London Borough of Barnet (202124727)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124727

London Borough of Barnet

30 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of issues with the heating system upgrade (including boiler repair) and request for a decant;
2. Reports of damp and mould;
3. Rent arrears;
4. Concerns about staff conduct during a gas safety check;
5. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears.
Under paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. There resident did not escalate her complaint about rent arrears to stage 2, and so this matter was not addressed in the final complaint response. This Service can only investigate matters that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to formally at both stages of its complaints procedure. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about this issue, or to request to escalate her previous stage 1 complaint. She may then refer any further complaints to this Service if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
Other aspects of the resident’s complaint are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom end-of-terrace house. The resident lives with her teenage son.
The landlord’s records state that the resident has mental health and mobility issues. Her son has learning difficulties.

The landlord’s obligations

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house. This includes installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics. This is confirmed in section 4f of the tenancy agreement. A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy divides day-to-day repairs into 5 categories:
1. Out of hours emergency – make safe within four hours and complete within 24 hours;
2. Daytime emergency – make safe within 4 hours and complete within 24 hours;
3. First time fix (by appointment) – attend and complete on the appointed date and within 15 working days of the order being raised;
4. Programmed works – pre-inspect and complete within 25 working days;
5. Planned works (larger and complex works) – complete within 60 working days.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that in an emergency (for example, where there is a serious health and safety risk, water leak, gas leak, electrical problem, or a genuine and immediate concern), it may need to enter a resident’s property without consent. This will only be considered as a last resort when all other means of access have been considered.
The repair policy goes on to state that if a resident fails to allow access to complete a repair or inspection, the landlord will leave a ‘missed appointment card’. The missed appointment card will request for the resident to contact it. If the resident fails to allow access to complete the repair or inspection on 2 occasions, the repair will be cancelled.
The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulation 2018 states that landlords are required to ensure that gas safety checks are carried out every 12 months by a gas safety registered engineer. This includes checks on all gas appliances and flues provided by the landlord.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Excessive cold, damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate with residents about actions.
The Equality Act 2010 imposes duties on landlords towards residents who have a disability. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a resident is disabled. ‘Reasonable’ means that a landlord can consider whether such an adjustment would be practical and/or affordable.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that where practical, it will carry out repairs with special consideration for residents who may be considered vulnerable and in need of additional support. This may include completing routine repairs within a faster timescale for some residents if a failure to do so may put them at risk. Residents who are at risk of being vulnerable may include people with mental, physical, or sensory disability who are in receipt of and entitled to a state benefit as a result of that disability.
The landlord’s essential repair decant policy states that essential repair decants take place when a resident has to move temporarily or permanently to allow it to carry out repairs. This applies in the following circumstances:
1. Major improvements or refurbishments which are extensive and leave the property uninhabitable. This does not include programmed works such as kitchen or bathroom refurbishments or full rewiring works, unless there are exceptional circumstances;
2. Major repair works which are necessary, and the work cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ due to health and safety risks;
3. Emergencies such as fires and flooding;
4. Any works that are being carried out would exacerbate the tenant’s or their household member’s medical condition.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will provide a formal response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a full and final response within 20 days following a full investigation of the complaint.

Summary of events

On 20 June 2018 the landlord completed an annual boiler check and found that the resident’s boiler was unsafe. Due to this, it capped off the boiler.
On 26 November 2018 the resident complained to the landlord regarding delayed repairs to the boiler. She said she had to wait over 4 months for an update, during which time she had to use an electrical heater which caused her additional electrical costs. This also caused her increased stress, depression, and anxiety. The resident advised that she was concerned about asbestos in the property and the impact this could have had on her health. She told the landlord she was seeking £500 in compensation due to the delays as she was vulnerable.
The resident’s local councillor emailed her on 4 March 2019 following contact with the landlord. They said:
1. The landlord had assessed the front door and reported that it was rotten. It therefore needed to be replaced. However, the work order for the replacement door was not raised. The landlord agreed to attend the property on 22 March 2019 to complete a survey of all of the repairs raised by the resident.
