
The resident submitted a complaint on 11 February 2022. He stated that the landlord had not taken the report of the leak seriously. The resident stated that the landlord had also cancelled an appointment arranged for that day, despite it having been confirmed over the phone that morning.
A plumber attended the resident’s property on 14 February 2022, however the outcome of the visit was not provided to this Service. The resident chased up the outcome on 21 February 2022. The landlord advised him (on 28 February 2022) that a plumber had been booked to attend the neighbour’s property and asked if he was still experiencing the leak. The resident stated that it was still occurring and it was causing a smell. He noted that he had reported water leaks into all 3 bedrooms from the upstairs property balcony but had received no update on this.
The landlord advised the resident on 10 March 2022 that the neighbour had declined access to the property and it had contacted their housing officer for assistance. The resident reiterated how long the issue had been going on for and that he wanted a permanent fix.
Between 18 and 23 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord for updates on the leak. On 9 April 2022 he advised the landlord that contractors had visited him on 3 occasions in respect of the leak (the dates and outcome of these are not clear). He asked for the pipe in the bedroom cupboard to be moved.
A contractor attended the resident’s property on 22 April 2022. The resident chased the landlord for the outcome of this visit. The landlord responded on 4 May 2023 and stated that the operative had attended to cut a section of ceiling in the cupboard out however it had been “refused entry and not allowed to do works”. The resident stated this was “totally false” as the contractor had refused to cut open the ceiling due to possible asbestos. He reiterated that he had not had an update in respect of water leaks from the tenant’s balcony.
On 7 May 2022 a pest control contractor attended and noted mice at the property. It noted that treatment had been carried out.
The resident advised the landlord on 11 May 2022 that he would not be available for an appointment on 13 May 2022 as contractors had already attended on 4 occasions. He asked the landlord to make arrangement with the upstairs neighbour to fix the leak.
On 2 July and 6 August 2022 a pest control contractor attended however access could not be gained on either occasion.
On 9 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the household was having difficulty sleeping due to mice activity and mice had damaged the wiring of the fridge-freezer. He stated that the ongoing block pest treatment was not effective. The landlord advised that same day that it did not deal with pest control issues and that the resident should refer his concern to the local authority. It stated it would not “attend for the repairs if you have mice”.
The resident queried this and the landlord clarified on 16 September 2022 that pest control was dealt with by the local authority in its non-housing management related activities. It advised him to contact pest control to locate the access points for the mice. It would however raise repairs to help prevent the mice entering the property. The resident advised that mice were in the walls and were digging holes in the corners near the floorboards. He requested an inspection.
The following day (17 September 2022) a pest control contractor attended the resident’s property however access could not be gained. That same day the landlord raised a job to inspect the loose floorboards.
On 30 October 2022 the resident raised repair issues unrelated to his complaints in this case. He also stated that the bath drain was blocked and leaking and the hallway carpet was wet and smelling.
On 5 November 2022 a pest control contractor attended and found mice at the property. Treatment was carried out.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 November 2022 in respect of the issue with mice and “repair issues”. This Service contacted the landlord and queried which stage the complaint was at.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord closed the job in respect of the resident’s flooring and noted “Tenant wanted new floors throughout”.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would respond at stage 1 by 1 December 2022.
The resident advised the landlord on 18 November 2022 that he could not use the bath as it was leaking into the downstairs bathroom.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 7 December 2022 and concluded that it was partly upheld (a copy of this response was not provided to this Service.)
On 8 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord that a plumber had attended that day but had not fully removed the bath panel to see where the leak was coming from and the leak had not been fixed. The plumber had stated that water could be leaking in between the bathroom tiles.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 12 December 2022 as follows:
1. The plumber had advised there was no leak under the bath.
2. When water was directed over the tiles, leaking was noted.
3. The tiling has been fitted by the resident and so any repairs to the tiles would be the resident’s responsibility.
The resident advised that same day that new tiles had been pasted onto the original tiles 3-4 years ago to cover cracked tiles. He queried how the operative could have fully investigated the leak without having removed the bath panel. The following day the landlord advised that it had requested a second inspection under the bath.
On 17 December 2022 a pest control contractor attended however access to the property could not be gained.
On 29 December 2022 the resident reiterated his concern to the landlord about mice and the health risk and that he was on medication (he did not state what for). He advised that the floorboards were loose and noisy.
The landlord responded on 3 January 2023 and advised the resident to report the mice to the environmental team. The resident advised that the ongoing block treatment was not effective and that mice were running in between walls and the floor. He had spoken to a private pest control company which had advised that unless the wall and floor holes were blocked, the problem would persist. His wife had stopped cooking and was scared to go into the kitchen at night.
Following involvement from this Service, the landlord noted internally that it had logged the complaint about mice as a stage 1 complaint on 4 January 2023. It advised the resident that it would respond by 18 January 2023.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord re-raised the job to repair the loose floorboards.
On 11 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He had contacted the shower company who had advised as follows:
  1. The shower was not fixed as per the manufacturer’s specifications.
  2. It was splash proof but the whole unit was getting wet when in use.
  3. The shower was not fixed to the correct side of the bath tub.
