London Borough of Croydon (202323686)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323686

London Borough of Croydon

11 September 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 resident’s rehousing application.
2. An incident that occurred at its offices.
3. The resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
4. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. The resident’s concern about domestic abuse.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all of the evidence the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Due to overcrowding, concern for the safety of her son, her reported medical conditions, and concerns about domestic abuse from her ex partner, the resident submitted a rehousing application to the landlord. The resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application in her stage 2 complaint, on 4 January 2023.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
The resident’s rehousing application falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), and was dealt with by the landlord within its capacity as the local authority. As such, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman, and the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application.

The landlord’s handling of an incident that occurred at its offices

In September 2023, an incident occurred at the landlord’s offices, where it was alleged, the resident assaulted a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord launched an investigation and sought to interview the resident. The resident denied the allegation and claimed somebody had impersonated her at the landlord’s offices.
When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, on 28 November 2023, she asked us to consider the landlord’s handling of the incident and the associated investigation. She claimed the landlord had made a “false allegation” against her and had not properly investigated the issue.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
While the serious nature of the resident’s concerns are noted, this aspect of her complaint is not within our jurisdiction. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the resident raised a formal complaint about this matter. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concern as part of a formal complaint response, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she lives in a 3 bedroom ground floor maisonette, and her tenancy started in September 2002. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to her, and her household members, having health conditions. Throughout her complaint the resident reported that she considered herself to have a disability.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 11 October 2022. She said that she was experiencing harassment from her neighbour, and was living with mould in the property.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2022. It said the complaint was about a “delay in providing services”. It acknowledged the concerns the resident had about her ex partner and said it would be guided by the local authority domestic abuse support service on how best to support its residents, and it understood her case was closed with the support service.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and emailed it on 4 January 2023 to ask her complaint to be escalated. The resident said some aspects of her complaint had not been addressed such as mould in her property, and “harassment” from her neighbour. She said she felt she was being “fobbed off” by being told to contact its support service for domestic abuse, as the support service had told her to seek support from the landlord.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 1 March 2023. It apologised that not all the concerns raised were addressed in its stage 1 response. It said any concerns about harassment should be reported to her tenancy officer, and did not uphold that part of her complaint. It said the resident’s “reluctance” to engage meant the local authority support service had closed her domestic abuse case. It accepted the resident had reported repairs related to damp and mould, in February 2022. It said it had passed on the reports to its contractor to be “looked into”.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023 and said she had heard “nothing” about the repairs since March 2023. The landlord initially advised the resident to contact this Service, but in July 2023 it referred the resident’s complaint to its ‘housing complaints panel’ and apologised for the delay in doing so.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord arranged a mould wash, and some follow on works in the resident’s bathroom. It reported that the mould in the bathroom was “extremely bad”. It does not appear the mould wash, or follow on works, took place at that time.
The landlord sent the resident its housing complaints panel findings on 7 September 2023. It said the issues raised in the resident’s complaint were “fully addressed” at stage 2. It understood that it had “recently” visited and there were works scheduled to address the damp and mould.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord “refused” to consider the “harassment” she experienced from her neighbour, and the “risk” posed by her ex partner. She said the damp and mould was still a concern, and it was “jeopardising” her health.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s website gives information about its repair priorities. It states that for repairs classed as an emergency it will attend within 2 hours. For “non urgent” repairs it says it aims to attend within 15 days.
When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, in November 2023, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her, and her children’s health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
Following a leak at the resident’s property, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection in 2019. Around this time the landlord completed remedial works to the property. Due to the passage of time, the landlord’s handling of the repairs back in 2019 is not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme that states we can only investigate matters that were brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable timeframe (usually 6 months). As such, this investigation has focused on the events leading up to when the resident complained in October 2022.
The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted that it was on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould from February 2022. The exact date the resident reports the concern is unclear, as it is not present within the repair logs provided. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to its overall poor response to the matter. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any action in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at this time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed by the conditions she was reporting. That the landlord did not raise an inspection at this time inconvenienced the resident and contributed to her ongoing distress.
There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any action in relation to the concerns about damp and mould when it was on notice from February 2022 to when the resident complained in October 2022. The resident was cost time and trouble in needing to raise the matter as a formal complaint to try and get the landlord to take action. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, in October 2022, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to inspect at that time, which is a further failing in its handling of the matter.
