London Borough of Croydon (202220147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220147

London Borough of Croydon

12 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s health issues and its handling of her request for adaptations and reasonable adjustments to be made.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property condition at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, at the property. She moved into the property in April 2022 and lives there with her partner and child. The property is a two-bedroom end-of-terrace house. The landlord failed to respond to the Ombudsman when asked if it has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her family. The resident has several physical and neurological health issues that affect her mobility and day-to-day living. On multiple occasions throughout the complaint the evidence confirms that the landlord was aware of the resident’s health. This was also evident in its wider LA role relating to the occupational therapy and disability assessments which it completed.
On 28 April 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she had been reporting a number of issues with the property to the landlord’s subcontractor since 4 April. She said she was told to contact their voids team but had received no reply. She asked the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs without delay. The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint on 26 July. It found it inspected the propertied as follows:
1. It’s inspection of 24 June 2022 found the following:
  1. It had adjusted and checked all 8 windows on 19 May but found on its visit the bathroom window was difficult to close.
  2. It had repaired the noisy and inefficient extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 17 May. It found the electric socket in the kitchen was safe and did not pose a threat to the resident’s safety.
  3. It found no leaks from the loft or from the toilet. It told the resident to report any further issues to it. It confirmed it would fit an air vent to the cupboard under the stairs where there were reports of damp and mould.
  4. It arranged an appointment for 3 August to remove the hot water tank and proof around it. It also arranged for the back door to have a bristle strip added. This was following advice from pest control concerning rodent entry points.
  5. It would not fit extra cupboards in the kitchen as it believed it was “adequately spaced.” It advised the resident installing a privacy lock on her bathroom door was her responsibility.
  6. It would not extend the driveway as it found it was “large enough to accommodate a standard vehicle.”
2. Its further inspection of 15 July 2022 found the following:
  1. It had taken photos when the property was void which showed the rear garden was in “good order.” As such it said the resident was responsible for repairing and replacing damaged fencing and removing garden rubbish. It acknowledged that it should have updated her on this issue and apologised it did not.
3. It acknowledged since the inspections had been completed it was delayed in completing and organising appointment dates. It apologised for “any inconvenience caused.”
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 August 2022. She told the landlord the following:
1. The bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, the windows and the bathroom door were all in working order. She said the stage 1 response failed to address birds under the guttering or a hole in the wall due to fallen cement. She reported further issues of a crack to her external living room wall and a warped and cracked kitchen ceiling. She also said there were pest issues, issues with her external kitchen door and mould treatment outstanding in her stair’s cupboard.
2. She disputed information in the stage 1 response. This was that the landlord had inspected the property on 15 July. She said it had cancelled this appointment asking for photos instead. She said she had been told the subcontractor was responsible for completing kitchen works and issues in the garden. She said the photos taken during the void, failed to show hidden rubbish. She refuted the landlord ever spoke to her about the safety of the plug socket.
3. The resident said there was outstanding work to be completed at the property. This included a mould wash to the stair’s cupboard. Various holes around the property had not been closed and repairs to guttering and the roof had not been completed.
4. She said she had a Motability vehicle which did not fit on the driveway. She said a landlord staff member was recently unable to park her car. She said previous occupation therapy report said she needed parking for her mobility issues. She asked the landlord to revisit this.
5. She raised concerns about a subcontractor staff member who was rude to her. She said they were not compliant with the subcontractor’s policy. She also said she had asked the landlord on a number of occasions for an “allocated individual” to respond to. She said it ignored her on this point, affecting her trust in the landlord, leaving the work incomplete. She asked for it to correspond with her in writing in future.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 10 November 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and told the resident the following:
1. It completed the following repairs at the property:
  1. It removed the hot water tank and completed proofing work on 3 August. On the same day, it installed bristles to the backdoor. This was all to stop rodent entry points.
  2. It found no issues with the gutters in the inspection on 24 June but arranged to clean them as a “preventative measure.” It completed this on 24 August. On the same date, it overhauled and adjusted the back door leaving it in “good working order.” It also checked the external wall vent finding deterioration to the ducting. It said it would arrange a further inspection to determine “next steps.”
  3. It installed bolts and a latch to the side gate on 26 August. It found rubbish had been hidden behind the fence during the void inspection. It carried out an asbestos test of the rubbish and removed it on 17 September.
  4. It did not specify dates but confirmed it had installed an air vent in the stairs cupboard and completed a mould wash there. It had assessed the tree in the garden finding one limb needed to be removed. It confirmed it would complete this in the “coming weeks” and reassess the tree in 9 months. It acknowledged a breakdown in communication with its stage 1 response and had in fact fitted 2 new kitchen cabinets. This was despite saying it would not in its stage 1 response.
2. It explained the kitchen electrical socket was protected by a 30mA RCD against the risk of electrocution. It agreed to reinvestigate the issue if the resident was still concerned.
3. The landlord confirmed it passed concerns about the member of staff to the subcontractor to address under its disciplinary procedure. It told it to report further communication or conduct issues to it. It agreed it should have put one point of contact in place for all repairs. It was sorry it booked appointments without the resident’s knowledge or at short notice. It acknowledged the resident’s request for no further inspections but said that these may be required to ensure the “correct jobs were booked.”
4. In all it said the property was at a “lettable standard” at the tenancy start date and explained that some repairs had only been identified once the resident had moved in. It recognised it was “not satisfactory” to move into a property where repairs were needed. It offered compensation of £250 for the time and trouble to resolve the matter.
5. It confirmed it had shared the resident’s concerns with the driveway with its occupation therapy service. It found an assessment was required but explained there could be a 7 to 9 month wait to complete.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident as part of its complaint investigation. It promised further inspections for the pest issue, the rubbish in the garden, the guttering, the leak from the loft, the back door, the kitchen electrical socket, and the crack in the external living room wall. However, there is no evidence it completed investigations for any of these issues as promised. It would go on to take further action on the issues over 12 months later as follows:
1. On 8 December 2023 it repaired holes in the kitchen and bathroom that rodents were entering from. On the same day it partially removed asbestos material from the garden but was unable to remove the rest. It sought further advice on this. It is unclear if the asbestos material was completely removed.
2. It wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023 explaining following an occupation therapy assessment on 9 November 2023 that it had rejected the request to extend the driveway. It said its decision was final unless new relevant information was provided.
3. It attended to repair the backdoor on 21 December but found it sent the wrong tradesman. It cancelled the work without raising a follow-up. It reraised the work on 12 April 2024 but is unclear if this has been completed.
The landlord’s occupational therapist completed its assessment on 9 November 2023 recommending the driveway be extended. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023. It confirmed its panel determined on 29 November 2023 the property was not suitable to adapt. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 20 March 2024. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, she said she wanted compensation and an inspection of the property to address the outstanding issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