2. He could not have a proper bath as water splashed everywhere.
3. The waste under the bath was blocked.
4. The bath panel had been damaged when the plumber had tried to remove it.
On 12 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It would not carry out works to the bathroom tiles. It advised him to remove the top layer of tiles and following this, if the leak persisted, it would investigate further.
2. The leak under the bath had been investigated and remedied on 6 January 2023. It was awaiting the full report to include renewing the bath panel and clearing of any blockages from the bath. It had chased this.
3. It had arranged for an electrician to attend the following day in respect of the shower.
That same day (12 January 2023) the landlord responded at stage 1 in respect of the mice issue and stated as follows:
1. An operative would be attending on 17 January 2023 to repair the loose floorboards and block up access points.
2. It had referred this matter to its environment team who had advised as follows:
  1. It had delivered a block treatment in 2022 which consisted of 6 visits. Its operatives had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property on 4 of the 6 visits.
  2. It would continue to monitor the level of pest activity within the block and had included the block on the 2023 schedule of treatments. As such, residents were entitled to a free treatment outside of the treatment plan.
  3. It advised the resident how to arrange this and also provided an advice sheet on mice.
3. It apologised for any delays and failure in service and acknowledged that the resident had been caused inconvenience and distress. It signposted the resident on how to escalate the complaint.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. An electrician and plumber had been booked to attend on 13 February 2023 to move the electric shower.
2. It would ask the plumber to address the blockage under the bath during the appointment.
3. It would arrange for the bath panel to be replaced once all works under the bath had been completed.
That same day (13 January 2023) the landlord advised the resident to book pest treatment directly with the pest control team. It noted internally that this was not booked.
The landlord noted that on 17 January 2023 an operative had attended and filled holes in the property with steel wool.
In early February 2023 the resident reiterated his concerns about the leak and stated that the mould was damaging the health of the household.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it did not know what leak the resident was referring to as it had resolved the leak under the bath and had advised in respect of the wall tiles. If there was a different leak, this should be reported separately. The resident confirmed that his concerns were about the leak from the property above. The landlord advised him that a member of staff had left its employment so it could not access notes in respect of this leak. It stated it would arrange a new inspection.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would not remove the old shower supply pipe as doing so would involve removing the bath. This was not required as the pipe has been adequately capped off. (This Service has seen photographs of this pipe which protrudes vertically from the bath alongside the wall tiles). It reiterated that the leak in the bathroom was caused by the tiling but apologised that the blockage under the bath had not been addressed. It had asked for this to be addressed during a visit on 24 February 2023. The resident responded and noted that a contractor had advised him that the bathroom leak was due to the old disconnected pipeline joint.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord advised that it had arranged an appointment to track and trace the leak into the bedroom cupboard for 12 April 2023. The resident advised that he would not be available and that the leak should be investigated from the upstairs neighbour’s property.
On 24 February 2023 a contractor attended and noted:
1. The floor boards were not loose and there was a “floating floor” with a void beneath.
2. No visible holes could be seen apart from a couple which had been filled with wire wool.
3. There was evidence of mice in the property and a few holes in the cupboard (it is not clear which cupboard).
4. The resident had no bath panel and a recent boiler change had left holes in the cupboard (it is not clear which cupboard). He had requested that pipe work be boxed in to help seal the holes.
On 24 February 2023 the resident confirmed that the blockage under the bath had been cleared. He stated that the contractor had advised him that it was not correct to leave the old shower pipe line in place. The resident explained that by removing it, he would be able to fully re-tile near the bath. He stated that the pipe was only there because the landlord had installed the shower in the wrong position. The landlord reiterated that it would not remove the pipe.
On 26 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord’s out of hours team that water was leaking into the bedroom cupboard from the property upstairs. He noted in later correspondence that day, that he had been advised to speak to the neighbour above himself.
On 28 February 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. The shower had been installed in the wrong place. After 12 years the shower had been moved, however the old water connection had not been removed. Due to this there was a water leak and it looked “ugly”.
2. Water was leaking from the property above into all of the bedrooms. The carpet was wet, dirty, smelly and had mould all over. There was also black mould on the celling. The out of hours team had “refused” to take immediate action.
On 4 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint in respect of the mice and stated as follows:
1. A contractor had quoted for works but the landlord had rejected this.
2. He requested that the landlord cover all the edges with metal or concrete to stop the mice entering.
3. He was concerned damage being caused to the property and the impact on the health of the household. Both he and his wife took medication. The family had not slept properly and could not keep any food items in the kitchen, which was very stressful.
4. He had tried private pest control treatment but it had not resolved the issue.
On 6 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that an operative had attended that day in respect of the leak from above (it is not clear what action was taken, if any). He stated immediate action was needed.
The following day (7 March 2023), the resident advised the landlord that water had been “pouring” from the ceiling into the bedroom cupboard. A contractor had attended in the early hours of the morning. The resident asked for the matter to be treated as a priority and he had spoken to his GP about the mould. That same day (7 March 2023) the landlord raised a job for a plasterer to remove the ceiling in the cupboard to identify the leak. The following day (8 March 2023) the landlord asked internally if a plasterer had attended as the resident was “constantly emailing us about the leak”.
