London Borough of Hackney (202207096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207096

London Borough of Hackney

27 October 2023

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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks into his property and resultant damage.
2. A decant application.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. This service has not seen a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which the landlord has advised is inaccessible following a cyber attack. However, the Ombudsman understands that the resident resides in a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a 10-storey, purposed built block and has lived there since 2005.
The landlord’s Repairs Guide sets out its target response times for various repairs. These range from “Immediate” (attend within 2 hours) and “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours) to “Normal” (attend within 21 working days).
The landlord’s decant procedure states that Estate Officers manage the application process, although a Surveyor is required to submit the Temporary Decant Authorisation Form. Residents should be sent a Temporary Decant Assessment Letter Decant once this has been done and, this should take no longer than 7 working days in total. An Estate Officer will complete this with the resident, before the completed form is passed to a Team Leader and an Area Manager (2 working days at each stage), finally being referred to the landlord’s Lettings Team. Estate Officers will be notified of the Lettings Team’s decision within “one week”. If a decant is approved, residents should be sent a Temporary Decant Confirmation Letter within 2 working days.
The landlord will then make one offer of accommodation only, which does not have to be a like for like property. The Estate Officer should “deal with the removal and storage of the tenant’s belongings”.

Scope of investigation

Within his complaint, the resident has advised that his property has been affected by recurring leaks since 2010. As matters become historic, it becomes harder for this service to fairly investigate issues due to reasons such as the passage of time and staff turnover. This investigation will therefore concentrate on events which took place in the lead up to a complaint the resident made in March 2021. This is in keeping with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this service may not consider complaints that were not “brought to the attention of the (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period”.
Although it was a subsequent complaint in May 2022 that was referred to this service, the landlord treated the complaints as linked and its final complaint response also addressed issues raised in the March 2021 complaint. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable, and this investigation will take the same approach and will therefore examine the events which led up to the resident’s initial complaint in March 2021. However, previous events may still be referred to for context.