The resident said that her health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of disrepair at her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
In further correspondence with the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the resident has reported further issues with trees in her front and back garden. There is no evidence of the resident raising the issue of the tree in the front garden before the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 November 2022. Furthermore, the resident raised concerns about the stump left in her back garden when a tree was cut down there. Action to cut the tree down was completed after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The resident has also told the Ombudsman about further issues with her windows and rear door which arose after the landlord’s final complaint response. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and provide its final complaint response to this aspect. The resident can raise with the Ombudsman any formal response the landlord may provide on the matter if she remains dissatisfied.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (paragraph 34) confirms that we will look at complaints that relate to a qualifying tenant’s occupation of a property. Paragraph 41 of the Scheme also confirms that we will not look at complaints involving Local Housing Authorities that do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. In this instance, we would not consider the landlord’s social services response. This includes the progression of the occupational therapist appointment and associated final decision. Any aspects of the complaint that do not sit within the remit of this Service may be issues that the resident can progress with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s health issues and its handling of her request for adaptations and reasonable adjustments to be made.

The resident has considerable health issues. It is of concern when asked the landlord was unable to provide details of whether it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is noted the landlord completed disability assessments for the resident on 16 December 2019 and 9 November 2023. However, these were in relation to the resident’s request for adaptations to the property only. There is no evidence of the landlord completing risk assessments of the resident and her family at any point.
A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlord’s decision-making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that consider factors such as household vulnerability. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family at the property. It must then take any further appropriate action, as necessary. Had the landlord accurately recorded the resident or her son as vulnerable it may have been able to prioritise much of the repairs which were delayed for a significant period. Its failure to do this prolonged the issue for the vulnerable resident and her family, causing much detriment to them.
In her complaint escalation of 1 August 2022, the resident asked for reasonable adjustments to be put into place. She asked for a single point of contact (SPOC) to respond to regarding her repair issues. She said the landlord had rejected her requests to do this. The resident also asked for all further correspondence to be put into writing.
There is no evidence the landlord put a SPOC into place, there were numerous repairs arranged following the resident’s request. This caused further concern to the resident who was dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach and rejected further inspections. This had some impact on the landlord’s ability to complete inspections from 21 October. However, the landlord should have acted appropriately in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. This should have been to put the reasonable adjustments in place and reassure the resident about the action it was taking. The landlord’s failure to do this affected the trust the resident had in the landlord, causing her unwillingness to accept further inspections. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to implementing the adjustments in a way that worked to support the resident’s health concerns.
It is of further concern in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 19 April 2024 the landlord raised its awareness that it had not inspected all issues raised by the resident on 21 October 2022. It advised it had difficulty in arranging appointments with the resident. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. The resident has told the Ombudsman the issues remain unresolved. The landlord had the opportunity when corresponding with the Ombudsman to attempt to rectify its failure to check the issues and inspect and resolve them. Its failure to act proactively in this respect has prolonged the issues and is evidence of it not acting in a resolution-focused manner.
In the inspection of 24 June 2022, the landlord found the driveway to be appropriate for the property. It is unclear what prompted this consideration. The landlord would confirm these findings in its stage 1 complaint response. In her complaint escalation the resident detailed her health, mobility issues and use of a Motability vehicle. The landlord referred the issue to its occupational therapist for advice as a result, as part of its stage 2 complaint response. It determined an assessment was required. This was appropriate action to take, and the landlord managed the resident’s expectations on the timescale for the assessment to take place. However, had the landlord had full awareness of the landlord’s health at stage 1 it could have taken these steps much sooner. Its failure to do this meant it delayed occupational therapy involvement for over 3 months.