On 21 March 2023 the resident reported a leak from under the bathroom hand basin.
That same day (21 March 2023) after speaking to this Service, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint about the leak in the bathroom to stage 2. He stated that it had not responded to his complaint at stage 1 and no repairs had taken place. The landlord advised that it would respond at stage 2 by 2 May 2023.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 (in respect of the bathroom leak and mice) and stated as follows:
1. It apologised that the resident had been experiencing issues from the old hot water supply pipework. It had arranged for the old hot water supply to be inspected on 19 April 2023.
2. It could find no record of it having declined a quote for pest proofing. It had arranged for an operative to attend on 19 April 2023 to review the access points and add rodent proof spray foam insulation.
3. It did not carry out sufficient pest proofing, which had led to health and safety issues. Its processes for having such works completed had failed and the resident had been waiting to have repairs actioned. It had added the case to its complaints aftercare list to make sure the repairs were completed.
4. Its service had been below standard and the complaint was partly upheld.
5. The complaint had helped it to identify things it needed to do better. It had let managers know about the poor service received and asked them to make improvements to systems to prevent this from happening again.
6. It signposted the resident to stage 3 of its complaints procedure.
On 13 April 2023 the resident advised the landlord that it had not responded to his complaint about the leaks into the bedrooms.
On 14 April 2023 the resident advised that he was not available for the appointments arranged for 19 April 2023. He asked the landlord to check with him before booking appointments.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord advised that it had booked the following works:
1. Mould treatment 23 April 2023.
2. Surveyor inspection 26 April 2023.
A contractor attended on 19 April 2023 and recorded that access could not be gained.
On 28 April 2023 the resident escalated the complaint to stage 3 and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had not taken proper action to solve the “critical problems” in the property.
2. The landlord was wasting his time and money due to him having to take time off work for appointments. He requested that the landlord compensate him for lost earnings.
That same day (5 May 2023) the landlord noted that its contractor had confirmed there was no leak in the bathroom.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord advised that it would respond at stage 3 by 3 July 2023. The landlord subsequently advised the resident on 3 July 2023 that it required more time to respond.
On 10 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 3 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised that the response had been delayed.
2. It had only considered events since September 2022, which was when it raised a job to inspect the flooring after the resident had reported concerns about mice.
3. It set out a summary of events.
4. It acknowledged that the flooring job had been incorrectly recorded as the resident wanting new flooring and had been incorrectly closed on 11 November 2022.
5. It had requested a quote for hardboard flooring (1 March 2023) but its contractor had advised this was not necessary in respect of the mice.
6. Contractors had confirmed there was no leak in the bathroom on 5 May 2023 however it had agreed to a further inspection in June 2023.
7. In respect of the mice:
  1. Proofing works were challenging and it was common for it to take more than one visit to identify and block all possible access points.
  2. Its contractor had concluded that a repair or replacement of the floor was not necessary, as mice were not accessing the living space from under the floor.
  3. Its contractor attended within a fortnight of the resident’s complaint on 4 January (the year was not specified), and holes had been blocked.
  4. It attended again on 24 February (the year was not given). This resulted in an internal discussion about a new bath panel and boxing in of pipes (to reduce access points). This work was not listed on the repairs record, but it had been deferred whilst investigations into leaks in the bathroom were underway.
  5. It had discussed the option of mice-proofing using expanding foam in early March 2023. It acknowledged that this should have been done sooner than 28 April 2023.
  6. If mice continued to be present after the work in the bathroom was complete, the resident could seek advice from the Council’s pest control team.
  7. It was satisfied that it had done all that was reasonable to do in respect of the mice-proofing.
8. In respect of the leak from the property above:
  1. It had delayed in tracing and remedying this leak. The resident had reported this on 7 March and a plumber had attended the same day, however another operative was needed to trace the leak. This appointment was not made for another month, and was booked for 19 April, 7 weeks after the problem was first reported. The landlord acknowledged that this was “not good enough”.
  2. It could not gain access to the property on 19 April and the rescheduled appointment was not for another 4 weeks. It acknowledged that this was not good enough as the matter had been identified as an emergency in early March.
  3. It was not clear if this leak had been resolved. If not it needed to be completed urgently.
  4. Most of the delays were on the part of the landlord and this had allowed damp and mould to spread.
9. In respect of the leak from the bathroom:
  1. A job was raised on 13 January 2023, and was completed on 13 February 2023. The resident subsequently raised a complaint about the ongoing leak on 28 February, 2 weeks after the work was done.
  2. There were 2 jobs relating to a leak under the hand basin in March 2023. It was not clear when this work had been completed.
  3. As of 28 April 2023 contractors were “adamant” that there were no leaks in the bathroom. It agreed to a joint inspection to confirm this. Following this, a new bath panel would be fitted and the pipework boxed in.
  4. The repair had taken longer than it should have done and there had been delays on its part. This caused the resident avoidable stress.
10. The complaint was upheld, as there had been delays in completing mice-proofing work, identifying and resolving leaks from the flat above and within the bathroom.
11. It concluded that to put matters right, it should:
  1. Apologise to the resident.
  2. Commit to a clear and timely schedule to complete works to identify and resolve the leaks, replace the bath panel and box in pipework, within 3 weeks.
  3. Pay £500 compensation to the resident, made up as follows:

