London Borough of Camden Council (202410150)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410150

Camden Council

27 February 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to communal areas.
2. Repairs to the property.
3. The resident’s reports of the bin area not being kept clean and tidy.
4. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. The replacement of the boiler and radiators and installation of a stopcock.
6. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 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.
According to paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.
The resident has raised the following issues in relation to the communal areas:
1. Issues with the communal drains, including water pooling by the front entrance gate.
2. Unevenness in the grounds to the front of the building.
We issued a review determination on 202105476 on 12 September 2024 which included findings on the above issues covering the same time period, and orders were made for the landlord to address these, which are still ongoing. For this reason, the resident’s complaint about repairs to the communal areas is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy in her sole name. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy started on 15 January 2001. Her daughter is named on the tenancy agreement as an authorised occupant. Her daughter confirmed that the resident is disabled and has lewy body dementia as well as a number of other health issues, including asthma and arthritis. Her daughter lives at the property and is her full time carer. The resident’s daughter has brought the complaint on her behalf as her representative and for clarity she will be referred to as ‘the daughter’ throughout this report.
The daughter raised a previous complaint, which included a complaint about damp and mould. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to on 10 January 2022. We investigated this complaint under reference 202105476.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey in February 2022 and completed works between March 2022 and September 2023 to try to resolve damp and mould issues.
On 31 January 2023 the daughter raised a new complaint, saying that the property was still suffering from damp and mould and no action had been taken to resolve matters. She raised further issues in relation to outstanding repairs and grounds maintenance. She said the landlord had failed to carry out recommendations made by this Service in a report issued in May 2021, in relation to an earlier complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 June 2023 in which it said:
1. It could not consider issues more than 12 months old, so the report from May 2021 was out of scope. It said that if there were outstanding repairs issues she should log these.
2. It had no open jobs for improvements relating to recommendations in an Occupational Therapy (OT) report from March 2020. It said she should make contact with an OT to arrange a new assessment if required. It would not adapt the washing machine or install a bathroom sink with drawers without an OT recommendation.
3. It was unable to find any recommendations from its contractor that radiators should be upgraded. It also confirmed it would not fit underfloor heating.
4. It asked her to provide evidence from medical professionals in relation to issues with the path outside the property.
5. It enclosed a public liability claim form for the daughter to raise a claim for damaged belongings.
On 27 July 2023 the daughter emailed the landlord to escalate the complaint, saying that its response did not address all of the issues raised. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 August, in which it said that it agreed with its stage 1 response that much of the complaint was made out of time and a new OT report would be needed for adaptations to be considered. It said it had no record of a damp report from December 2021 and would arrange for a new damp survey to be carried out.
Between September and November 2023 the daughter contacted the landlord regularly about outstanding repairs issues. She raised a further complaint on 17 November 2023. On 12 January 2024 she chased this up as she had not received a response. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024, in which It agreed that there were outstanding works which it would be carrying out. It was eager to get work started and gave the daughter some dates that it could start work on.
The daughter asked for the complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2024, as she said that it had not addressed all the issues she had raised. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 April, in which it said:
1. It intended on carrying out inspections and repairs, but was having trouble in arranging access to the property.
2. The boiler was in good working order and would not be changed.
3. It apologised for delays in responding to emails.
4. It had brought the issues with ASB at the bus stop and drug users gaining access to the block to the attention of the community safety team.
5. It would ask the repairs team to inspect the issues raised with communal areas.
The daughter remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and on 26 April 2024 she asked us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The previous determination issued on case 202105476 looked at issues addressed by the landlord during its internal complaints process that concluded in January 2022. This determination considered damp and mould issues up to and including September 2023, and compensation was awarded for this time. Therefore, this investigation has only considered damp and mould issues that have occurred since September 2023.
As part of the previous determination, orders were issued that overlap with the time period under investigation. These orders will be taken into consideration when making any orders in this determination, so as to avoid duplication.