Following the stage 2 complaint response of 10 November 2022 the landlord did not make a referral for “major adaptations” to the property until 24 February 2023. This further delayed the assessment for the resident by a further 3 months. The assessment was then completed on 9 November 2023. From the February 2023 referral this was in line with the 7-9 months for completion. It notified the resident of its final decision on 12 December 2023. It advised following a panel review that it “deemed the property not suitable to adapt.” It appropriately provided alternative information for the resident. It suggested using Homeswapper or mutual exchange. It also acted reasonably in suggesting it could decant the resident until a “permanent solution” was found.
In summary the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s health issues and its handling of her request for adaptations and reasonable adjustments to be made. The landlord failed to effectively exhibit awareness of the resident’s health issues and offer necessary support. As such it failed to complete a risk assessment of the resident and her family throughout the period of the complaint. It also failed to appropriately implement reasonable adjustments for an extended period, causing the resident’s trust in the landlord to be affected. There were numerous repairs and inspections taking place and the landlord failed to implement a SPOC as a reasonable adjustment. It did not do this for a protracted period causing the resident’s total dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. A risk assessment may have supported the landlord in prioritising and managing the resident’s case, but it failed to consider this.
Had the landlord understood the resident’s health at the earliest possible point it could have taken steps to refer the driveway issues to occupational health at stage 1. Its failure to do this meant it did not complete this and provide a final response on the issue for over 17 months. The landlord will be ordered to pay compensation of £300 for failing to support the resident with her health over a prolonged period. This delayed the outcome for potential driveway adaptations and affected the resident’s ability to manage her complaint. Following failure to appropriately implement reasonable adjustments, further orders will be made. This will be to arrange a SPOC within the landlord to manage further repairs. It must also correspond with the resident by her preferred choice where appropriate.

The resident’s reports of the property condition at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord failed to provide a copy of its relevant policies relating to repairs, vulnerabilities, pest control, damp and mould and adaptations when asked by the Ombudsman. The landlord also failed to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. This has hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Information has been located on the landlord’s website regarding its repair policy. This confirms it is responsible for the roof, walls, floors and ceiling, gutters, and external doors. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure of the property and installations provided.
The landlord’s repair guide sets out priorities for repairs including:
1. Urgent repairs – 24 hours for repairs involving a health and safety risk.
2. Less urgent repairs – 3 days for repairs interfering with a resident’s comfort.
3. Non-urgent repairs – 15 days for repairs causing inconvenience or to maintain a property in a reasonable condition.
4. The guide gives examples of timescales for repairs such as 1 day for resolving heating and hot water loss, or a blocked drain.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of hazards or risks.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said many of the repair issues had been present since moving in. She told the landlord she had been referred to discuss the issues with the subcontractor’s void team. She was told they were responsible for the condition of the property from void. She told the landlord no one got back to her on the issue. The landlord failed to address the subcontractor’s failure to communicate with the resident. It only took some action to raise concerns about the subcontractor voids manager in her escalated complaint. It referred the issue to the subcontractor to deal with, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence it investigated the subcontractor’s management of the void, and it did not address this fully in its complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response provided a generalised response to its approach to void inspection. It told her some issues would “only be noticed when (she) moved in.” Although this may be the case, the landlord had the opportunity to review both it and the subcontractor’s actions on the matter. It could have used this to determine if the inspection and works were comprehensive and sufficient. We would expect a landlord to be able to document its void process. This includes inspections and the details of any works completed during this period. The fact the landlord contracts the void process to a subcontractor is not relevant, as the subcontractor acts on its behalf. The absence of any records on the void process indicates a general concern about the landlord’s record keeping and contract management. As such it provides no reassurance about the landlord’s final response that the property was let to a “suitable standard.”
The resident raised her concerns on several issues on 28 April 2022 in her initial complaint. Other than the damp and mould issue, extractor fans issue and pest issue, the landlord did not inspect or raise repairs for the 10 plus other issues until 24 June. By the time this took place 57 days had passed. This exceeded the landlord’s policy to complete non-urgent repairs in 15 days on all the remaining issues. This caused ongoing concern for the resident who was left uncertain if the landlord was actively looking to investigate her concerns. The landlord’s response to each of the issues is detailed in respective subgroups below.

Leaks, damp, and mould.