That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2022, was silent on the damp and mould was unreasonable and lacked learning. The evidence shows the landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns with the appropriate thoroughness. It is reasonable to conclude that an appropriately thorough complaint investigation would have identified that it had not raised any inspections since the resident reported damp and mould, in February 2022. The resident was caused a further inconvenience of the landlord not appropriately addressing her concerns, and seeking to put right its evident failings up to that point.
After the resident expressed her frustration at its lack of response to this issue, in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord did seek to investigate the matter further, which was appropriate. Internal emails, from February 2023, indicated it found the resident had reported the matter in February 2022, and it said it had “recently” asked a contractor to look into the matter. That this took place a year after it was on notice was an unreasonable delay. This unreasonable delay increased the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. She was cost further time and trouble by needing to repeatedly raise her concerns about the matter before the landlord sought to take action.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of March 2023, offered no assessment of its handling the damp, mould, and associated repairs up to that point. This was unreasonable and lacked transparency. The evidence shows that its complaint investigation had identified it had been on notice for a year. That it failed to show learning about the delay, and apologise, was inappropriate and did little to build trust with the resident. She was, again, inconvenienced by a complaint investigation that was dismissive of her concerns about the condition of her property.
The evidence shows that despite completing an inspection in March 2023, that identified repairs related to the damp and mould, the landlord did not take the appropriate action. This caused a further delay. An internal email, from August 2023, shows that the repairs identified were “dormant” and had not been picked up. This is concerning as the email also described the mould in the bathroom as “extremely bad”. The evidence shows that the landlord’s management of the repairs was poor, and its internal record keeping processes impacted on its response to the resident’s reports. This further unreasonable delay of 6 months, where very little happened on the repairs, increased the distress, and inconvenience the resident experienced.
Despite identifying that the damp and mould in the bathroom had got “extremely bad” by August 2023, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to conduct a specialist inspection at that time. This was unreasonable and evidence the landlord did not adopt the approach recommended in our spotlight report on damp and mould. The spotlight report states that an approach that sought to “properly inspect and remedy issues was crucial to being able to identify root causes” of damp and mould.
It is apparent that the landlord did not conduct an appropriately thorough assessment of the property to identify possible “root causes” of the damp and mould. Considering the resident reported the concern was ongoing when she brought her complaint to this Service, an appropriate order is set out below.
The evidence shows that after the landlord raised an urgent mould wash in August 2023, it did not go ahead, as its contractor attended the wrong property. The mould wash was raised again in September 2023, which was a further month delay. This further supports the conclusion that the landlord’s information management around the issue was poor, which contributed to the delays.
From the records available it is not possible to determine if the mould wash, and follow on works (replacement of extractor fans, a door, flooring, damaged tiles, sink unit) went ahead. There is no recorded outcome on the landlord’s repair logs provided for this investigation. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns about the issue, an appropriate order is set out below.
The landlord’s housing complaint panel (stage 3) response, of September 2023, also showed no learning about its handling of the repairs. It simply set out that repairs would be going ahead. This was inappropriate and lacked learning. The landlord missed another opportunity to show learning, build trust, and offer redress to try and put right its evident failings.
The landlord took very little action when it was put on notice about the matter, in February 2022, and by the time it raised further repairs the bathroom had got “extremely bad”. We have therefore determined it appropriate to order the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. The period for this calculation for loss of amenity is from February 2022 (when it was first put on notice) to September 2023 (when it issued its final complaint response).
As part of the calculation this Service has factored in that the rent for the first 13 months of this period was £604.84 per month, and for the remaining 5 months the rent was £641.64. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £1,107.11 in compensation for loss of amenity. This figure has been calculated as follows:
1. 10% of the rent for the first 13 months, £60.48 X 13 = £786.29.
2. 10% of the rent for the remaining 5 months, 64.16 X 5 = £320.82.
There is no evidence to indicate the landlord took the appropriate action when the resident put it on notice in February 2022. When the resident complained, in October 2022, the landlord took no action and its complaint response was silent on her concerns about damp and mould. The landlord did raise an inspection after the resident made her stage 2 complaint, but then did not action the identified works until September 2023. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted an appropriately thorough inspection, despite identifying the conditions had become “extremely bad”. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she described, and was inconvenienced by needing to repeatedly report the issue.
It is concerning that, despite the resident raising her health conditions and the possible impact of damp and mould, that the landlord did not act with more urgency. The resident reported she considered herself to have a disability, and had multiple health conditions. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics.
The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The landlord was told by the resident that her health conditions made her particularly vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The lack of proactive action in relation to her reports is evidence the landlord did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her reported disability, and the potential impact of damp on her health.
The landlord’s failure to take the appropriate action increased the distress the resident experienced, and its lack of learning shown through the complaints process is of particular concern. The landlords record keeping was poor which impacted on its ability to respond to the reports appropriately. Considering the significant failings identified, we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.