(1) £100 to acknowledge the impact of the delay in arranging further mice-proofing using expandable foam.

(2) £300 to acknowledge the delay in tracing and resolving the leak from the flat above.

(3) £100 to acknowledge the delay in signing off works in the bathroom. This affected the mice-proofing because boxing-in could not be completed while this was outstanding.

It recommended that it reviewed this case to check whether the delays were caused by human error or systemic issues to reduce the risk of similar events occurring again.
It signposted the resident to this Service.

On 11 July 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. Contractors had recommended additional mice proofing work to be carried out so that all corners of the house could be boarded and sealed. The landlord had “refused” to do so.
2. The leak from the property above had not been resolved. He had been left with a hole in the ceiling and an unhealthy amount of mould. This had been ongoing for the 10 years. There was mould in all 3 bedrooms which posed a health risk.
3. The leak in the bathroom had not been resolved. The electric shower had been placed in the wrong location which allowed water to leak into the downstairs hallway/toilet. The reason the shower was relocated was because of the major leak and safety concerns. The landlord had refused to carry out work to fix the plumbing which was causing the leak. The leak in regards to the hand basin had been resolved.
The landlord sent a written apology to the resident on 13 July 2023.
On 26 July 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

In late July and throughout August 2023 the resident chased for updates on the repairs. He contacted the landlord on 8 September 2023 and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had boxed in the old shower pipe with “cheap wooden boxing”. He asked how the landlord could expect him to use the shower and bath without the wooden boxing getting wet.
2. The household was getting sick due to black mould which caused a loss of earnings. He requested that he be compensated for this.
The resident continued to chase the works throughout September 2023.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord responded and stated that it could send a contractor to inspect the leak on 4 October 2023 however its records were not clear about where the leak was located. It asked the resident to clarify.
On 4 October 2023 the landlord advised the resident that an appointment to remove tiles and the bath, re-run pipework and reinstate the bath had been booked for 1 December 2023.
The following day (5 October 2023) the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. A plumber would attend the following day.
2. It asked the resident to send pictures of the mould.
3. It signposted him to the environment team in respect of the mice.
4. It was chasing a contractor to repair the balcony of the property above.
On 6 October 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the plumber appointment had not gone ahead that day. He outlined his frustration with the number of contractor appointments and that he had lost wages.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2023 and stated as follows:
1. The plumber appointment had been re-booked for that morning but it had been cancelled.
2. He asked for the leak into the cupboard to be treated as a priority and for the opened celling to be repaired as his items from the cupboard had been elsewhere in the property since May 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2023 and advised that the plumber had not attended again. He chased the repairs throughout October 2023.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord enquired internally about the leak repair. It noted that if the matter progressed to the Ombudsman, it would result in “significant sanctions”.
On 18 November 2023 a pest control contractor attended and found mice at the property. Treatment was carried out.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay. It advised that it had raised works to renew the flooring and reseal around the perimeter in the property above. It subsequently confirmed that the work in the neighbour’s property had been completed by 8 December 2023. The resident requested that the landlord arrange to repair the opened celling in the main bedroom and repair the water damage. He also requested that the ceiling and walls inside the cupboard be cleaned and painted.
On 15 December 2023 the resident advised the landlord that water was again leaking from the property above and he had pointed this out to the operative who had attended that day to fix the ceiling. He expressed his frustration and that he had lost wages for the plastering appointment which could not go ahead due to the ongoing leak.
On 21 December 2023 the landlord renewed the flooring in the property above (it appears this was in response to trying to identify the case of the leak).
The landlord responded on 10 January 2024 that it would arrange for replastering of the ceiling. The resident advised that the leak needed to be resolved before the plastering could take place. A contractor had advised him that the leak was coming from the sink waste pipe of the property above. He asked for the repair to be actioned urgently as the bedroom carpet was wet, damaged and smelt and there was mould all over. The landlord advised that same day that a contractor would attend the property above.
The same day (10 January 2024) the resident advised this Service that the bathroom leak had been resolved but all other matters were outstanding.
On 20 January 2024 a pest control contractor attended and found mice at the property. Treatment was carried out.
On 23 January 2024 the resident provided the landlord with a medical certificate from his GP (this has not been seen by this Service). He stated that his doctor had advised that the mould and pest issues could pose a risk to health. He requested immediate action of the outstanding issues.
The resident chased the repairs in late January and early February 2024. The landlord apologised on 5 February 2024 that it had not been resolved and stated it had made its new Head of Repairs aware.
On 12 February 2024 a plumber advised the landlord that it had attended the property and it believed the kitchen waste pipe from the property above was leaking. It recommended replacing the waste pipe which went from the kitchen of the property above through into the resident’s bedroom cupboard.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord enquired internally as to why the leaking waste pipe from the property above had not been identified on an earlier occasion. It noted that it was “in effect […] paying twice for one job”.
On 23 February 2024 a plumber confirmed to the landlord as follows:
1. It had replaced the kitchen waste pipe in the neighbour’s property.
2. It had subsequently been called back to an intermittent leak into the resident’s cupboard. It had inspected the pipe in the resident’s cupboard and it appeared that during heavy usage of hot water from the property above, the pipe expanded and water escaped through the push fit joints.
3. It had recommended replacing the pipe and welding the fittings.
In May 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The leak into the bedroom cupboard was fixed and plasterwork completed on 16 March 2024. The paintwork was completed on 12 April 2024.
2. Due to the mould he had replaced the bedroom carpets and disposed of clothing and bedlinen.
3. The wooden boxing around the old pipe on the bath had not stopped the leak. The landlord had since removed the pipe.
4. Mice were still present and were getting inside kitchen cupboards.
5. He had spent approximately £650 replacing the carpet and approximately £250 replacing clothing and bedding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the mould on his health and the health of his wife and children. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
It is noted that the resident had referred to the property experiencing leaks and mice for a number of years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The resident also had an opportunity to raise those issues earlier but this Service has not seen evidence of this. Although this assessment focusses on the events leading up to the resident’s complaints, (the first of these being February 2022), earlier reports have been referred to as they provide an understanding of the ongoing nature of the resident’s concerns.

Response to reports of leaks, damp and mould

The resident reported leaks affecting different areas of the property. These have been addressed separately for clarity.