The landlord inspected the damp and mould at the property on 17 May 2022. It found it needed to install an airbrick under the stairs in the property. It arranged and completed this on 1 August 2022. From the date of raising the repair, this took 76 days to complete. This was 61 days beyond the timescale in its policy. Its failure to complete this failed to deal with the root cause of the damp and mould for a prolonged period.
From the initial inspection of 17 May 2022 there is no evidence of the landlord raising a damp and mould wash at the property. This was despite the resident’s MP further reporting damp and mould on 22 June. A mould wash was recommended during the landlord inspection on 24 June. However, the landlord failed to raise this until 19 August. It completed the mould wash on 22 August. It exceeded the timescale in its policy by 44 days. The resident chased this in her complaint escalation of 1 August and the landlord should have expedited raising the mould wash.
Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at her property herself over a prolonged period. It was delayed in repairing the root cause of the issue and did not complete mould washes over a prolonged period. It did not demonstrate it considered other options such as dehumidifiers. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
In her initial complaint of 28 April 2022, the resident said there was a leak from her loft to her bedroom. During the inspection of 24 June, the landlord explained there was no reoccurring leak and marks on the ceiling were from a previous leak that had been painted over. It said the resident was “satisfied” the issue was not a concern anymore. It appropriately clarified this in its stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
The resident reported further leaks from her loft on 21 October 2022. She said the last time she noticed the leak was in July 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2022. It responded only regarding the presence of a leak when the resident moved in. It said there had been no leaks since 2017. This is of concern, as part of its complaint investigation it received the resident’s further report of a leak on 21 October. In its stage 2 response, it told the resident to report further loft leaks directly to its subcontractor. In further correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged it failed to arrange a further inspection of the reported leak. It said however it had no further reports from the resident on the matter from October 2022.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the issue is not resolved. She said watermarks “continue to spread” and assumes there is a “slow leak” from the loft. There are concerns about the landlord’s position on the leak issues, given the lack of reliable information on this. In the circumstances given the resident’s recent update the landlord will be ordered to inspect the issue and ascertain if works are required. The resident raised no further issues with damp and mould at the property in her update to the Ombudsman in November 2024. As such no orders will be made on this matter.

Exterior building issues.

The resident raised issues with cracks in the property’s exterior walls and guttering on 28 April 2022. The landlord’s inspection of 24 June recommended extending the guttering to “stop water damage to the roof and surrounding brickwork.” It failed to address this point in its stage 1 response leaving the resident uncertain on its approach to the issue. The resident raised its failure to address this in her escalation. The landlord did not raise inspection and further repair until 19 August. It completed a repair to the brickwork and cleared the gutters in an appropriate timescale from raising the repair, on 23 August. However, the total time to complete the repair exceeded the timescale in its policy, taking 60 days from the inspection to complete.
The resident raised further issues with the gutters on 21 October 2022. She said they were installed too low, causing leaks. She also raised further concerns about external wall cracks which she believed were “structural.” The landlord said it would further investigate both issues but there is no evidence it ever went on to do this.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024, the resident did not raise the issue with the guttering. She did however state the cracks in the exterior walls were “not resolved.” She believed interior wall cracks in her living room were related to the exterior issue. From the resident’s further reports of 21 October 2022, the issue with the exterior crack has been ongoing for over 24 months. This has caused concern to the resident who is worried about “subsidence” at the property. Given the landlord failed to inspect the cracks at the property as it agreed, over a prolonged period and order will be made on the matter. The landlord must complete a further inspection of the cracks in the exterior and interior walls and take appropriate action, as necessary.

Kitchen issues.

The resident told the landlord on 28 April 2022 that her kitchen cabinets were “not completed” and there was a “gap where a cabinet should be.” The inspection report of 24 June recommended fitting 2 further cabinets. It stated in its stage 1 response it “would not consider extra cupboards”. This caused much confusion to the resident who believed cabinets would be fitted. The landlord later admitted in its stage 2 response it got this wrong. It apologised for a “breakdown in communications” and had fitted additional wall units. It is unclear on the date on which this was completed.
On 21 October 2022, the resident reported the new kitchen cabinets had been installed behind her kitchen door and this meant it could not open properly. The landlord told the Ombudsman in March 2024 the resident “had the choice of where the kitchen units were installed.” However, there is no evidence of it inspecting the issue from October 2022 or from March 2024 to determine if it could make adjustments. The resident told the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the landlord had advised her it would “change the opening of the kitchen door” but it had not done this. It is unclear when the landlord stated it would complete this, however, an order will be set for the landlord to further inspect this and complete appropriate work as required.
The resident raised in her complaint escalation of 1 August 2022 that her kitchen ceiling was cracked. She would later state the smell of food was escaping into her daughter’s bedroom which was above the kitchen. The landlord appropriately arranged an inspection of the issue on 24 August. It found a “deterioration in the ducting,” which it said it would renew. Its records state it was unable to arrange a further appointment with the resident, so no appointment was booked.
However, the resident raised the issue again on 21 October 2022. She stated the kitchen ceiling was warped and appeared to be holding water. She said cooking smells were continuing to enter her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord stated it would arrange a further inspection. There is no evidence of the landlord arranging this. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, it stated it had “difficulty in arranging appointments” with the resident. There is no further evidence of the resident reporting the issue to the landlord. In the circumstances, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the issue and take appropriate action as necessary.