Summary of events

On 14 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. This service has not seen a copy of the original complaint.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delayed response and noted that the resident had asked:
1. For the leak affecting his property to be resolved.
2. To have “outstanding works inside the property carried out including damp and mould treatment”.
3. The landlord to “look into delays caused”.
The landlord went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It had taken “a number of actions to progress the resolution of the issues raised” since his complaint. These included contacting him on 14 April 2021 to “discuss the outstanding issues”. It stated that during this conversation, the resident had advised the leak had stopped in November 2020 and he wanted the outstanding follow-on works to be completed. He had also stated the works would be “very disruptive as all the rooms (in the property) except one needed lots of works” and he therefore needed a decant.
2. It had spoken to its contractor and clarified that a works order raised previously was “now out of time” so a new works order was needed. The contractor advised a “pre-inspection” was carried out on 14 July 2021 but the “job was unable to be booked out” due to the need for the resident to be decanted to another property. It noted a decant form had been “previously completed” and provided to the resident’s Housing Officer who would “be in contact…once the information of alternative accommodation is received”.
3. It provided contact information for its Surveying and Communal Works Manager, the resident’s Housing Officer and its Area Surveying Manager, the latter of whom would be “monitoring the works until completion” and had been asked to provide the resident with an update regarding the “decant, and the length of time that works will take to complete”.
4. It apologised for the “ongoing delay and inconvenience” caused by the failure to arrange a decant for the resident, which would have allowed the remedial works to be carried out. It acknowledged “avoidable delays in getting the outstanding works completed” and offered the resident £250 compensation. It also noted there had been delays between 4 January and 21 June 2021 when it was “only carrying out immediate and emergency work due to the Covid-19 pandemic” and clarified that the outstanding works “would not fall under these categories”.
5. It advised the resident that if he wanted his complaint reviewed at stage 2 of its complaint procedures, he would need to “clearly set out why” he remained dissatisfied and how the stage 1 investigation had “failed to resolve (his) complaint”.
The resident responded to the landlord on 5 October 2021 and advised he “rejected” its findings. His issues with the landlord’s response included:
1. The compensation offered was “inadequate”.
2. He had been ignored when trying to obtain updates regarding the complaint.
3. The landlord’s response had “ignored the substance of the complaint” and its “refusal to carry out repairs” between November 2019 and March 2020 amounted to “negligence and criminal damage” and endangered his life.
4. The leaks had caused “substantial disruption” to his life, he had suffered from “major leaks” for the fourth time in 10 years and the leaks reported in November 2019 were not resolved until a year later.
He followed up this email on 22 October 2021 and asked the landlord to “let me know what the next stage is”. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this email.
On 5 May 2022, the resident submitted a new complaint via the landlord’s website. He raised the following concerns:
1. A named member of staff, who he stated was “currently responsible for instructing repairs to my property”, had failed to “instruct repairs to my flat”, failed to “oversee (the landlord’s) complaints procedure” and had not responded to correspondence.
2. He referred to his previous complaint and noted that he had rejected the landlord’s findings on 5 October 2021 but had had no further contact since then. He advised the staff member had called him on 17 March 2022 and claimed he had responded to, and resolved, the complaint, which the resident described as “a blatant lie”. He clarified that he had not received any further correspondence regarding his March 2021 complaint, and this was a “continuation of…disinformation” from the landlord.
3. He asked the landlord to carry out an inquiry into why his flat had continued to be affected by leaks between 2010 and 2022 and to compile a report into the “ongoing disinformation”. He said the named staff member should be “sacked for gross misconduct” and he should be awarded a rent rebate to recognise the period his flat had been affected by the leaks and the landlord’s “failure…to carry out the repairs”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 May 2022, and, on 23 May 2022, it provided a stage 1 complaint response. It summarised the resident’s complaint before explaining it had carried out an investigation into the issues raised. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 11 May 2022 to clarify that the “repairs needed within (his) home” could be carried out with him in situ and a decant was not necessary.
2. However, the repairs could not begin until the leak issues had been resolved. It stated that, due to the design of the block and “scissor section flats”, diagnosing any leak was “particularly difficult and problematic”. It advised “multiple plumbers” had attended properties above the resident’s in 2022 but despite “extensive…investigations”, it had been unable to resolve the issue and it had therefore decided to arrange for plumbing surveys to be carried out within the properties above the resident’s flat. It advised these were due to have been carried out on 18 May 2022 and works would be issued to its contractor once “the leak is found and resolved”.
3. Regarding the named member of staff, the landlord advised that within their role as a Customer Relationship Officer, they had had “no control or say over the outcome of (the resident’s) repairs issues”. They were instead meant to investigate the resident’s complaint and “work with the relevant services” to respond to any issues raised. After reviewing its records, it considered the member of staff had “done everything possible” to get updates and ensure the issues were “being taken forward”. It clarified that the staff member no longer worked within the Customer Relationship Team and provided email addresses for new points of contact who were now “leading on these outstanding works”.
4. It apologized for the “inconvenience this leak has caused” but explained identifying the cause had been “problematic” due to the “design of (the resident’s) block”. It advised it would coordinate remedial works once the source of the leak had been found and resolved.
5. It advised it was “not in a position” to offer a rent rebate and noted the resident had been awarded £250 compensation following his March 2021 complaint. However, it acknowledged that repairs remained outstanding and thus gave a further apology and awarded an additional £150 compensation for “the delay, (his) time, trouble and any distress caused”.
6. It provided details of how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy with its response.
On 13 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of its procedures. He submitted a lengthy response, some of which reiterated the concerns raised in his complaint and as such does not need to be exhaustively detailed here. However, some of the points he raised included:
1. He had attended the landlord’s offices in March 2022 after “countless attempts” to contact the landlord regarding “ongoing leaks and lack of progress to repair the substantial water damage (in his property)” and the named member of staff’s “refusal to address the outstanding complaint from 2021”. He had subsequently been advised that the member of staff was responsible for “both the repairs and complaints procedures” and, as this was contrary to the landlord’s position in its complaint response, questioned why he had been given contradictory information.
2. He had not received any “emails or letters showing the (previous) complaint had been resolved” and the landlord’s most recent response did not address the fact his complaint had not been escalated to stage 2 despite his request.
3. It was unclear why he had now been advised that a decant was not required and he wanted the landlord’s decision to be “examined”.
4. He considered its explanation that it was difficult to trace the leaks because of the building’s design was “poor”, although given that he had experienced leaks for over 10 years which the landlord had been unable to resolve, there must be a “design fault” with the block and he should therefore be moved.
5. He queried the landlord’s position that £250 compensation had been offered as a resolution to his previous complaint as he considered the complaint was still outstanding. He also did not accept it was unable to consider a rent rebate and asked for this request to be directed to “the body whose role it is to sort out rent issues”.
In July 2022, the resident contacted this service for advice as he had not received any further response from the landlord to his complaint escalation request. Following further contact from the resident, this service wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2022 asking it to progress his complaint and issue a stage 2 response “within appropriate timescales”. Landlord records show it wrote to the resident the following day to acknowledge the escalation request which it stated had been received that day. It made no mention of his previous escalation request and advised it aimed to provide a stage 2 response by 14 September 2022.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise its stage 2 response would be delayed “due to the complexity of your case”. It noted it had spoken with him regarding this and a 10 working day extension had been agreed. It now aimed to respond by 29 September 2022.
The resident contacted this service again on 3 October 2022 to advise he had not received a further response from the landlord. In a subsequent response to this service, the landlord stated it had advised the resident its reply would be further delayed due to staff illness and would be provided by 10 October.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologized for the delay and advised the response had taken longer to compile due to the “complexity of (the resident’s) case”. The landlord went on to summarize the resident’s initial complaint and its stage 1 response. It also summarized a meeting it had held with him in which the complaint was discussed and when the landlord set out the scope of the investigation it would carry out at stage 2 (namely that it would consider events from the 12 months prior to his March 2021 complaint, rather than looking back at events from 2010 as the resident had requested, and issues raised in both the March 2021 and May 2022 complaints). It summarized the resident’s reasons for requesting an escalation of his complaint. These included:
1. He had had no contact from the landlord regarding his escalation request following the landlord’s first stage 1 response, despite even attending the landlord’s Customer Service Centre in person, and it had not provided a stage 2 response despite his request.
2. He had been advised in a phone call on 11 March 2022 that the named member of staff was “responsible for both the complaints process and…repairs” but the landlord’s stage 1 response stated otherwise.
3. Despite being told “on a number of occasions” that the leaks affecting his property had been resolved in late 2018/early 2019, they recurred in November 2019. However, he believed the landlord “refused to attend” and carry out repairs between November 2019 and March 2021. As a result, they were not “brought under control until October 2020” (due to the timeline set out it is assumed this is a typing error and is meant to refer to October 2021). The resident had advised that leaks were continuing and that his living room was the only room not affected.
4. The landlord’s complaint response did not address why the named member of staff had not responded to him and had “lied” that the initial complaint had been resolved.
5. The landlord’s decision to offer a decant had been reversed. The resident believed such an offer should still be made available.
6. Leaks had been ongoing since 2010 and, since October 2020, it had visited “15 to 20 times” without finding the source or cause.
The landlord outlined its “key findings” regarding both complaints.