2. The landlord said it completed a survey in October 2018 for a replacement boiler. It then completed an asbestos survey on 12 December 2018 and received the resulting report on 4 January 2019. It subsequently raised a work order for its contractors to install a new boiler. The contractor contacted the landlord on 15 January 2019 to say it had been unable to make contact with the resident. The landlord said it had attempted to contact the resident on numerous occasions by letter and phone without success. Therefore, the landlord requested that the councillor advise the resident to contact it to arrange for the installation of the new boiler.
On 2 July 2019 the landlord’s contractor forced entry into the resident’s property to complete a gas safety check after obtaining a court order.
On 3 October 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint dated 26 November 2018.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 November 2019. This said:
1. It apologised for its lack of response when the resident initially complained in November 2018. The complaint was closed on its system in error.
2. It confirmed that it issued a warning notice for the resident’s boiler following a gas safety check in June 2018. At this time the boiler was turned off and a survey for a new boiler was requested. However, the work order was incorrectly closed on its contractor’s system which caused further delays.
3. The survey took place on 29 October 2018 and a request for a new boiler to be installed was approved on 5 November 2018. As part of the process the landlord completed an asbestos survey on 18 December 2018. Its contractor was unable to contact the resident to make an appointment to install a new boiler. The contractor visited the resident’s property on 28 January 2019 and left a no access card. As the landlord received no response, it sent a cancellation letter to the resident on 4 March 2019.
4. Due to the resident being without heating, it raised a new job to install a new boiler as a matter of priority.
5. It apologised for the level of service the resident received and agreed to take learning from the complaint. This included reminding staff about the importance of communication with residents.
6. It agreed to pay the resident compensation once repairs had been completed.
On 12 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that she was still without hot water and heating, and asked her to confirm when was suitable for its gas inspector to attend. The resident replied on 13 November 2019, saying:
1. She had not received any contact from the landlord for over a year regarding the boiler or the complaint she raised.
2. Due to not having a boiler she had had to live with illness and inconvenience.
3. She had been assaulted by the landlord’s contractor when they entered her home illegally with a fake warrant. As such, she had to seek legal advice as this was impacting her mental health.
4. Repairs remained outstanding, including rotting front and back doors and poorly fitting windows causing damp and mould in the bathroom.
5. She asked the landlord to contact her to discuss resolving the issues.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 4 December 2019. It confirmed that installation of the new boiler would take 2 days, plus an additional day for an electrician to complete electrical work. The boiler replacement was booked for 9 December 2019. The landlord offered the resident the option to move into a hotel while works took place. It also identified other works to be completed, including:
1. Replacement of the front door, including new door frames, making good, and gloss work;
2. Assessment of the back door, windows, and landing floor by a carpenter;
3. Replacement of the bathroom floor as part of planned works in April 2020;
4. An electrical check.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 and 24 June 2020 to complete a gas safety check. It was unable to gain access to the property. It then completed the gas safety check on 2 July 2020, noting that the resident’s boiler had been off since 2018.
On 15 July 2020 the landlord contacted the resident about completing gas safety checks. It said that despite the COVID-19 pandemic causing uncertainty and concern for the public, it was continuing to complete gas safety checks as it was legally obliged. It confirmed that it would be taking precautions when working in homes such as wearing protective suits, gloves, and face masks.
On 13 August 2020 the resident reported low pressure to the kitchen cold tap and no water pressure in the rest of the property. The landlord attended and found that airlocks needed to be removed from hot water supplies in the kitchen and bathroom. In addition, the ball valve needed renewing in the big storage tank and the tank refilled as it was empty. The landlord reattended on 17 August 2020 to fix the low water pressure, but was unable to gain access.
Nearly a year later, the landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2021 to confirm that it would be attending to carry out a gas safety check on 15 June 2021. However, on 15 June 2021 it said it had attended her property to complete the gas safety check but was unable to gain access. It advised that it had rearranged the appointment for 24 June 2021.
The landlord reattended the property on 24 June 2021 but was again unable to gain access to complete the gas safety check. It sent the resident a final warning notice and said it would attend on 2 July 2021. The landlord said if access was not allowed then it would refer to the case to court to obtain a warrant for access.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord attended the property to complete an annual gas service. It was unable to gain access and left a no access card.