Reports of ASB

The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it defines “harassment” as ASB. When a resident reports ASB it will “listen” to residents and “act on” reports of ASB. The procedure states it will acknowledge the report of ASB within 3 working days, and if it is taking no further action it will explain the reasons why it is closing the case. The procedure states that it will complete risk assessments to ensure it makes “balanced decision[s]” about proposed actions.
It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
There is also no evidence to indicate the landlord opened an ASB case in when the resident reported harassment, as part of her stage 1 complaint, in October 2022. Neither did it conduct a risk assessment or did an ASB action plan, in line with accepted best practice. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this was inappropriate.
The resident was distressed by what she was reporting. That the landlord did not take the appropriate action at this time contributed to that distress. Its failure to open an ASB case caused the resident an inconvenience, as she was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in her case, and was not given formal advice about steps she could take. The lack of proactive action in relation to her reports of ASB is evidence the landlord did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her reported disability, when addressing her reports of ASB.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2022, was silent on the resident’s concerns about harassment from her neighbour. This was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord did not show the appropriate learning about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The comment in its stage 1 response asking “if there is anything we can do” she should contact her housing officer, was inappropriate. Considering the resident had made a serious allegation of ASB, an appropriate investigation of her concerns, in line with its ASB procedure, would have been appropriate. Its comment was dismissive of her reports, and did little to build trust with the resident. This caused the resident further distress.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also inappropriate in terms of its handling of the reports of ASB. Its response stated certain aspects of her concerns (her neighbour’s decision to share her medical history and the fact the neighbour was in a relationship with the resident’s ex partner could not be “addressed”. While this itself was not an unreasonable position to take. The resident had reported her neighbour had harassed her. There is no evidence to indicate that it took the appropriate steps, in line with its procedure, to investigate the matter further.
It is noted the landlord needed evidence to progress with an ASB case, but it failed to provide the appropriate opportunity for the resident to provide evidence, as part of an ASB case. The comments in its stage 2 response were dismissive, and caused the resident a further inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 3 response, of September 2023, was silent on the resident’s concerns about ASB from her neighbour, which was unreasonable. Again, the landlord failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns and show learning.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate that it opened an ASB case on receipt of the resident’s complaint about ASB. It failed to appropriately apply its ASB policy by opening a case, and properly investigating her concerns. Neither have we seen evidence the landlord sought to explain why it was not pursuing a case, in line with its procedure. Given the resident reported on going concerns about harassment, when she brought her complaint to this Service, an appropriate order is set out below. Considering the failings identified we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The resident’s concern about domestic abuse