Lack of response to communications during and following the conclusion of (the) investigation into (the March 2021) complaint

It considered the named member of staff had taken actions internally to progress the resident’s case with relevant teams so they could identify the source of the leak and complete necessary repairs. They had also liaised with its contractor to “try and move the repairs along”. It noted that contractors carried out a property inspection on 14 July 2021, but it was noted repair work would not start until the resident had been decanted. It found the member of staff “was in regular contact” with colleagues “to try to expedite this move”.
It noted a decant request had been submitted by an Area Surveying Manager in 2020. However, there had been an error with the form and despite a request for it to be resubmitted, this had not been done. The named member of staff had, on closing the resident’s previous complaint, set “corrective actions” for relevant staff to take, which included resubmitting a decant form, although this was again not done.
It did not find fault with the named member of staff and considered they had taken appropriate steps as the officer investigating the original complaint, as well as making requests for relevant teams to contact the resident with updates. It did acknowledge fault with other service areas who did not follow up on these requests or set actions.
However, it did agree that the member of staff failed to “provide regular updates” during the complaint investigation and the updates the resident did receive only came after he had chased the landlord up. It found there were “long periods of no activity” on the case and, while it considered the case had been “complicated” it acknowledged it “would have been reasonable” for the member of staff to have updated the resident during and after the complaint investigation. It also acknowledged the resident’s email of 5 October 2021 was not responded to, although the landlord considered it had not contained a specific escalation request and had not been sent to the relevant team. It also acknowledged further emails from 22 and 25 October 2021 were not responded to, despite the resident asking “what the next stage is”. Although it stressed the escalation process had been outlined in its stage 1 response and his emails had not been directed to the correct service area, it agreed the emails should have been responded to and he should have been advised of the next steps.
It found further evidence of failures to reply to the resident in January and March 2022. It apologized for the lack of updates and level of service he had experienced and agreed “communications in this case were lacking”. It also found fault regarding the fact he had not been advised his stage 1 response would be issued outside of target. It reiterated however, that the member of staff had otherwise taken “appropriate steps to investigate your case” but did acknowledge the resident should have been advised of these as well.
It considered its previous offer of £150 compensation to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint was reasonable. However, it offered a further £75 in recognition of “the unreasonable delay” in providing its response, bringing the total award to £225.

Ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs at (the property)

The landlord stated it understood the resident had been advised, following a visit in December 2021, that internal repairs would start once the cause of the leaks had been identified. It also understood that a temporary decant request would not be processed as works could be progressed “one room at a time”.
However, it advised it had “questioned” the length of time it would take to “identify the source of the leaks…given the history…and…continued reports of ongoing leaks” and had now decided to agree to a temporary decant offer while works were completed. It had identified a property in the same Borough and, although it acknowledged it was smaller, advised it may not be able to make a further offer if the resident refused due to the lack of available properties in the area. It advised it had considered a hotel placement as an alternative, but this would not be “cost effective” and it would therefore not take that option forward.
It advised that, during the complaint investigation, “a number of visits” had taken place in neighbouring properties to try and ascertain the source of the leak and works had taken place to try and stop any recurrence. However, it also advised that “some of these works have been identified as being inadequate or not fit for purpose”. As a result, further repairs were required. It advised these were due to take place on 7 October 2022. While it hoped these would resolve the issue, it noted “further works in additional properties may be required” and it would therefore “monitor this aspect of your complaint”. It would also carry out “all internal repairs” in a timely manner once the leak had been resolved.
It apologized for the “ongoing frustration” being caused and advised it was “doing everything possible to trace and remedy the leak affecting your property”. It noted it had offered the resident £250 regarding the “unreasonable (repair) delays” in its response to his March 2021 complaint but advised it was increasing this to £500 given the “further unreasonable delays and frustration”. This brought its total compensation offer regarding his March 2021 and May 2022 complaints to £725. Finally, the landlord advised the resident of his right to escalate the complaint to this service if he remained unhappy.
Records show that, following its final complaint response, the resident reported further leaks in March and June 2023. The landlord’s repair records indicate that outstanding repair works were finally completed in the resident’s bathroom in July and September 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into his property and resultant damage