Electrical issues.

The landlord completed a domestic electrical certificate for the property on 14 March 2022, prior to the resident moving in. This included the safety of the electrical sockets and extractor fans at the property. This ensured the property met the Electrical Safety Standards for the resident moving in.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response of 26 July 2022 that it had discussed the safety of the electrical socket in the kitchen during its inspection on 24 June. It told her it had explained the socket “did not pose a threat to her safety.” The resident refuted this in her complaint escalation of 1 August. She said she had told the landlord on 14 June her microwave had been damaged by water. The landlord took appropriate steps on 17 August to obtain a second opinion on the socket proximity in the kitchen. It found the socket was compliant and fitted with a safety component to protect against electrocution. It appropriately shared this information with the resident in its stage 2 response of 10 November. The landlord’s delay in providing the complaint response meant it was not able to offer reassurance for a prolonged period.
In its stage 2 response the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that it had not discussed the socket during its inspection on 24 June. It should have done so to ensure it was listening and acting on the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address the issue of the damage to the resident’s microwave. It could have directed her to claim on her own home contents insurance or given details for its insurer. Its failure to do this left the resident uncertain about what further steps she could take on the matter. It also caused the resident to believe it was not listening to all her concerns and was not resolution focused.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord “refused” to add electrical sockets to the other side of the kitchen where there is “no water.” The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of correspondence between the landlord and resident on this. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider this and provide a further response.
The resident reported on 28 April 2022 that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were “noisy” and worked “intermittently”. The inspection of 24 June confirmed both had been replaced, but it is unclear when exactly this took place. The Ombudsman is unable to establish if this took place within 15 days within the landlord’s policy. However, the resident did not raise concerns about this in her complaint escalation or correspondence with the Ombudsman.

Windows and doors.

The resident raised issues with her windows and rear door on 28 April 2022. She said the windows were not locked and there were no keys. She also said the rear door was “not a proper exterior door” and was “not working.” It told the resident in its stage 1 response of 26 July it “checked and adjusted” all windows on 19 May 2022. It did not address the standard of the rear door in its response, leaving the issue unresolved for the resident. She confirmed in her complaint escalation of 1 August the windows were in “working order”. She raised the issue of her external rear door again as this was outstanding. The landlord overhauled the door on 19 August. In total it took 119 days to complete this, far exceeding the timescale in its policy. It stated internally it “did not need replacing just due to its age.” It managed the resident’s expectations on the matter appropriately in its stage 2 response. It explained the action it had taken and its internal decision about not replacing the door.

Pest control.

On 28 April 2022, the resident reported mice were underneath her water tank and there were various holes in the property. The landlord acted appropriately arranging an inspection on 18 May. It is unclear what action took place to address the mice reported at the property. However, it recommended work to deal with the root cause of the issue. This included removing the water tank and any holes to be “proofed.” It also recommended the back door have a bristle strip installed. This was all completed on 3 August. This took the landlord 77 days to complete. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 52 days.
On 21 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord, that not all mesh covers had been installed to prevent mice entering the property. The landlord said it would arrange a further inspection of this, however there is no further evidence it completed this. It confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response of 10 November the work was complete and was “pleased” the resident had no further issues. This was in contradiction to its promise to inspect the outstanding issues, which was not complete at this point. This confused the resident on whether it was appropriately managing the situation. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the resident said all holes had not been covered. The landlord will be ordered to complete further inspection of the mice entry points and take any further appropriate action.

Garden issues.