Repairs to the property

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following repair priorities and timescales:
1. Emergency (out of hours) – a contractor will be asked to attend within 2 hours. Out of hours calls only raised where there is a danger to people or property. The repair will usually be to make the situation safe.
2. Emergency (daytime) – a contractor will be asked to attend before 8pm the same day. In cases of immediate danger the landlord will ask them to attend within 2 hours.
3. Right to repair (urgent) – completed within 3 working days.
4. Urgent – completed within 5 working days. These are repairs that are not considered an emergency but which, if not completed quickly, would cause significant nuisance.
5. Routine – completed within 20 working days.
6. Programmed – completed with an agreed timescale. These are repairs that are complex or involve specialist works.
The daughter raised the following repairs issues during the complaints:
1. The delay to kitchen refurbishment leaving the resident with no space for her fridge in the kitchen. The delay also left the resident unable to use a kitchen drawer damaged by damp and mould.
2. Issues in a bedroom, including problems with a wardrobe.
3. Options in the final scope of works ‘made no sense based on the layout of the property’.
4. The landlord agreed to change some damaged windows, and this had not been done.
5. An issue with the washing machine was raised in November 2023 and no one attended.
6. A new front door was required as she had been advised the existing one was rotten.
7. A carpet was damaged by contractors who did not protect it when working.
8. A survey from 2021 stated that there was an uneven floor, which has not been rectified.
The landlord’s previous stage 2 complaint response of 10 January 2022 said that it was awaiting the daughter’s approval in order to start works in the kitchen. The records provided by the landlord do not show that it followed up with her during 2022 to obtain her approval and progress the work. This was not appropriate as it should have acted proactively to get works progressed.
The landlord met with the daughter on 21 December 2022. Following this meeting it sent her an adjusted final scope of works on 20 January 2023 which it said was based on what they had discussed, and OT recommendations. The landlord said that it was keen to carry out the work as soon as possible, but could not do this unless she agreed the scope and allowed it to proceed. It said it was imperative that she agreed with the proposals so it could provide the adaptations the resident needed.
On 31 January 2023 the daughter raised a complaint, saying that she had not been given a start date for repairs, and that she had been asking for repairs to be carried out. She followed this up on 3 April, saying that a new washing machine had been delivered but the current waste pipe set up was not fit for purpose.
The landlord’s contractor told it on 6 June 2023 that it had tried to call the daughter several times to advise her of planned work but had been unable to make contact. It said that with the uncertainty of the work the team was placed on another job until work was confirmed. It was due to finish that job soon and would be free to return on 12 June and said it would continue to try to contact her.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 June 2023 in which it said it was in the process of carrying out works, however it did not provide a timescale for this. It did not clarify what it needed from the daughter to move things forward, which would have been appropriate for it to do. She asked for the complaint to be escalated on 21 July. In its stage 2 response of 25 August 2023 the landlord again did not provide any timescales for work or information on what needed to be done to progress matters.
The landlord carried out a management meeting on 1 November 2023 and wrote to the daughter on 1 December with a full and final agreed scope of works. It said that she would need to sign off on the scope before work could start. Work would take 3-4 weeks to complete and it asked for her to confirm her approval and it would then organise a date for works to start. In an email of 20 December it answered some concerns she had raised and reiterated that this was the final scope. It said it needed her approval to start and may need to insist she gives reasonable access in line with the tenancy agreement. This was a reasonable approach, as the landlord’s obligations are to the resident and it needed to carry out the work.