Leak from the property above into the resident’s bedroom cupboard

The resident reported that this leak had been occurring for a number of years. This Service has not seen the historical reports in respect of this, however evidence has been provided of the resident reporting this leak to the landlord in December 2021. Following this, it took the landlord one month (until 11 January 2022) to confirm its response, namely that it had been unable to speak to the neighbour above. It is not clear how many occasions the landlord tried to contact the neighbour, however it subsequently shifted the onus of making contact onto the resident and asked him to put a note through the neighbour’s door. This was not reasonable and demonstrated a lack of understanding of its repair responsibilities and the severity of the situation.
The landlord gained access to the neighbour’s property around 25 January 2022, however it had failed to instruct a plumber, so only a roofing contractor attended. This was a missed an opportunity to fully investigate possible causes of the leak. As the roofers could not identify a leak, the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend the resident’s property. It is not clear what notice the landlord gave the resident of this appointment, however the resident was not available. The landlord’s response to this cancelled appointment was to ask the resident what he wanted it to do. This was not appropriate as the resident’s unavailability for an appointment did not absolve the landlord of its responsibility to trace and remedy the leak.
When the resident chased an update on the leak repair by email in early February 2022, the landlord was dismissive in its response and advised that he should call if the issue was urgent. This was inappropriate and this stance is not mirrored in its repairs policy. The landlord should have systems in place to respond to resident’s communications, particularly in respect of urgent leaks, irrespective of a resident’s chosen communication method. The landlord re-arranged the plumber appointment at the resident’s property, however, it cancelled this on the day (11 February 2022). This Service has not seen any reason for this cancellation and there is no evidence that the landlord apologised for the inconvenience this caused. This appointment went ahead on 14 February 2022, however no outcome or findings from this were provided to the resident (or this Service). This also demonstrated that the landlord was not fully monitoring the situation.
The landlord subsequently advised (on 28 February 2022) that a plumber had attended the neighbour’s property however access had been denied. The landlord missed an opportunity to coordinate its contractor appointments and reduce the disruption caused to the neighbour. This contributed to the delay in rectifying the leak.
There is no evidence that the landlord would have taken any further action in respect of this leak had the resident not continued to chase it throughout February and March 2022. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 22 April 2022 to inspect the ceiling, however the landlord’s record of what happened in respect of the cupboard ceiling being opened up was contradictory to the version of events the resident gave. Although the reasons for this not being able to take place is disputed, it is clear that the ceiling was not inspected. There is no evidence that the landlord sought the advice of an asbestos specialist (this being the reason given by the landlord). The landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken appropriate action at this stage in respect of inspecting the ceiling.
When the resident reiterated his concerns about the leak in February 2023 the landlord advised that it did not have a record of this leak. It later advised that a member of staff had left its employment and it did not have access to the associated records. It is clear that the landlord’s record keeping failed and this impacted the awareness of its staff that there was an outstanding leak at the property. This is particularly concerning given how long this issue had been unresolved. Landlords are expected to have systems in place to accurately record repair issues and should not be reliant on the notes of one staff member. Landlord’s should also have an effective system in place to ensure relevant records are retained when staff members leave the organisation.
The landlord advised that it had arranged another appointment to try to trace the leak, however by this point the resident was frustrated at the number of ineffective appointments. He advised that he would not be available and that the landlord should investigate the neighbour’s property to locate the source of the leak. Following this, the landlord took no further action to re-book this appointment.
The resident called the landlord’s out of hours team on 26 February 2023 and reported that the leak had worsened. The landlord’s response was to advise the resident to speak to his neighbour. This was not reasonable and again inappropriately put the onus on the resident. That it sought to absolve itself of its responsibility demonstrated its lack of understanding of the severity of the ongoing situation. An operative did not attend the leak until 6 March 2023. This Service has not seen a record of what took place during this appointment, however it is noted that the following day the resident reported that water was pouring from the cupboard ceiling. A contractor appropriately attended that same day as an emergency and the landlord arranged for a plasterer to attend to remove the ceiling. The landlord’s record keeping was again poor as there was no record of what emergency works were carried out and the landlord had to ask internally the following day if the plasterer had attended.
It is noted within the stage 3 complaint response of 10 July 2023 that the landlord stated the resident had reported the leak on 7 March (it appears it is referring to 2023). This failed to acknowledge the resident’s earlier reports in 2021 and 2022 and the ongoing nature of this leak. It also stated that a contractor had not been able to gain access to the property on 19 April 2023. The landlord had overlooked that the resident had advised he would be unavailable on that date and following this the landlord failed to reschedule this appointment. The landlord’s commitment at stage 3, to resolve the leak within 3 weeks (by 31 July 2023), lacked any explanation as to how it would ensure this assurance was met and the steps it would take to monitor compliance with this. It is also notable that it failed to follow through on this commitment.
Although after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, this Service has noted that the landlord undertook work in the neighbour’s property in December 2023 to renew and seal the flooring. It is clear however that the landlord had still not fully investigated the cause of the leak as the leak continued. A plumber subsequently advised the landlord (12 February 2024) that it believed the neighbour’s kitchen waste pipe was leaking. It recommended replacing the waste pipe which went from the neighbour’s kitchen into the resident’s bedroom cupboard. This was replaced, however the plumber subsequently advised (23 February 2024) that it had inspected the pipe in the resident’s cupboard and during heavy usage of hot water from the neighbour, the pipe expanded and water escaped through the push fit joints. It recommended replacing the pipe and welding the fittings. It is not clear why this relatively simple repair on the visible pipe had not been identified by the landlord on any occasion since 2021.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 recommends that landlords respond to reports of damp and mould effectively and in a timely manner. The landlord is responsible for identifying and responding to hazards in its properties. Despite being aware of the leak, and the ongoing nature of it, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to consider any associated damp and mould caused by the leak in line with its obligations under HHSRS. Due to the hazardous nature of mould, and in light of the household vulnerabilities, the landlord should have responded sooner.
It is clear that the resident had reported damp, mould and damaged carpets and possessions as a result of this leak which resulted in him disposing of personal possessions and replacing the carpet. There is no evidence that the landlord compensation or referring the resident to its insurers in respect of this or that it considered replacing the carpet itself. This was not appropriate as the landlord was responsible for putting the resident back in the position had the leak not happened. It therefore failed to appreciate that its responsibility extended further than the leak repair.
It is evident that the source of the leak has been overlooked by the landlord on a number of occasions and the matter has been left unresolved for a significant period of time. It took the landlord at least 14 months (December 2021 to 23 February 2024), to identify the cause of the leak, which was significantly outside of its repair timeframe. This had caused the resident significant distress and affected the condition of the property. The resident also reported on multiple occasions that this had affected his health and damaged his belongings. The landlord questioned internally why the leak source had taken so long to be identified. Its concern however was that it had paid for works to be done twice (seemingly in the neighbour’s property) rather than for the impact this failure had on the vulnerable resident and his household.