The resident reported several “dangerous” items and fencing had been left in her garden on 28 April 2022. The landlord did not inspect this until 24 June. It should have inspected this much sooner under its responsibilities under HHSRS to ensure it could manage any risk to the resident and her family. Its failure to inspect this left the family in a potentially hazardous environment. The inspection of 24 June determined the dangerous items had been left by the resident as they were not present on photos when the property was void. It recommended informing the resident it was her responsibility to remove it. It explained this to her in its stage 1 response. It said it had completed a further inspection on 15 July. This was incorrect, as would later be established the landlord cancelled this appointment and asked for photos from the resident instead. It would never go on to address this with the resident, giving concern as to whether it was focused on resolution.
On 17 September 2022, the landlord began to remove the “dangerous items” from the garden. It would later confirm in its stage 2 response that its stage 1 response was inaccurate. It found the items were “hidden” during the 24 June inspection. This suggests the inspection was not completed comprehensively and missed the opportunity to address the “dangerous items” in the garden. It found on 17 September the items in the garden contained asbestos. It took action to remove appropriately remove the items on 23 September and 18 October.
In total, it took 142 days to start to remove the items from the garden. This was due in part to the landlord’s failure to comprehensively assess the garden and inaccurate information. The resident and her family were left with potentially hazardous material in the garden, which could have had significant impact on their health. This is particularly concerning as the landlord initially advised the resident removal of the items was “her responsibility.”
There was a failure with the landlord’s record keeping and internal communications on 19 October 2022 when it said, “all asbestos was removed in the previous week.” This is highlighted by the resident raising on 21 October 2022 that asbestos remained in the ground and the subcontractor could not remove it. The landlord told her the same day it would carry out a further inspection, but this was never completed. The resident reported the issues over 12 months later, on 8 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the same day it needed to take further advice on what action to take to remove the asbestos.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the resident stated the asbestos remains partly in the ground. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord has a separate asbestos policy. However, the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012 confirms a landlord must implement an action plan containing measures to manage the risk. It must also provide information to those likely to disturb the asbestos. There is no evidence that the landlord took either of these steps at any time. As such it is unclear if it was aware of the potential risk to the resident and her family. This was not in keeping with CAR 2012 and HHSRS. This caused much distress and inconvenience to the resident who was worried about the impact on her family for over 24 months. The landlord will be ordered to take steps to manage the asbestos in the garden with urgency in accordance with CAR 2012.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response removal of the fencing was the resident’s responsibility to remove. It would not repeat this in its stage 2 response or address whether it would remove the fencing. This caused uncertainty for the resident. She told the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024 the fencing remains in the garden. The landlord will be ordered to provide a definitive response to the resident on which party is responsible for removing the fencing in her garden. If it is responsible it should arrange to move this urgently.
The resident raised on 28 April 2022 that there was no lock to the back garden gate, and it was “flimsy.” The landlord did not investigate until 24 June. As a result, it raised for a locksmith to inspect and take appropriate action. It did not respond to this point in its stage 1 complaint response, leaving the resident uncertain if action would be taken. The resident did not raise the issue in her complaint escalation. The landlord completed the repair to the latch on 26 August. This took 63 days to complete, beyond its 15-day timescale.

Compensation relating to repairs/property condition at the tenancy start date.