Following an interval of 6 months, the landlord attended the property on 6 January 2022 to complete a boiler upgrade but was unable to gain access.
On 10 February 2022, after receiving contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord replied on 24 February 2022 advising that it had attempted to contact the resident to establish the nature of her complaint but had not received a response, so it was unable to progress the complaint.
The landlord completed an inspection at the resident’s property on 8 March 2022. It noted that a mould wash was required in the bathroom and kitchen, the extractor fan in the kitchen needed overhauling, and the boiler still needed to be replaced. It raised works for these repairs to take place.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s property but was unable to obtain access to upgrade the boiler. On 22 March 2022 it raised a work order for a replacement boiler and radiators.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 and 13 April 2022 to complete a mould wash in the bathroom. It was unable to gain access.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident regarding a gas safety check. It advised it would attend to carry this out on 1 June 2022. On 1 June 2022 it successfully completed a gas safety check at the resident’s property.
Following further contact with the resident, this Service contacted the landlord for a second time on 26 October 2022 to ask it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. This related to disrepair in the property (including lack of boiler repairs), delays in replacing the bathroom, windows and doors, delays in addressing damp and mould, and the landlord’s level of communication regarding rent arrears.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2022. It said it aimed to provide a response within 10 working days.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and completed an inspection. This identified that a painter was required to complete a mould wash and clean the bathroom ceiling, and a plumber was required to overhaul the bathroom.
The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 9 November 2022 confirmed that the resident’s property was not included in a major works programme for bathroom and kitchen replacement. The landlord noted that its survey earlier in 2022 recommended the resident’s bathroom was due to be replaced in 2025, and the kitchen and door in 2023.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 November 2022 and completed an inspection. It noted that a mould wash was required in the bathroom.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it had been unable to collate the relevant information to investigate her complaint. It said it would continue with its complaint investigation and aimed to provide its response by 25 November 2022. It asked the resident whether it could call to discuss the complaint further on 14 November 2022.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 November 2022 to book in an electrical rewire. The resident said she had another contractor attending to discuss her heating and the rewire. The landlord asked the resident to call once the contractor had attended.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to request a call to book in an electrical inspection. It said it had attempted to call her mobile but it was switched off.
The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 16 November 2022 stated that the resident had not granted it access to replace the boiler. It noted that she experienced mental health issues and severe anxiety, and was a carer for her son. The resident had told the landlord that as the floors, bathroom, windows and boiler needed to be replaced, she could not stay at the property while works took place. Therefore, the resident was told she would be decanted for works to take place. However, due to a bereavement the works were placed on hold for 3 weeks at the resident’s request.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed that its inspection of 10 November 2022 identified severe damp in the property. The landlord said it needed to obtain access in order to assess the whole property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 November 2022. This said:
1. It had attempted to carry out works agreed in December 2019 but was unable to contact the resident by telephone, letter or in person to arrange this. This meant it was unable to get works completed.
2. In February 2020 the resident contacted it to advise that she had suffered a bereavement so had not been able to contact sooner. It did not have any record of further contact from the resident between February and June 2020.
3. It arranged to complete a further survey of the boiler in October 2020. However, it was unable to contact the resident so the visit was cancelled.
4. It did not receive any contact from the resident in 2021.
5. It received contact via this Service in February 2022 regarding the resident’s complaint about responsive repairs. It had been unclear about the substance of the complaint so it contacted this Service and the resident.
6. On 25 February 2022 it contacted the resident who confirmed she wanted to complain about the delay in fitting a new boiler and outstanding repairs. In response, it arranged a further inspection. This inspection took place on 9 March 2022 and the survey for the new boiler took place on 10 March 2022. Since this date, the landlord said it had attempted to contact the resident to arrange access to replace the boiler but had been unsuccessful.