Leaks in the resident’s bathroom

The resident noted that the bath drain was blocked and was leaking on 30 October 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord took action in respect of this at the time and the resident chased this on 11 January 2023. It took the landlord until 24 February 2023, (around 4 months) to clear this blockage. It is not clear if this was contributing to the leak from the bathroom, however this timeframe for a repair was not reasonable and was not in line with the repairs policy. The landlord failed to provide an explanation for this delay.
The resident had advised the landlord on 18 November 2022 that he could not use the bath due to a leak into the downstairs bathroom. The landlord dealt with this as a routine repair and a plumber attended on 8 December 2022. Given the number of ongoing leak issues reported by the resident and his vulnerability, the landlord should have considered attending to this more urgently. The plumber concluded that the bath tiles installed by the resident on top of previous tiles were the cause of the leak. The resident however raised his concern about the lack of a thorough investigation into the cause as an investigation behind the bath panel had not been carried out. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concern and requested a second inspection within 4 days. The outcome of this further inspection however was not clear.
The landlord advised that the leak from the bathroom had been remedied on 6 January 2023 and that the resident’s own tiling was the cause. Following concerns from the resident about the placement of the shower, the landlord moved the shower on 13 February 2023. The resident subsequently expressed his concern that the old shower pipe was causing or contributing to the leak from the bathroom. He requested it be removed in order for him to re-tile the wall. This was a reasonable request given that the contractor had advised the resident’s tiling was the cause of the leak. The landlord however declined to remove the old pipe and stated it had been adequately capped. The landlord did not consider that this metal pipe sticking up in an area which regularly becomes wet and slippery, could pose a hazard to the household. This is of particular concern given that there were vulnerable residents at the property, including children.
The landlord confirmed on 5 May 2023 that there was no leak from the pipe. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord agreed to a further inspection in June 2023 within its stage 3 complaint response. This was reasonable and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concern seriously. It is noted however that the stage 3 response stated that the bathroom leak had been raised on 13 January 2023. This was not correct as the resident had raised it in November 2022. It is not clear why the landlord did not have an accurate understanding of when this issue was first reported.
The outcome of the inspection was unclear however the landlord subsequently committed to box in the old pipe. It is not clear what issue this boxing in sought to remedy, although it is noted that the resident found the pipe “ugly”. Boxing the pipe in and creating a vertical rectangular wooden box with sharp edges against the wall of the bath was both inappropriate and created a hazard in the bathroom where children were present. It is noted that the pipe continued to leak and so both the pipe and the boxing were removed after the resident had referred his complaint to this Service. This however is something the landlord should have done sooner given the risk posed by the pipe.
It is clear that the landlord initially put the responsibility for the leak on the resident by saying it was due to the secondary layer of tiles. The resident agreed to retile however the landlord did not appropriately address the resident’s concern that the leak was coming from the pipe, which was later found to be the case. The landlord failed to acknowledge the hazard of the metal pipe and created a further hazard by boxing it in. Although the date the shower pipe was removed is not clear, it took the landlord from around October/November 2022 until early 2024 to resolve the bathroom leak. This timeframe of over 14 months was not appropriate.

Leak into bedrooms from the upstairs neighbour’s balcony

The resident reported that water was leaking into the bedrooms on 25 January 2022 although he did not specify that he believed it to be from the neighbour’s balcony at that time. As the landlord did not respond the resident had to chase this on 4 May 2022. The landlord was again unresponsive and this Service has not seen any evidence that it took any action in respect of this. It is noted that in October 2023, 21 months after the resident reported this leak, the landlord stated that it was chasing a contractor to repair the neighbour’s balcony. No further correspondence has been seen in respect of this. This delay was significant and unreasonable. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact that water ingress into all of the bedrooms had on the household or the associated risk of harm from damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to confirm to this Service the status of this repair issue.
In considering redress within its stage 3 response, the landlord offered £300 to acknowledge the delay in tracing and resolving the leak from the flat above. It offered no compensation in respect of the other leaks. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact the leaks had on the resident over a significant period of time nor did it acknowledge the household vulnerabilities. This Service has summarised the impact on the resident of the leaks, which includes as follows:
1. Not being able to fully use and enjoy the bedrooms since January 2022 due to water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony. At the time of writing this report, there is no evidence this has been resolved.
2. Loss of use of the bedroom cupboard, with items needing to be stored elsewhere for at least 26 months (December 2021 to February 2024).
3. Mould and water damage to the carpet and personal possessions resulting in the resident replacing the carpet and disposing of possessions at a cost to himself.
4. A hazardous pipe attached to the bathroom wall since the shower was moved in February 2023. This hazardous pipe was only fully removed in early 2024 and so had posed a hazard for over 14 months.
5. Repeated and ineffective contractor appointments.
6. An impact on the relationship between the resident and his upstairs neighbour.
When failures are identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is acknowledged by this Service that tracing and remedying leaks can be challenging, however in this case, the delay in identifying and resolving the multiple leak issues was extensive and unreasonable. The resident reported that the leaks were causing significant inconvenience and distress and it is evident that he also spent a significant amount of time pursuing updates from the landlord. The household was significantly impacted by the landlord’s failures, as all of the bedrooms were affected by leaks. The landlord failed to adopt a holistic approach to consider the issues and the impact they had on the household, particularly in light of the vulnerabilities and addressing the damp and mould. The delays in resolving the leaks are especially concerning given the repeated contractor appointments which failed to correctly identify the cause of the leak into the cupboard. Throughout its handling of the leaks there were missed opportunities for the landlord to have resolved the leaks at an earlier stage and put things right for the resident.
The was a sustained lack of proactive action by the landlord to monitor the leaks. In addition, record keeping failures led to a loss of records when a staff member left. Given the damage being caused by the multiple leaks, the landlord should have put together an action plan to take accountability going forward of the steps it would take dependant on the findings of its contractors. Instead the updates provided to the resident were predominantly as a result of him chasing the landlord.
Despite the landlord taking some steps to repair the leaks, there is no evidence that it took any action in respect of the damaged carpet and possessions. There is no evidence that the landlord complied with its damp and mould policy in advising the resident of the option of pursuing an insurance claim in respect of this. Given the prolonged water damage to the carpet was caused as a result of the landlord not identifying the source of the leak, the landlord should have offered to replace the carpet. It failed to do so and as such, in addition to the compensation detailed below, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation totalling £900 to acknowledge the approximate amount the resident spent replacing the carpet and mould damaged items.
Overall the resident was caused significant distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time. He also spent a significant amount of time trying to seek updates from the landlord. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some of its delays, its apology to the resident was insufficient given the significant impact on him over the time period. It is encouraging that the landlord committed to take learning from the case, however it is noted that assurances made at stage 3 in respect of the leaks were not followed through. This rendered the stage 3 response ineffectual and led to the resident losing confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve matters.
The landlord’s failures in responding to the leaks amounts to severe maladministration. To acknowledge the significant impact this had on the resident, compensation of £4,000 has been ordered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for cases of severe maladministration where a resident was impacted by repeated failings of a landlord over a significant period of time. This figure includes the offer of £300 made during the internal complaints process.
Given the extent of the failings in this case, the landlord has also been ordered to complete a management review of the case to consider any missed opportunities and staff training needs and establish points of learning to improve its future response to similar cases.