The landlord offered no compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. Although it apologised for delays in inspecting and organising appointment dates it should have considered compensation for the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, it offered £250 compensation total for the “time and trouble” to resolve the “matter”. The resident confirmed in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 4 November 2024, that the landlord failed to pay this amount to her. The landlord failed to provide its Compensation Policy to the Ombudsman when asked. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the offer by the landlord would suggest the impact on the resident to be reduced with no permanent impact over a shorter period. This was not proportionate to the findings in this report and the total detriment suffered by the resident, for the following reasons.
1. It failed to investigate and address the standard of the property when left from void. It should have done this in unison with the subcontractor to determine why a number of issues that should have been apparent were missed.
2. The landlord failed to investigate or raise repairs for 57 days between 28 April and 24 June 2022. The delay caused the issues to remain unresolved for the resident causing uncertainty and inconvenience to her.
3. All repairs raised from 24 June 2022 exceeded the landlord’s timescale of 15 days in its policy for non-urgent repairs. These were as follows:
  1. 76 days to install the airbrick and 59 days to complete a mould wash. It failed to arrange other options such as dehumidifiers during this period.
  2. 60 days to repair the guttering and respective crack in the exterior wall of the property.
  3. 77 days to address the root cause of the pest issue. This included removing and proofing the water tank and any holes and fitting a bristle strip to the rear door. This caused uncertainty and worry to the resident that mice would re-enter the property.
  4. 119 days to overhaul the rear door to the property. It failed to work properly through this time causing inconvenience and concern to the resident on her safety.
  5. 142 days to begin removing dangerous items from the garden. This caused worry and distress to the resident regarding the potential impact on her and her family. The landlord has not provided evidence it managed the asbestos at the property appropriately during this time.
  6. 63 days to complete the lock to repair to back garden gate. This left the gate unsecured and of worry to the resident through this period.
4. It provided inaccurate information in its stage 1 response regarding the installation of kitchen cabinets and removal of items in the garden. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident regarding the landlord’s communication and approach.
5. The landlord failed to refer the resident to make a claim on insurance for damage to her microwave. This could have been the resident’s or landlord’s insurer. Its failure to do this caused uncertainty to the resident.
6. The landlord was delayed in providing reassurance on the safety of the electrical socket in the kitchen. It waited to provide this in its (delayed) stage 2 response. However, this caused uncertainty and worry for the resident throughout this period.
7. From further reports from the resident on 21 October the landlord failed to complete a further inspection as it advised it would. This meant important issues such as the presence and management of asbestos, further leaks and external cracks have never been resolved for over 2 years.
In summary the landlord’s position that the property had been let to a suitable standard was not supported by the evidence made available to this investigation. This was given its lack of records and the nature and extent of the repairs issues that were subsequently identified. Following the resident’s initial report in April 2022 the landlord appropriately inspected the pest and damp and mould issues. It was delayed by nearly two months in inspecting the other issues. These were issues that had the potential to impact the health and safety of the resident and her family. It was delayed in completing all repairs which was not in accordance with its Repairs Policy.
The landlord was delayed in arranging a SPOC and when it did the resident raised several follow-up issues. The landlord failed to complete a further inspection as it had promised to do. This was in part due to its failure to implement reasonable adjustments for the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord acting proactively to overcome the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs. As such it never inspected or resolved outstanding repairs. These involved important issues such as asbestos, for which the landlord has not evidenced it acted in accordance with HHSRS or CAR 2012. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord paid the compensation it awarded to the resident.
In all circumstances of the case, a determination of severe maladministration has been found. Compensation of £2000 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This is £1750 more than the £250 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report. This includes consideration of external and internal cracks, sealing holes at the property, issues with the back door and potential leaks from the roof and loft. It must also inspect the impact of a potential leak in the kitchen and fumes escaping from the kitchen impacting the upstairs bedroom. It must also confirm its position regarding the fencing in the garden and implement an action plan regarding the remaining asbestos urgently.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it will ensure residents are treated fairly and consistently. It will complete a “proper and adequate” investigation before it takes any action. It has a “proud to serve” value that it will listen to and treat those who use its services as “valued customers.” It will treat all complaints fairly, regardless of a person’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It will provide information in a way which is “clear, accessible and in an appropriate format.”
The landlord has two stages of its complaints process. The landlord’s policy provides no information if upon receiving a complaint it clarifies the details with the resident. It also provides no information relating to timescales for acknowledging complaints. At the time of the resident’s complaint, it responded to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has confirmed since responding to the resident it has updated its policy. It now responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy does confirm where its complaint response exceeds its timescale it will speak to the resident and agree to a revised timescale. This will not exceed 10 working days, and it will keep the resident up to date on its progress.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 28 April 2022. The landlord sent an ‘auto-reply’ email in response the same day. However, there is no evidence of it formally acknowledging the complaint or clarifying the details of the resident’s concerns. In accordance with the Code, it should have done this within 5 working days of the complaint being received. It should also have made clear what aspects of the complaint it was responsible for. Its failure to acknowledge the complaint left the resident uncertain about whether it was actively investigating her concerns.
The resident’s MP chased the complaint response with the landlord on 27 May and 22 June. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the MP until 15 July, when it apologised for the delay in its response. It had the opportunity to clarify when it would reply here but did not do so. Its delay in confirming if it was investigating the complaint between 28 April and 15 July caused further uncertainty and distress to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 July 2022. This took the landlord 60 working days to provide, exceeding the 20-working day timescale in its policy (at the time) by 40 working days. It failed to act in accordance with its policy by failing to speak to the resident and agreeing on a new timescale. It should have done this when it was aware its response would exceed its timescale. The landlord failed to acknowledge any deficiencies with its complaint handling at stage 1. It should have apologised for its failure to acknowledge the complaint and for its delayed response.
In her complaint escalation the resident said in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord failed to address the points she had raised. She said this was regarding sparrows in her guttering and cement falling out of her wall. These points were not raised in the resident’s initial complaint of 28 April 2022. However, they were included in the landlord’s investigation report of 24 June 2022. The landlord should have included these points within its stage 1 response to ensure the resident was clear on its approach to all repair issues.
The resident raised a number of inaccuracies with the stage 1 response in her complaint escalation. These caused concern to her on how comprehensive the resident’s complaint investigation had been. The inaccuracies raised included:
1. The landlord had not completed a physical inspection of the property on 15 July 2022 as it detailed in its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord cancelled an appointment on 15 July and based its findings on photos sent by the resident. The landlord did not go on to address this inaccuracy in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. The landlord said it could not add kitchen cabinets of clear rubbish in the garden in its stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response, the landlord would acknowledge it misinformed the resident about the kitchen cabinets. However, although it took action to remove the garden rubbish it did not acknowledge its response on the matter at stage 1 was inaccurate. It did not acknowledge communication between the resident and subcontractor which contradicted the information it provided at stage 1.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 August 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint in a reasonable timeframe in accordance with the Code. It told her on 26 August it should have responded on the same day but was delayed. It agreed it would respond by 9 September. This was in accordance with its policy of agreeing to a “revised timescale.” However, by 20 September, the landlord had not replied, and the resident chased its response.
The landlord contacted her the following day to explain its complaints officer had been on “long-term sick” and was “due to return on 26 September.” It also said it had a “vast number of investigations” which is “why the case was not reallocated.” Although this was a reasonable explanation it is of concern the landlord implemented no measures to manage the resident’s expectations throughout the period. It should have contacted her at the earliest possible opportunity to keep her informed on the situation.
There is no evidence of the landlord managing the resident’s expectations following its contact of 20 September until 21 October when it discussed the case with her. By this point, 58 working days had already passed since the resident’s escalation and 23 working days since it last contacted her. The landlord provided its complaint reply on 10 November taking 72 working days in total to provide. The Ombudsman acknowledges there were mitigating factors affecting the landlord’s ability to respond. However, its management of this was inappropriate, leaving the resident confused about what action it was taking. After acknowledging the delay to the resident, it was further delayed in responding to the resident and outside of its timescale for response.
The landlord agreed in its complaint discussion of 21 October 2022 to complete a further inspection for several repair issues. The landlord would also confirm this in its stage 2 response. However, there is no evidence of the inspections taking place on any of the issues. The landlord would also acknowledge this in correspondence with the Ombudsman. As such the landlord was not appropriately managing the remedies of its response. This meant the resident was left uncertain about what further action it would take to support her.
The landlord provided inaccurate information in its stage 2 complaint response. On 21 October 2022 as part of its complaint investigation, it established there was asbestos stuck in the ground outside that required further investigation. This was never resolved until the resident raised the issue over 12 months later. However, in the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said, “all debris was removed”. This was inaccurate and confused the resident who believed the landlord still had the matter in hand. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response it would have been “one point of contact” for the case. At the time of its response, several repairs were outstanding for inspection, as earlier mentioned. There is no evidence the landlord put a single point of contact in place to manage the outstanding repairs. Had it done so, it may have been able to manage the further investigations that were not completed.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay in its response. However, it acknowledged no other complaint handling failures and offered no compensation relating to its complaint-handling. The Ombudsman has considered compensation for the total detriment caused to the resident and for the following reasons:
1. It failed to acknowledge the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint response in an appropriate timescale. This was not in accordance with the Code.
2. Both of its complaint responses took longer than the timescale in its response. Its stage 1 response exceeded the timescale by 40 working days. Its stage 2 response exceeded the timescale by 52 working days.
3. There were failings in the landlord’s communication. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations at stage 1 for over 2 months. The resident was forced to chase the resident for answers, obtaining support from her MP to do this. At stage 2 it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about internal issues it was having. After it went on to provide this information, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about further delays.
4. It provided inaccurate information regarding 3 matters in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged 1 in its stage 2 reply but failed to apologise for all 3 inaccuracies. The landlord also provided inaccurate information in its stage 2 response regarding the asbestos removal. The inaccurate information caused concern to the resident on her trust in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. The landlord failed to manage further inspection of the repair issues as promised to the resident on 21 October and 10 November 2022. There is no evidence it put a single point of contact in place which may have supported this. This affected the resident’s trust in the landlord being resolution focused.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy and the Code in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response time and its communication with the resident. Its handling of the complaint was inappropriate throughout with the resident left uncertain of its approach.
Other than apologising for its delayed stage 2 response the landlord failed to address failings in its complaint handling and did not apologise or offer appropriate compensation. There were several inaccuracies in its responses for which it failed to apologise. It did not adhere to the actions it agreed in its complaint response, prolonging the detriment to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £400 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with a moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s health issues and its handling of her request for adaptations and reasonable adjustments to be made.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the property upon moving in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager from the landlord is ordered to apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of the property condition, its response to her health and its complaint handling failures.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2700 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £2000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of disrepair in the resident’s property.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to the resident’s health and request for adjustments and adaptations.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  4. The amounts above include the £250 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint procedure for the above issues, if not already paid.
3. The landlord must complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family, taking any further action as appropriate. This must include updating its records regarding any vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.
The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord must carry out a senior management review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to its senior management team, the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
  1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
  2. Why it was delayed in completing all work raised within its timescale in its Repairs Policy.
2. The landlord must complete the following in relation to the outstanding repairs at the property. It must provide the outcome of the following in a report to the Ombudsman and resident.
  1. It must appoint a single point of contact to manage outstanding and further repairs to the property. It must correspond with the resident by email wherever possible.
  2. It must arrange for a further inspection of the property. This should include consideration of external and internal cracks, sealing holes at the property, issues with the back door and potential leaks from the roof and loft. It must also inspect the impact of a potential leak in the kitchen and fumes escaping from the kitchen impacting the upstairs bedroom. It must take appropriate action as necessary and provide the Ombudsman and resident with the outcome of this.
  3. It must determine whether it or the resident is responsible for the removal of the fencing in the garden. It must explain its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman. If it is responsible, it must take action to remove the fencing.
  4. It must urgently complete an action plan for the management of the remaining asbestos in the garden in accordance with CAR 2012. It must share this report with the resident and the Ombudsman. It must confirm what steps it has taken to manage the asbestos.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to install an electrical socket on the wall opposite the sink in the kitchen as requested by the resident. It should provide the resident with its findings on the matter.