7. It arranged for its contractor to attend to complete a mould wash on 8 and 13 April 2022 but no access was provided.
8. It spoke with the resident regarding her disrepair reports and arranged for a further inspection on 10 November 2022. This was due to the length of time that had passed since its last inspection. The resident said she was away from 21 November 2022 for a period of 3 weeks. Therefore, it asked her to provide a suitable date for a visit when she returned.
9. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about how it handled her previous complaints. It had responded to her complaint in 2019, and since then all works were placed on hold as it could not contact her to arrange access. Since it had completed its inspection in March 2022 works were again placed on hold as it was unable to contact the resident.
10. It had attempted to contact the resident to discuss her complaint but was unsuccessful.
11. It advised the resident to contact the police regarding the alleged assault as this was a criminal matter.
12. It had tried to engage with the resident regarding her rent arrears. It had delayed taking possession proceedings pending clarification on third party deductions. It asked the resident to contact it to discuss the arrears further.
13. With regards to the resident’s request to decant, the landlord said it had reviewed its records and did not find any evidence that she needed to be rehoused. It agreed to carry out an inspection to assess all works needed. This would inform it whether a move was required in order for repairs to be completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 to request escalation of her complaint to stage 2. She said she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response for the following reasons:
1. It was incorrect for the landlord to say she was not contactable. She had emails to show that she informed it of her mental health issues. She had also suffered bereavements following the death of 2 close family members.
2. The landlord failed to take into account that she had severe mental health problems. This meant that at times she was prevented from doing normal everyday tasks, such as answering calls or letting people into her home. She had an assigned contact with the landlord and was unable to communicate with anyone else.
3. She did not contact the landlord regarding repair issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and did not feel she should be blamed for access issues during this period.
4. She was left without heating or hot water during the pandemic in a poorly ventilated home. Due to damp and mould conditions this left her at higher risk of respiratory conditions, cold, flu, and COVID-19. As such, she was unable to stay at home for much of this time due to this.
5. She was assaulted when someone forced entry into her home. The resident said the locksmith pushed her.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged her escalation request. It said it would provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord made a request for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment for the resident in relation to possible adaptations to the property, including an accessible bathroom.
The OT service emailed the landlord on 27 December 2022. It said it was concerned that the resident and her son would struggle to cope with major works being completed with them in occupation. The OT also recommended that the landlord installed a newel post rail at the top of the stairs, in order to provide the resident with additional support on the stairs.
On 5 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it would attend for a gas appointment on 6 January 2023. It asked her if its bathroom contractor was able to attend to discuss works.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 January 2023. This said:
1. It had reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and found that it had provided a full and detailed response. It had attempted to contact the resident from 2019 and had experienced difficulties in progressing works.
2. It had only completed works of an emergency or essential nature during the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted on some works progressing. If the resident had issues with heating or if there were health and safety risks within the property, it would have completed works.
3. It had found that when the resident’s previous housing officer left the organisation, her case was not passed to someone else to manage.
4. It provided an update regarding works. This included that it attended the property in December 2022 and agreed to replace the front door. It also confirmed that electrical upgrade works would take place in conjunction with planned bathroom upgrade works. It had made a referral to its adaptations team for further support for the resident.
5. It confirmed that a temporary move was not required as it would arrange works around the resident’s needs. This included replacing the boiler, front and back doors, and bathroom works.
6. It had identified a small area of mould on the ceiling but found no evidence of widespread mould throughout the property or a significant issue. It would monitor the mould after the heating was replaced.
7. It noted that the resident did not want works to take place prior to Christmas so it planned to change the boiler in January. The resident asked to change the date due to a bereavement, so it would contact her the following week to arrange a new date.
8. It had learned lessons following the complaint regarding its service delivery. It found that it had not updated its system with the resident’s new contact details, and that there was a lack of handover when a staff member left and evidence not uploaded to its system. This had been addressed under its new repair framework. It accepted that it could have been more proactive.
9. It had tried to engage with the resident on a number of occasions. It understood her challenges during this period but had found it extremely difficult to progress the case in the circumstances.
10. It advised the resident to contact the police if she had evidence that she was assaulted by its previous contractor, which it no longer used. It also agreed to investigate the matter if the resident was able to provide evidence.