On 14 January 2024 the daughter emailed the landlord to say she had to hire her own handyman to fix a wardrobe and install a new bed, as works completed by the landlord had left the room smaller. On 28 January the landlord acknowledged her email and said that there was no reason for it not to attend to start work. It asked her to confirm a date for work to start. The daughter responded to raise an issue with a kitchen drawer, which the landlord said was not an emergency and it would raise it with its Repairs team. The daughter responded, asking to raise a formal complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024, in which it said:
1. It had agreed as a goodwill gesture to repair the drawer in the kitchen, however this was the resident’s responsibility.
2. It had agreed to change the kitchen, and would ensure there was space in the new kitchen for the fridge.
3. It could not find any record of damage to windows being reported.
4. If there was an issue with the washing machine plumbing this would be addressed when boiler and pipework work takes place.
5. It was eager for work to start and said it could start on 11 March or 18 March.
The daughter responded on 4 March 2023, requesting an escalation. She did not comment on whether either of the offered dates were suitable. On 8 March the landlord emailed her to say a new kitchen design was needed to accommodate the loss of space for thermal boarding. It said a kitchen designer would attend on 11 March, with works to start on 18 March. The work did not go ahead on this date, with the landlord’s records not providing a reason for this.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024, in which it said:
1. It would inspect the kitchen drawer once it was given access.
2. The fridge would be relocated to the kitchen after works were completed, again once access was provided.
3. It would consider reimbursement for the resident’s handyman costs if she provided receipts.
4. It said that it understood that the washing machine issue had been resolved but asked her to raise it with the Repairs team if this was not the case.
5. It would inspect the windows and uneven floor once access was provided.
6. It agreed a new door was required and would progress this repair once access was provided.
7. It attached a copy of its public liability claim form in order for her to make an insurance claim for the damaged carpet.
The landlord’s response implied throughout that it had been having problems with getting access to the property to carry out work. From the records provided there were times where it offered dates to start work and the daughter does not appear to have responded. However, there were long periods of time with no progress where the records do not show the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange appointments. Given that it was clear on what work needed to be done, it should have continued to attempt contact with the daughter to arrange a suitable time for work to start.
On 21 May 2024 the daughter emailed the landlord saying she remained unhappy with the scope as she did not feel that changes she had requested had been made. We appreciate that the daughter may have some concerns about the scope of works, however the landlord has employed experts to put this scope together. If the resident and her daughter are unhappy with the work once it has been completed, they would be entitled to raise a new complaint about this. But, at this stage, the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord is unreasonable in relying on its contractor’s scope to progress work.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. We appreciate there has been some disagreement between the landlord and the daughter over the work required. And there have been dates offered by the landlord to start work that we have not seen that the daughter responded to. However, there were significant periods of time where the landlord has not evidenced that it made reasonable attempts to move things along. This was despite it having put together several scopes of work, as far back as January 2023.
The repairs have not been carried out in line with even the longest timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have been more proactive in ensuring the work was carried out.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out repairs.
An order has also been made for the landlord to offer in writing a range of dates for work to start, and invite the daughter to propose alternatives if none are suitable.