Response to reports of rodents

The presence of rodents in the property was distressing for the resident and his family, including his children. There is evidence from the landlord that mice have been reported at the property for a number of years.
Following the report of mice in November 2020, the landlord carried out some proofing works in December 2020. There was a gap in the resident’s reports of mice until 2022. Given this 2 year gap, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the issue had been resolved in 2020 and this Service is not able to determine if the later infestation was linked to the earlier reports or works.
The presence of mice in the resident’s property had been confirmed in May 2022 by the Local Authority’s pest control contractors however block treatment at the resident’s property did not go ahead in July or August 2022 as access could not be gained. The landlord should be aware of the treatment being carried out within its properties and it should have been aware that mice had been confirmed at the resident’s property. There is however no evidence of any proactive contact from the landlord to ascertain if any defect with the property was contributing to the issue. It therefore missed an opportunity to try to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.
The resident reported the issue of mice again in September 2022 and outlined the impact on the household (difficulty seeping and damaged electrical wiring). The landlord was dismissive in its response and advised it was not responsible for pests and it would not attend the repairs. This was contrary to its pest control policy, which states that if the infestation was caused by a repair issue, then it would take action. On receiving such a report the landlord should have inspected the property to determine if there were any repair issues which could be allowing access to mice. It was only after the resident challenged the landlord’s stance that it agreed (on 16 September 2022) to inspect the property. A record keeping error however led to the landlord closing down the inspection of the loose floorboards, as it had inaccurately recorded that the resident wanted a new floor.
The landlord’s lack of action resulted in the resident raising his concern again in December 2022 when he reiterated that the loose floorboards could potentially allow access to mice. The landlord was not open and honest with the resident as it did not tell him that it had inappropriately closed this job down. It instead signposted him to the environment team. This was not appropriate as the landlord had not addressed the holes reported in the property or the floorboards in order to resolve the entry points prior to pest control intervention. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy as it had not inspected the property and had not taken steps to carry out repairs associated with the mice infestation.
Despite the resident continuing to outline the significant impact the mice were having on the household (sleeping and cooking), the landlord did not raise a job to repair the floorboards until 6 January 2023. There is no evidence that the floorboards were considered on this occasion, however works to block holes were completed on 17 January 2023. This was 4 months after the resident had reported the mice, which was not reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (12 January 2023) focused mainly on the pest control team and that the resident had not been available for some of these visits. Although it said it would block access points, the response did not address its failures and instead put the onus for missed block treatments on the resident. This was not appropriate.
It took until 24 February 2023 for a contractor to attend in respect of the flooring. It advised that there was a void underneath the floor and there were holes in the cupboard following a boiler change. It is not clear why these holes had not been filled following the works to the boiler (the date of which is not clear). This was a missed opportunity to complete these works at an earlier date and provide a resolution for the resident. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the number of contractor appointments where only partial solutions were provided.
Work was not arranged in respect of the remaining holes until the landlord’s stage 2 response (12 April 2023) when it advised it had arranged for an operative to attend on 19 April 2023 to add rodent proof spray foam insulation. The landlord failed to explain why it had not considered using expanding foam on an earlier occasion. Whilst the landlord made assurances at stage 2, that it would monitor the case and ensure works were completed, this was frustrated by it booking an appointment for when the resident was not available. The landlord should have had a system in place where if a resident advises of their unavailability then an alternate date is offered. The expanding foam work was carried out on 28 April 2023 however, there is no evidence that the landlord took any follow-up investigation to ascertain if the issue had been resolved.
The landlord’s stage 3 response was written on the basis that its contractor had blocked the holes within a fortnight (from 4 January (it appears this is 2023)). This however did not take account of the ongoing nature of the mice infestation or that the resident had reported this in 2022. As such it failed to acknowledge the seriousness and ongoing nature of the situation and it filed to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident. The landlord’s assertion that it had filled the holes was also inaccurate and some had been left unfilled after this proofing work.
It is noted that after referring his complaint to this Service, the resident reported the presence of mice in November 2023 and January 2024 and the issue remains unresolved.
It is clear that the infestation has been an ongoing issue at the property. Rodent infestation is considered a hazard in line with the HHSRS and as such the landlord has an obligation to minimise the risk for its residents and to monitor the situation. It is appreciated that the landlord took some action to arrange inspections and proofing work, however it was initially dismissive of its requirement to do so. The landlord’s insufficient record keeping and incorrect closure of the flooring job meant it failed to keep a robust account of the works completed in order to be able to effectively monitor the situation.
In respect of the mice, the landlord acknowledge that it had delayed taking action to fill holes with foam and it offered £100 to acknowledge this. It also offered an further £100 to acknowledge the delay in signing off works in the bathroom which had impacted the mice-proofing. This total offer of £200 compensation did not account for the delay in respect of the missed holes or the flooring being incorrectly cancelled. The landlord therefore failed to fully acknowledge the impact the situation had on the resident. The impact on the household’s daily life was also overlooked by the landlord. The landlord was on occasions responsive to the resident’s reports, however it failed to take appropriate proactive action in completing the repair and proofing works. It inappropriately put the onus on the resident to contact the pest team despite him advising that the access points needed to be blocked before effective treatment could be carried out. This was not considered within the complaint responses and this failing was not acknowledged by the landlord.
The failures in the landlord’s response to the mice, amount to maladministration. Its offer of £200 compensation was not appropriate to acknowledge the distress and impact this issue had on the household or how the landlord’s failures exacerbated this. This Service had ordered £700 compensation to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident (inclusive of the £200 offered by the landlord during the complaints process). This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance at the high end of maladministration. This is appropriate for cases where the compensation was not proportionate to the failures identified during the investigation and where the detriment was not fully considered. It is noted that the mice issue remains unresolved and an order has been made for the landlord to carry out a full pest survey at the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s 3 stage complaints policy is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), which is clear that internal complaints procedures should have no more than 2 stages. This is to enable resident’s to be able to refer complaints to this Service in a timely manner.
As a result of the landlord’s 3 stage process, it took the following timeframe for the complaints to complete the landlord’s internal process:
1. Complaint about the leak into the cupboard – 17 months, (February 2022 – July 2023).
2. Complaint about mice – 10 months, (September 2022 – July 2023).
3. Complaint about the shower pipe and bathroom leak – 5 months, (February 2023 – July 2023).
The resident submitted the complaint in respect of the leak into the bedroom cupboard on 11 February 2022. It took the landlord until 7 December 2022, around 10 months, for it to respond at stage 1. It took the Ombudsman’s involvement for the landlord to respond to the complaint. The stage 1 response was significantly outside of the 10 working day timeframe. No explanation was provided for this.
The resident had raised his dissatisfaction with the mice issue in September 2022. As this had not been resolved, he requested the help of this Service in November 2022. Despite the Ombudsman asking the landlord in November 2022 to respond at stage 1, it did not respond until 12 January 2023, over 2 months later. This was not reasonable.
It is noted that the landlord failed to respond at all to the resident’s complaints about water leaking into all of the bedrooms from the neighbour’s balcony. Despite the resident reiterating this to the landlord, it again failed to respond to this complaint issue. The landlord’s failure to respond to all aspects of complaint was not in line with the Code.
The landlord’s combined stage 3 response acknowledged there had been delays in completing mice-proofing work, identifying and resolving leaks from the flat above and within the bathroom. It did not however appreciate the historical nature of the issues with the mice and leak into the bedroom cupboard. It is not clear why the correct dates and accurate records were not relied on by the landlord within its review, however the reliability of the response was impacted by poor record keeping which had occurred through its handing of this case. This meant that the landlord did not properly consider the full background of the complaint nor the impact of the full circumstances on the resident. Therefore its response cannot be considered reasonable.
The stage 3 response recommend that it should check whether the delays were caused by human error or systemic issues, to reduce the risk of similar events occurring again. Whilst it was encouraging to note that the landlord had suggested action to prevent a recurrence of such issues, there is no evidence that this was followed through. The response also committed to carry out the remaining repairs within 3 weeks. Whilst this was reasonable, the landlord did not follow up on this and the repairs were not completed in this timeframe. This led to further frustration for the resident who had waited a significant amount of time for the landlord to compete its complaints procedure, only to be given assurances which were not kept.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident spent chasing responses to his complaints. It also failed to acknowledge that its significant delays in responding, impacted the resident’s ability to refer his complaints to this Service. The landlord failed to consider compensation as a form of redress in respect if its complaint handling failures. As a result of the failures identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, including knowledge and information management. An order has been made for compensation of £300 to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of rodents.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord significantly delayed responding to reports of leaks. It failed to demonstrate an appreciation of the ongoing nature of the leak into the cupboard and the impact this was having on the resident and the property. Contractor appointments did not result in the leaks being resolved and the landlord’s lack of record keeping led to lost notes of the leak and inadequate communication between it and its contractors.
The landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to the repair issues which the resident believed were allowing access for mice. When it did carry out proofing works, not all holes were identified and filled. The landlord delayed inspecting the floorboards and did not take steps to monitor the effectiveness of the proofing works.
The landlord significantly delayed responding to the resident’s complaints. When it did respond, it did not address all of his complaint issues. Assurances given by the landlord were not followed up on and were ineffectual.