Post complaint

On 11 January 2023 the landlord held a pre-works meeting. The meeting identified the next steps to be:
1. Arrange for a gas safety contractor to attend. Works had been postponed due to the resident suffering a bereavement, so the resident was to call to arrange the appointment.
2. Book an appointment for boiler and heating works after the gas safety check.
3. Clarify what works the OT service recommended and confirm whether the resident could occupy the property when works took place.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord raised a work order for its contractor to complete a mould wash in the bathroom, apply a stain blocker to the ceiling, and paint it.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it was delaying its bathroom replacement programme due to financial constraints. It confirmed that once it appointed a new bathroom contractor it would contact the resident to arrange a survey and start date.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident initially complained to the landlord in 2018. The focus of this investigation is the complaint she made in 2022, after this Service contacted the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s handling of previous complaints due to the length of time that has passed and availability of detailed records.
As with the resident’s rent arrears, other matters that did not exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints procedure – such as replacement doors, windows and bathroom – fall outside the remit of the current investigation.
The resident raised concerns that she had been assaulted when the locksmith attended her property to complete a gas safety check. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate this allegation, as it relates to a criminal act and is best suited for investigation by the police. However, this Service can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
Finally, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that the events considered in this investigation had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of her household. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts and/or a personal injury insurance claim. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Boiler repair and decant request

The landlord capped the resident’s boiler in June 2018 when it found it to be unsafe during a gas safety check. This was an appropriate and necessary step in line with its obligations. However, it is unclear why its subsequent survey in October 2018 took 4 months to complete. This exceeded the maximum repair timeframe set out in its policy, and resulted in prolonged inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident.
The landlord said it had attempted contact with the resident following the survey but was unable to arrange installation of the boiler. Its repair policy states that it will complete all repairs within 60 days, and while this may not have been feasible – for example, due to access issues or the complexity and scale of the works – the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it had made reasonable attempts to complete works within the stipulated timeframe. It should also have maintained effective communication with the resident. When it became aware of any anticipated delay, the landlord should have assisted the resident with heating provision while she was without a boiler, such as by providing temporary heaters. There is no evidence that it did so, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s records state that it faced continued challenges in contacting the resident to arrange for a boiler replacement. While landlords have recourse to tools available to them if residents do not allow access, it is important that a landlord explores available non-legal options prior to taking more stringent action. There is a lack of detail within the records provided by the landlord to gain a clear understanding of what action was taken at this time. Therefore, it is unknown exactly how often it attempted to contact the resident between June and October 2018. The records inspected generally indicate a sporadic and inconsistent approach to contact, with periods of frequent contact attempts interspersed with periods of months where no contact was made. This could have been confusing for the resident.
The records provided show that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 28 January 2019. However, due to no access or further contact, the landlord cancelled the boiler replacement planned for 4 March 2019. There is no record of the landlord attempting to contact the resident to progress the installation further until she raised a formal complaint in November 2019. This was unreasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have taken additional steps to engage with the resident in view of her vulnerability and explored arrangements that she may have found easier to accept. This is in line with its vulnerabilities policy (published in 2020) which states where practical, it will carry out repairs more quickly for residents who are considered vulnerable.
A similar pattern continued in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. This Service appreciates that the landlord made attempts to contact the resident during this time by way of home visits, calls, and emails. However, there is no record of it enquiring how she was managing without heating or taking a more tailored and personal approach to her individual circumstances. It therefore missed a number of opportunities to offer support, signpost her to relevant agencies, or make enquiries with partner agencies to see if they were working with the family. Additionally, despite there being issues with obtaining access, it failed to establish whether the resident required any reasonable adjustments in order to facilitate access.
There is evidence in the resident’s contact with the landlord in December 2022 that she had a single point of contact and was not able (or felt unable) to communicate with anyone else. The records do not show that the landlord accommodated the resident’s communication preferences once her assigned contact no longer worked for the organisation. This was unsatisfactory, as it should have managed the resident’s communication preferences and discussed a change in officer with her in a timely way. If the resident’s assigned point of contact had discussed their departure with her in advance, this may have aided the smoothness of the transition and reduced the level of stress caused.