Bin area

During the second complaint the daughter raised an issue with the landlord about the communal bin area not being kept clean. It is not clear from the records provided when or how she raised this. However, in its stage 2 response of 26 April 2024 the landlord said she had provided photos of the area. It said that it had brought the issue to the attention of its Estate Services team, which was a reasonable action.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of resident’s reports of the bin area not being kept clean and tidy. We have seen no evidence that the daughter has needed to raise this issue on more than one occasion, and the landlord took a reasonable step once it was reported.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy says it will:
1. Work to ensure residents live in a dry, warm, safe and healthy environment which is free from hazards.
2. Have easily accessible ways to report cases of damp, mould and condensation.
3. Deliver a safe, consistent and high standard of response to all reports taking into account health risks to residents as well as risk to property.
4. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould within reasonable timescales.
5. Identify the correct root cause so that appropriate remedial works are delivered to prevent reoccurrence.
The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
On 22 December 2023 the daughter emailed the landlord to say she had been asking it to deal with damp and mould issues for over 2 decades. She said there were leaks present and she suspected rising damp, and she did not feel that the scope of works the landlord had proposed would resolve the issues. The landlord responded to say that it had raised the damp and mould issue and someone would be in touch with her soon.
On 5 February 2024 the daughter contacted the landlord and said that a bedroom had wet walls and carpet with black mould present. The landlord had collected a dehumidifier despite there being no plan to resolve the issues and the property had a humidity level of 70% or more throughout.
In its stage 1 response of 1 March 2024 the landlord said it would be changing the kitchen, including piping, which it thought would resolve damp and mould. It said works would take around 4 weeks and it could start on 11 March or 18 March. The daughter asked for the complaint to be escalated on 4 March, and at this time she did not confirm whether either of these dates were suitable to start work.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it could assess damp and mould issues on 18 March when it carried out other work. It asked her if she was happy for work to start. We have seen no evidence that she responded to let the landlord know if this date was suitable or not. In its stage 2 response of 26 April the landlord again said it was keen to start work. It provided the daughter with a copy of its public liability insurance claim form so she could make a claim, which was a reasonable action for it to take.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 3 September 2024. It is not clear from the evidence provided why this was not carried out sooner. While the daughter did not accept dates the landlord offered in March, no evidence has been provided that it continued to try to arrange the survey between March and it taking place 6 months later.
The survey found elevated moisture readings in some rooms which, along with condensation, was contributing to black mould build up. The Surveyor did not think any external defects were contributing to the internal dampness. The report said that the likely causes of dampness were spillages and leaks within the bathroom. The survey recommended works to both the inside and the outside of the property.
Since the survey was carried out the landlord’s contractor has tried to make contact with the resident on a number of occasions to make an appointment to start work. The landlord has recently let us know that despite reaching out to the daughter, it has been unable to obtain dates to arrange a visit to enable it to progress the repairs.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It is acknowledged that the landlord has found it difficult to arrange a time to carry out a survey, and then to arrange for work to start. However, there was a period of time between March and September 2024 where it has not evidenced that it was proactive in trying to arrange a damp and mould survey. It is not clear from the evidence it has provided why it took 6 months for this survey to take place and this represented an unreasonable delay, and missed opportunities to resolve the matter.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to carrying out the damp and mould survey.
No further orders have been made in relation to damp and mould, as the following orders are ongoing on 202105476:
1. The landlord to commit in writing to conducting a post-works inspection after the damp and mould remedial works are finished.
2. The landlord to commit in writing to completing a further damp and mould inspection 6 months after the damp and mould remedial works are finished. This inspection should include monitoring moisture levels within the property.
3. If damp is identified, the landlord should arrange a follow-up surveyor’s appointment to investigate the root cause(s) of the damp and identify what remedial action can be taken to resolve and prevent damp in the property. This should include consideration of sealing the area in the living room where cables enter and improving ventilation. Once the assessment is completed, the landlord is required to confirm what action it will take and provide the resident with a realistic timeframe for completion of the works.
4. If mould is identified, the landlord should arrange a follow-up appointment to identify what remedial action can be taken to address the mould in the property. Once the assessment is completed, the landlord is required to confirm what action it will take and provide the resident with a realistic timeframe for completion of the works.
5. The landlord to complete a senior management review into the case to identify additional learning and improvement. As part of this review, the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Assess its handling of damp and mould issues in this case.
  2. Confirm it has taken steps to improve its services so that its responses to reports of damp and mould:

(1) Are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.

(2) Treat residents with respect and empathy.

(3) Investigate and identify root causes.

(4) Risk assess and prioritise cases with vulnerable residents.

Confirm it has considered and acted on the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould from October 2021 and the guidance from the follow up Spotlight report from February 2023. Replacement of the boiler and radiators and installation of stopcock.