Orders and recommendations

This Service is aware that similar cases were brought to the landlord’s attention in late 2023 and early 2024. This Service made a wider order in November 2023 for the landlord to review its record keeping, communications, risk management and to identify other possible impacted residents. Following this, in March 2024 the landlord self-referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing over Decent Homes and repairs and committed to take steps to improve its services. This included the external review, an internal review of complaints handling, surveys of its stock, and modernising its information management. These positive steps are orders which would otherwise have been made within this report.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. The landlord’s Chief Executive is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £5900 compensation direct to the resident. This figure includes the offer of £500 made during the internal complaints process. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £4000 to acknowledge on the resident of the impact of the failure to carry out the leak repairs in line with its policy.
  2. £900 to acknowledge the cost to the resident of replacing the carpet and damaged personal items.
  3. £700 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to the mice issue.
  4. £300 to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident.
3. Investigate whether the leaks from the neighbour’s balcony have been resolved and provide evidence of the outcome of this to this Service. If this is outstanding, the landlord is to provide a schedule of works it will undertake to resolve this.
4. Investigate whether the rodent issue has been resolved and provide evidence of the outcome of this to this Service.
5. Arrange a damp and mould survey to determine if any such issues remain.
6. Update the resident’s record to accurately reflect his disability.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider:
1. The evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the cupboard leak diagnosis and any missed opportunities there were between December 2021 and February 2024.
2. How it will ensure appointments are rescheduled if a resident advised of their unavailability.
3. Its process for referring resident’s to its insurer when items within the property have been damaged by leaks.
4. How its systems can be improved to enable it to respond to resident’s communications, particularly in respect of urgent issues, despite the resident’s chosen communication method.
5. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.