As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and those of her son, it would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the household’s needs and responded to them. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making and actions could place a person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The records show that the resident told the landlord she was struggling with her mental health as early as November 2018. However, it did not make a support referral until December 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence that landlord adequately considered the household’s vulnerabilities concerning their living conditions. This was inappropriate, as the resident’s vulnerabilities played a key factor in her ability to allow access. It is of further concern that it did not carry out a risk assessment or make a safeguarding referral sooner, particularly as the resident expressed that she felt suicidal from January 2022. The landlord could have explored a multi-agency approach to help support the resident and address necessary repairs in a sensitive way.
By 2022, the resident and her son had been without a functioning boiler for nearly 4 years. The resident told the landlord that the situation impacting on her mental health, particularly as she had relied on temporary heating for an extended period. This caused her financial hardship. Again, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided or offered temporary heating at this point. This placed the resident in a position where she felt the need to buy her own at an additional cost as well as increased ongoing electricity costs. This was unreasonable and caused her further worry. It would have been helpful for the landlord to consider fuel poverty as a possible factor in the resident’s case and consider referring her for tenancy sustainment support, if it had such a service internally.
As discussed earlier in the report, the landlord should consider options available when unable to gain access to a property. In this case, a decant was first mentioned by the landlord in December 2019 when it offered the resident hotel accommodation while works took place. This was a positive approach that gave the resident options and control over her repairs. The records supplied do not show whether she responded to the offer, but if she declined it, the landlord should not have assumed that she would decline a similar offer in future. The next record of a decant was in November 2022 where the resident requested to be decanted. It is understandable that the resident would expect a decant to be agreed by the landlord in similar circumstances to those in which it previously offered one.
However, in its stage 1 response in November 2022, the landlord said it had no evidence that the resident needed to be decanted. It is unclear what evidence it required, as it obtained an OT assessment a month later and apparently disregarded the findings. Despite agreeing to review the works required to establish whether a decant was appropriate, it was unreasonable of the landlord to depart from the OT’s recommendations without explanation or evidence of alternative medical assessment. The occupational therapist had stated they were concerned about how the resident and her son would cope with works taking place while living in the property. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act on the recommendations of qualified professionals in this regard and factor their assessment into its decision making about matters such as decants.
The landlord’s failure to recognise the level of detriment caused to the resident and her son, as a result of the lack of boiler and prospect of repairs being completed with them in situ, amounted to a lack of regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It did not sufficiently engage with the resident to understand her needs and make reasonable adjustments. This constituted insensitive handling of the household’s vulnerabilities and was at odds with the landlord’s policy commitment to decant a resident whose medical condition would be exacerbated by works being carried out. Due to these circumstances, the access issues are not considered sufficient mitigation in relation to the landlord’s delays in completing the boiler replacement, as it should have considered alternative methods of facilitating the repairs that reflected the resident’s needs. Instead, it continually reattempted the same methods and threatened court action when these were unsuccessful, which was an unnecessarily heavy-handed and adversarial approach to a vulnerable resident.
Overall, the landlord’s lack of sufficient regard to the Equality Act 2010 and 6-year delay in completing heating repairs are serious failings. The severity of these failings and their prolonged impact on a vulnerable resident have resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.

Damp and mould

As previously stated, Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard requires the landlord to ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Excessive damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard, meaning that properties suffering from this issue are ‘non-decent’.
The landlord was first made aware of damp and mould in the property in March 2022. At this time, it completed an inspection and identified that a mould wash was required in the bathroom and kitchen. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take and was in accordance with its repair policy.
The landlord’s repair records show it attended the property on 8 March 2022. A month later it attempted to complete a mould wash on 8 and 13 April 2022. However, it could not obtain access. As such, it acted in accordance with its repair policy by cancelling the job following 2 missed appointments. Nonetheless, it remained responsible for ensuring the property was fit for habitation.