Boiler, radiators and stopcock

The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs log, which does not list any call outs in relation to issues with the boiler. It shows that a boiler service was carried out in August 2022 and August 2023 and the notes do not indicate that there were any concerns about its performance.
Issues with the boiler and stop cock were not raised as part of the first complaint. The daughter said that a contractor had attended in August 2022 and recommended radiators be changed. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 28 June 2023 said that it had no record of its contractor recommending that radiators be upgraded.
Emails between the daughter and the landlord between September and November 2023 show that there were several call outs during this time due to the boiler leaking. She also repeatedly reminded the landlord that there had been no radiator in her bedroom since May 2023, and a stop cock had not been installed. On 6 November she told the landlord that an engineer had told her that a stopcock would be requested in August 2023. This Service has not seen any record of this being recommended.
The daughter raised a second complaint on 17 November 2023, which raised issues with the boiler but did not mention the stopcock or radiators. She said she was also unhappy that there was damage to the carpet in the boiler cupboard due to the leaks. In an email of 8 December the landlord told the resident that it would be happy to install a radiator in her bedroom once boiler work started, or it could install one straight away. She confirmed she would like it installed as soon as possible. The landlord offered to carry out the installation on 13 December, however she said she was not available. No evidence has been provided that a further date was offered at that time, which would have been appropriate.
On 14 January 2024 the landlord emailed the daughter to say that it had authorised for the boiler to be replaced due to its age. It also said that it was looking to get radiators fitted in the resident’s bedroom and the kitchen. On 28 January it asked for a date when it could carry out this work. The daughter responded to this email to ask for other work to be carried out but did not provide a date for the radiator and boiler to be installed.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 1 March 2024 it said it was eager to get the new boiler installed to prevent further issues. It said it could begin work on 11 March or 18 March, which was a proactive step. It confirmed that when the boiler was replaced it would remove the carpet and replace this with vinyl flooring.
In her escalation request of 4 March 2024 the daughter said that she was told they could have tiles installed in the boiler cupboard, rather than vinyl. She also said that the landlord’s procedure was that a new boiler should be installed after a certain amount of call outs and parts being changed.
In its stage 2 response of 26 April 2024 the landlord said that it did not have a policy in relation to when a boiler should be changed. We have reviewed its repairs policy and found no mention of it replacing boilers after a certain amount of repairs/call outs. It said that it had attended to attempt to carry out work on 11 March, however she had not allowed access. It said it wanted to begin the work as soon as possible.
The landlord said that installation of a stopcock was part of the scope for proposed re-fitting works, which would be completed once access was provided. It said that the boiler cupboard would need safety flooring due to the washing machine being located in it, tiles would not be suitable as they would be a potential slip hazard. No evidence has been provided that tiles were originally offered, however the landlord’s explanation for installing vinyl instead was reasonable.
In our determination on 202105476 we asked the landlord to assess the heating and it contacted the daughter to ask for dates for it to visit. It also asked her for a date to arrange a meeting to create an action plan with timeframes. The landlord has since let us know that despite reaching out to the daughter, it has been unable to obtain dates to arrange a visit to enable it to progress the repairs.
The daughter recently asked the landlord to reimburse her for radiators she purchased herself, which it declined to do. We have seen no evidence that this issue has been through the landlord’s internal complaints process. She would need to raise this issue with the landlord directly if she remains unhappy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the boiler and radiators and installation of a stopcock. The landlord’s policy did not require it to replace the boiler due to the number of breakdowns, and no evidence has been provided that it recommended installation of a stopcock or new radiators. However, it did agree to carry out this work.
Since concluding its internal complaints process, the landlord has asked the daughter for suitable dates to carry out works, and provided dates it could start, however she has not confirmed a date with it to meet to progress the repairs. While the recent difficulties with arranging work appear to be largely out of the landlord’s control, there were times it could have been more proactive. When the daughter was unable to have the radiator installed on 16 December 2023, there is no evidence the landlord offered any alternative dates, and did not contact her again about this for 4 weeks. Had it been more proactive at this time, it is possible it could have been able to install the radiator at this time. This could have avoided this room being without a radiator for over a year.
We have already made the following orders in our determination on 202105476:
1. The landlord to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.
2. Take steps to ensure the kitchen has a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. When considering what type of heating to provide, the landlord should consider the resident’s disability and whether a radiator can be safely installed. The landlord should also consider other options including a plinth heater and underfloor heating. Once the landlord has made a decision on the type of heating, it is required to confirm this in writing, explain how it came to its decision and provide the resident with a realistic timeframe for installation.