As part of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse, the landlord referred her to its centralised domestic abuse support service. The actions of that service are not within the scope of this investigation. This is because the domestic abuse service was provided to the resident by the landlord in its function as a local authority. As such we have only considered the landlord’s actions as it relates to its functions as a landlord and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
This approach is in line with that mandated by our Scheme which states we cannot assess “matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.” If the resident is dissatisfied with the actions of the local authority domestic abuse service this is a complaint more appropriately suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The evidence shows that when the resident reported a concern about a risk of domestic abuse from her ex partner, in June 2022, it referred the resident to a multi agency risk management conference (MARAC) and the local authority domestic abuse service. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and took reasonable actions at the time. We have seen no evidence of the risk assessment used as part of the referral, which is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident raised concerns about risk from her ex partner when she made her complaint in October 2022. She said she was concerned that she was at risk because he was now living a “2 minute walk” from her home. We have seen no evidence that the landlord sought to open an ASB case at that time, which was unreasonable and a failure to correctly apply its ASB procedure. Its failure to open a case, meet with the resident, and complete a risk assessment was unreasonable, considering she reported she was at risk.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to assess the resident’s security at her property, this was inappropriate. That the landlord did not explore target hardening/security measures it could offer to protect the resident was unreasonable. The resident was evidently distressed that her ex partner was now living in close proximity to her property. That the landlord did not appropriately address security measures with the resident means it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident and reduce the distress she was experiencing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. While it set out that the domestic abuse service had closed her case, that it simply encouraged the resident to contact the service again was unsupportive. The resident was evidently concerned at the situation, and felt at risk. A more supportive approach, such as offering to meet to discuss her concerns, and help with a referral to the service, would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident was evidently distressed at the position the landlord took in its stage 1 response, as evidenced in her stage 2 complaint. She explained that when the domestic abuse service closed her case it said that her housing officer, and landlord, would “support [her] where necessary” with her concerns. She said she felt the landlord was trying to “wash its hands” of supporting her. Given the concerns raised in the resident’s stage 2 complaint, its response was dismissive, which increased the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (accompanying timeline document sent to the resident) set out that the domestic abuse service case was closed and that it was expected the matter would “sit under housing”. That the landlord appeared to accept the matter now sat with it, that it did not set out what it could do to support her with her concerns about domestic abuse was unreasonable, and did little to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
It is noted that, in its stage 2 response, it advised the resident to contact the police if she felt fearful for her safety, which was appropriate. However, that it did not seek to discuss the matter further with the resident, and open an ASB case at this time, was unreasonable. The comments in its stage 3 response, of September 2023, that the resident did “not engage” with services was dismissive of her concerns. While it is noted engagement is an important part of progressing with a case, its dismissive tone did little to build trust and encourage her to engage with services. This was an unreasonable approach.
The landlord appropriately referred the resident to MARAC and its centralised domestic abuse service when the resident first reported concerns. This was appropriate in the circumstances. There is however no evidence to indicate it opened an ASB case, in line with its procedure, or took a supportive approach to encourage the resident to engage with services. This is of particular concern as she continued to report she felt at risk. Its complaint responses were dismissive and did little to build trust. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and have made a series of orders below.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord effectively operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its policy, at the time, stated that it would send stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. The complaint policy stated that if a resident was unhappy with its stage 2 response it would “ask that a designated resident panel” review the complaint “before [Ombudsman] involvement”. It did not give a timeframe in which the panel would take place. For the purpose of assessing the landlord’s complaint handling, this report refers to the panel stage as “stage 3”.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 21 November 2022, was sent 29 working days after the resident complained. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is noted that the policy, at the time, was not compliant with the Code. That it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.
The stage 1 complaint response itself lacked detail, and did not address all of the concerns the resident had raised in her complaint. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, and evidence it failed to adhere to the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. The Code states that the landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. That it did not caused the resident an inconvenience, as she was left not knowing its position on matters she had complained about.
The stage 2 complaint response, of 1 March 2023, was sent 40 working days after the complaint was made. This was an unreasonable delay, and well outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and the Code. Its failure to progress with the complaint created a protracted and unfair complaint process for the resident. Again, it did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for the delay in its response. This was unreasonable and caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for the lack of detail in its stage 1 response, which was appropriate. However, it failed to show learning about how it would improve its service to prevent similar failings, which was inappropriate. That it did not offer redress for its admitted failing was unreasonable.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. The addition of a third stage in the resident’s complaint caused confusion. It is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response set out that the complaint could be taken to its ‘housing complaint panel’ or straight to this Service. However, when the resident said she was unhappy with the stage 2 response, in May 2023, the landlord’s response lacked clarity. At first it said the resident would need to complain to this Service. This caused the resident confusion, as evidenced in her email of 26 June 2023, when she asked it to “clarify the process” as she said she had been advised to refer to the panel at the end of stage 2.
While it is noted the landlord gave the resident the option of either going to the panel or this Service, when the resident was clearly unhappy it did not set out her options again, which was reasonable. The confusion contributed to the complaint delays, and caused inconvenience. Its approach created a protracted complaints process. It is noted that the landlord has since changed its complaints procedure and now only has 2 stages, in line with the Code.
The resident received the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response 81 working days after she first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 2 response. While its policy, at the time, did not specify a timeframe for stage 3, this was an unreasonable delay. As outlined above the content of the stage 3 response lacked detail, and was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about the substantive issues. The lack of detail in the response increased the detriment caused by the unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were sent outside of the timeframes stipulated by its policy and the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer redress for the delays in its responses, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s approach to stage 3 of its procedure caused confusion, and created a further delay. This inconvenienced the resident. The stage 3 response was sent 81 working days after the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. This was an unreasonable delay. The response itself lacked detail, and was dismissive which was inappropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme The landlord’s handling of an incident that occurred at its offices is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a director to apologise, in person, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,857.11 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,107.11 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of ASB.
  4. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of domestic abuse.
  5. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Instruct an officer responsible for investigating ASB to meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about ASB, and domestic abuse. If appropriate, the landlord should open an ASB case(s) and investigate in line with its ASB procedure.
Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
1. Addressing all aspects of a resident’s complaint in its response.
2. A meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes and put things right for the resident.
3. Offering appropriate redress for admitted failings, including complaint handling delays.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property and produce a report with their findings and recommendations, which is to be shared with the resident.
2. Use the report to produce a schedule of repairs and a draft action plan, with timescales, based on the recommendations in the surveyor’s report.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, complete a review into its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs. The review should consider the failings identified in this report, including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review must cover:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
  2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her particular vulnerabilities.
  3. How it will improve its record keeping around repairs.
4. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, instruct a senior manager responsible for safeguarding to conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse. The review should:
  1. Identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again.
  2. Review its training programme on domestic abuse, and consider what additional training is required.

Recommendation

Considering the resident’s evident dissatisfaction with its handling of the incident at its offices, and the associated investigation, it is recommended that the landlord open a complaint investigation into the matter.