There is no evidence that any further action was taken by the landlord until the resident complained 6 months later. While it had no reason to consider the damp and mould an emergency or urgent situation, it would have been good practice for it to follow up with the resident (for instance, to see if she had been able to treat the mould herself), since it knew she was vulnerable and had no working boiler. Her complaint appeared to trigger a further inspection which took place on 4 November 2022. Following the inspection, 2 months later the landlord raised a job for a mould wash to take place on 2 February 2023. Since a mould wash would be considered a quick and straightforward action, it is unclear why it took 2 months to raise. This meant that the resident experienced 3 further months of exposure to damp and mould unnecessarily. The total 11-month period during which the resident lived with damp and mould in her property, despite reporting it to the landlord and expressing her concern about health impacts, was excessive.
While the landlord followed its policy in cancelling works due to missed appointments, it failed to take into account the resident’s and her son’s vulnerabilities. The landlord was aware that the resident had reported that the damp and mould was affecting her daily life. She told it the conditions in her property left her at higher risk of respiratory conditions, cold, flu, and COVID-19, and made her feel unable to spend much of her time at home.
The landlord should have made adjustments to assess and meet the needs of the resident and her son. This was particularly important after the resident reported the damp had worsened. As noted previously, the landlord was required by the Equality Act 2010 to consider to whether the resident had a disability as defined by law. Outside of its disability related obligations, it is expected that a landlord would take into account any other disclosed vulnerability to ensure a sensitive and joined-up approach, and to appropriately tailor communication and offers of relevant support.
While this Service accepts that the landlord made attempts to access the property in April 2022, it failed to engage in conversation with the resident to enable it to understand her needs and make reasonable adjustments. It also failed to consider the impact the ongoing damp and mould had on the condition and integrity of the property. The interval of time between investigations and action was excessive. The landlord should have been more proactive in its approach to ensure that action was taken to resolve the matters at its earliest opportunity. As with the boiler replacement discussed above, it would have been helpful for it to respond more flexibly and communicate with the resident in order to overcome any barriers and ensure damp works took place.
Despite the landlord being aware of damp and mould since March 2022, its stage 2 response said it would not take action until the boiler had been replaced. It did, however, recognise that it needed a more robust repair framework to ensure it would be more proactive. The landlord did not acknowledge or address the full extent of its failings in its complaint responses. It also failed to show regard for the resident’s ongoing experiences at the property. Furthermore, it failed to offer the resident any compensation and did not take appropriate steps to resolve the issues. This is at odds with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right, and amounts to maladministration.

Concerns about staff conduct

The resident reported that she was assaulted during a gas safety check. While this Service cannot determine whether an assault took place, we can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord is responsible for the conduct of its staff and contractors. While no code of conduct for staff has been supplied for inspection, employees and representatives of the landlord would be expected to behave in a respectful way. This would include not breaching the landlord’s policies, obligations, or the law.
It is unclear whether it was the landlord’s contractor (ie an operative completing a gas safety check) or a court official enforcing a warrant that allegedly pushed the resident. The records provided refer to both a “contractor” and a “locksmith”. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the person in question was a contractor of the landlord, as the landlord accepted this in its complaint responses.
The landlord was correct to advise the resident to report an alleged assault to the police, and also to carry out its own investigation by speaking to relevant members of staff. As its staff and/or contractors provided a different version of events to the resident, it could not reasonably establish the truth of the matter, particularly as 16 months had passed since the incident. However, while it apologised if the experience of forced entry was frightening, it should have gone further in offering support and reassurance to the resident. For example, while it said it was concerned about the allegation, it could have confirmed at stage 1 that the behaviour described fell below the standards it expected of its contractors; this was implied but not specifically stated. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord would not wish to appear to admit fault or accept liability when the allegation remained unproven, but this did not prevent it expressing regret that the resident felt she had been treated in an unacceptable way.
At stage 2 the landlord confirmed that it no longer used the contractor in question, and undertook to investigate the matter if the resident could provide evidence. However, as it no longer used the contractor, it would have been limited in the action it could take. It was also unlikely that any contemporaneous evidence (such as CCTV footage) would still be available. The landlord missed an opportunity to reiterate its apology, and to express sympathy and offer support for any upsetting events the resident may have experienced or perceived. It would have been appropriate for it to do this, since the incident was evidently troubling the resident 18 months later, and she had previously described her vulnerability due to mental health conditions.