An order has also been made for the landlord to offer in writing a range of dates for work to start to install the new boiler, stopcock and radiators, and invite the daughter to propose alternatives if none are suitable.
An order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the her by its failure that to be more proactive in relation to installing a radiator in the daughter’s bedroom.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is committed to supporting residents experiencing ASB. It says it will take proactive measures, such as:
1. Security improvements.
2. Tackling crime and disorder and working with police to prevent crimes.
3. Physical improvements where reasonable to design out crime including use of gates, eliminating recesses, and using lighting.
4. Operating a Community Safety team.
5. Working with the local police’s Safe Neighbourhoods teams.
The earliest evidence provided of the daughter raising an issue with ASB was in her escalation request of the second complaint on 4 March 2024. She said that groups of people waiting for buses outside the property stare through the windows and drugs are sold there. She also said whilst a previous issue with drug users entering the building was resolved, people were now using magnets and a fire key to get into the building.
In its stage 2 response of 26 April 2024 the landlord said it had brought this to the attention of the local authority’s Community Safety team. It did not provide any further information about what actions the Community Safety team would take, and it would have been helpful if it had done so. But, as the matter was not raised again it is reasonable to conclude that the matter was resolved with that referral.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB. We have seen no evidence that the action the landlord took failed to resolve the situation. Its referral to its Community Safety team was in line with its ASB policy.
A recommendation has been made that should the daughter report the same issue again, the landlord open an ASB case and provide her with a clear action plan.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 2 working days, and send its response within 25 working days.
The daughter raised the first complaint on 31 January 2023 via email. The landlord did not acknowledge this, and when she had received no response, she emailed it again on 3 April. The landlord again failed to acknowledge the complaint. It sent its stage 1 response on 28 June, almost 5 months after the complaint was raised. It did not acknowledge or apologise for its delayed response, which was not appropriate. It also incorrectly stated that the complaint had been raised on 16 February.
The daughter asked for the complaint to be escalated on 21 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 25 August, which was in line with its complaints policy.
The daughter raised a further complaint on 17 November 2023, which the landlord did not acknowledge. She forwarded the complaint email to the landlord on 12 January 2024, saying that it had failed to respond within its policy timescale. The landlord again did not acknowledge the complaint at this time.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024, in which it incorrectly said the complaint had been raised on 31 January. It failed to acknowledge or apologise for having taken more than 2 months to respond, outside of its policy timescale.
The daughter asked for the complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request the same day. On 14 April she chased the landlord, asking for a response so she could escalate the complaint to this Service. The timescale of 25 working days as per its policy had passed. It apologised for the delay and said it hoped to have a response by 26 April, however it would have been appropriate for it to have kept her updated with any expected delay. It did then send its stage 2 response on 26 April.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It did not acknowledge her first complaint at either stage, or her second complaint at the first stage. It took too long to respond to her complaints, in particular at stage 1 of the first complaint. With the exception of its stage 2 response to her second complaint, it failed to acknowledge the delays, and did not offer any redress.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise its complaint handling failures. An order has also been made for it to carry out a case review to identify how these failures occurred, and ensure it has a robust procedure for logging new complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to communal areas is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of resident’s reports of the bin area not being kept clean and tidy.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the boiler and radiators and installation of a stopcock.
5. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
6. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following, and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, broken down as follows:
  1. £400 in relation to repairs.
  2. £300 in relation to damp and mould.
  3. £100 in relation to the boiler, radiators and stopcock.
  4. £200 for its complaint handling.
2. Offer in writing a range of start dates for repair works and invite the daughter to propose alternatives if none are suitable.
3. Offer in writing a range of dates for installation of the new boiler, stopcock and radiators, and invite the daughter to propose alternatives if none are suitable.
4. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a case review to identify how the complaint handling failures occurred, and ensure it has a robust procedure for logging new complaints. A copy of this review should be provided to this Service.

Recommendation

If the daughter reports the same ASB issue again, the landlord should open an ASB case and provide her with a clear action plan.