In summary, the landlord gave the resident the correct advice about reporting an alleged assault to the police. It also appropriately investigated when she raised the issue, more than a year after the incident occurred, and agreed to take action if evidence could be provided. Though these actions were positive, its omission to display sufficient sympathy or offer relevant support and reassurance has resulted in a finding of service failure.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 26 October 2022 following intervention from this Service. The landlord acknowledged her complaint within 2 days, and provided its stage 1 response a month later on 25 November 2022. This response time of 20 working days exceeded the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code, both of which require stage 1 complaint responses to be provided within 10 working days. However, as the landlord gave the resident advance notice of the delay on 11 November 2022 and attempted to discuss the complaint with her on 14 November 2022, then kept to its revised target timeframe, the overall stage 1 response time is considered reasonable. There was no indication of significant additional detriment to the resident as a result of the extended response time.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged the request the following day which was satisfactory. It went on to provide its stage 2 response a month later on 6 January 2023. Taking account of the Christmas period and bank holidays, this was in accordance with the landlord’s target timeframe of 20 working days.
The complaint responses themselves were detailed, clearly stated what stage the complaint had reached and whether each aspect of the complaint was upheld, and set out the resident’s options in terms of escalation. They also provided contact details and next steps where appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the responses demonstrated a genuine attempt to engage with the substance of the complaint and explain earlier events. While they did not reach the same findings as this Service in relation to some matters, and the stage 2 response was less helpfully structured than the stage 1, the landlord’s reasoning for its decision making was detailed. The level of redress due for delayed repairs is addressed elsewhere in this report and will not be duplicated here. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration in relation to complaint handling has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler repair and request for a decant;
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during a gas safety check;
4. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The matter is outside jurisdiction.
The landlord failed to take prompt action over a significant period to replace the resident’s boiler. This meant the resident was without a functioning boiler for 6 years. The landlord showed lack of regard to the Equality Act 2010 by taking insufficient account of the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities. This left the resident living in a property without heating for a prolonged period of time and worried about avoidable costs she had incurred. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident in its consideration of a decant and apparently disregarded recommendations by the OT service without explanation.
While the landlord faced barriers in resolving the damp and mould in the property, it failed to be proactive in its communication with the resident. This meant that damp and mould persisted and worsened in the property over a 6-month period. The landlord failed to make timely investigations into the impact the damp and mould was having on both the household and the property.
The landlord carried out appropriate investigation and gave correct advice when the resident reported that she had been assaulted by its contractor more than a year after the incident. However, it did not go far enough in offering reassurance and support in light of the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy (with an extension at stage 1). Its responses were detailed, thorough, and explained the landlord’s decision making in a clear way.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delayed repairs to address her boiler, damp and mould. The apology should be made in writing by a senior manager.
2. Pay the resident £1,800, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delayed boiler replacement and handling of her decant request;
  2. £500 for its delayed damp and mould repairs;
  3. £100 for its unsympathetic response in relation to staff conduct concerns;
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of its delays and failures.
3. Assign the resident a designated point of contact for future communication.
4. Provide to the resident and this Service a schedule of works, including timescales for completion of each outstanding repair.
5. Contact the OT service to arrange a meeting with both the OT and the resident to discuss a decant. The meeting should then take place within 8 weeks. If the OT’s position is that a decant is necessary, the landlord should give due consideration to this and inform this Service of its decision. If a decant takes place, the landlord should complete a risk assessment in relation to the decant process, taking into account the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household.
6. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the resident’s case to identify learning and prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. The review should take place within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and a copy of the resulting report should be provided to this Service. This should include:
1. Assessment of any reasonable adjustments required to take into account the resident’s needs, to be agreed with her, confirmed in writing, and appropriately recorded on relevant systems;
2. Reference to its repair policy, particularly in relation to how it handles missed appointments where residents are known to be vulnerable. Proposals for any changes to the policy should be outlined, including the anticipated timescale for these.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord assesses its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (published in May 2023).