In his complaints and correspondence with both the landlord and this service, the resident has advised that his property has been affected by leaks for 10 years. While, as set out above, this investigation will not consider historic issues and will instead concentrate on how the landlord handled the repair reports in the lead up to the March 2021 complaint, it is noted that the landlord does not dispute the property experienced several leaks over a prolonged period and acknowledged that these leaks had an impact on both the resident and his property. It also accepted there had been delays in carrying out identified repairs, partly due to its failure to resolve the repeated leaks.
In its complaint responses and submissions to this investigation, the landlord stated it had found it difficult to identify the source of the leaks and cited the “scissor” design of the building as a reason for this. While the Ombudsman has some sympathy for the landlord in this regard, and it is evident from its repair records and the resident’s account that multiple visits and repairs took place, it is unacceptable that the resident has been affected by multiple and ultimately unresolved leaks during the period under investigation.
In the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint of March 2021, records show that in June 2020 he reported a leak affecting his hallway and bathroom. Landlord records show it raised an order on 9 June to trace and remedy the leak, noting this was an “ongoing issue” and suggested that “all flats (above the resident’s)” be checked to try and identify the source. A further order was raised on 18 June for a plumber to “source ongoing leak…leak continues to affect (the resident’s flat)” and 4 days later a further order was raised for an electrician to make safe the electrics in the resident’s kitchen, indicating that a further room was now affected. These repair orders were marked as being completed and there is no indication that the landlord did not respond reasonably.
Following this, records show the landlord raised an order for a virtual surveyor’s inspection on 28 August 2020. While it is unclear when this survey took place and the landlord’s records do not contain details of any inspection, a note from 4 September 2020 stated that a contractor would make good damage to “ceilings and walls” in two areas of the hallway and the ceiling and wall in the resident’s bathroom. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when (or whether) these orders were passed to a contractor and on 22 September 2022 the resident reported a further leak which now also affected his airing cupboard. The landlord noted a further inspection was required “to…assess the leak damage” but stated a previous leak affecting a property above had been fixed.
A record from 8 October 2020 stated the landlord’s contractor was to attend to trace and remedy the cause of the leak, which it noted to have been “constantly” affecting the resident since March 2020 and which it understood to be within the bathroom of the flat above. On the same day, a large number of follow-on works were raised, with the caveat that they should only be carried out “when the leaks have stopped”. Repairs orders raised included hacking down “defective hall ceiling and bathroom ceiling”, hacking off defective walls and installing dehumidifiers in the resident’s hall, hall cupboard, bathroom and kitchen for 3 weeks. These were to be post-inspected once completed.
The extent of the works raised shows that the leaks had affected a large proportion of the resident’s property. However, records indicate that these repairs were not fully completed until September 2023, almost 3 years later. Landlord repair records show the resident made further reports of leaks occurring in November 2021, June and July 2022 and March 2023. Given that the landlord has advised it is unable to access its repairs records from October 2020 to November 2021 due to the result of a cyber attack, there may have been further reports made, although it has advised the spreadsheet it used as a workaround during this period had no details regarding any additional reports.
In its September 2021 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there had already been “avoidable delays in getting the outstanding works completed”. It noted that repairs raised previously were now “out of time”, that others raised in July 2021 were not progressed because it was understood that the resident was awaiting a decant and it accepted that its failure to arrange a decant had delayed the repairs. It also advised that it had only been carrying out emergency repairs between January and July 2021 due to the COVID-19 related pandemic and it therefore did not consider this period to have contributed to the delay.
While it was appropriate the landlord acknowledged there had been avoidable delays and accepted its failure to arrange a decant had delayed the repairs, there is insufficient evidence that it properly sought to progress the works after this time. Records show the resident remained unhappy following his complaint and chased the landlord on several occasions for updates on both the complaint and outstanding repairs. Internal landlord correspondence from March 2022 shows the resident had contacted it to express his “upset at the condition of his property”. The correspondence indicates the landlord was confused as to whether he still needed to be decanted and a member of staff stressed the resident was “staying in one room…due to extreme levels of damp and mould and this is impacting his health”, so the situation “really needs to be resolved as I feel he is not getting a resolution”.
Further internal correspondence from August 2022 notes that the property had been visited as part of the stage 2 complaint investigation and, in the words of one member of staff “(the property) looks like a state – ceilings being held up by masking tape etc”. That the landlord noted the property was in such a poor state of repair should have ensured it acted with a greater sense of urgency to resolve the continued leaks and carry out the outstanding follow-on works. That it did not do so was a signficant failure.
While it is appreciated that the landlord appeared to respond to each new report in a prompt fashion, and accepting it would not have wanted to carry out follow-on works to make good affected areas if the leak(s) remained unresolved, there was a significant and unacceptable length of time that the landlord to have failed to resolve the issue and left the resident in a flat that it knew was in a state of disrepair. His complaints and corresponence outlined the effect the condition of this flat was having on him and he stated at various times that he only had full use of one room, as his living room was the only room that remained unaffected. The impact of living in a flat routinely affected by leaks for at least 3 years, which included periods when the UK was placed under lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would have been significant and there is insufficient evidence that the landlord appreciated this.
It is of concern that the landlord’s repair records do not appear to include details of any surveys or inspections that it carried out, particularly in relation to whether the property was affected by damp and mould, a concern the resident raised in his March 2021 complaint. This service would have expected to see details of surveys carried out which showed it clearly assessed and understood the condition of the resident’s property and which areas were affected, particularly given his statements that his living room was the only room that remained unaffected. In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord referred to an inspection carried out in August 2022 which noted a “damp smell” but no sign of mould, however the details of this inspection are not contained within the records seen by this service. From the information available, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord appropriately sought to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
In general, there appeared to be a lack of cohesion within the landlord’s handling of the case and a lack of effective communication between its Housing and Repairs teams, particularly with regards to whether the resident required a decant, or taking responsibility for providing him with updates. From the evidence available, the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the repairs was extremely poor and this would have left him confused and unsure of if or when repairs were being carried out. It is unacceptable that, from the evidence seen by this service, updates appear to have been provided only when the resident chased the landlord, when prompted by his complaints, or following enquiries made by its own officers investigating said complaints.
When responding to the resident’s initial complaint in September 2021, the landlord acknowledged there had been avoidable delays and awarded him £250 compensation to reflect the “ongoing delay and inconvenience”. In its stage 2 response to his second complaint in October 2022, it acknowledged the repairs had still not been carried out and the property remained affected by leaks. It therefore offered a further £250 compensation, bringing the total award to £500. Considering that a further year had passed and the situation remained at best the same (although given the landlord had noted that parts of the resident’s ceiling were held up by masking tape it was likely to have been considerably worse) in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was wholly inadequate. It did not reflect the inconvenience and detriment its lack of progress in identifying the cause(s) of the leaks, the decant and the completion of follow-on works would have caused the resident.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord faced difficulties in identifying the cause of the leak, it remained its responsibiltity to do so and the architectural design of its stock is not an excuse for a failure to resolve repair issues that affected its resident so significantly. Considering the identified failings in this case, the Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into his property and resultant damage. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation that more adequately reflects the detriment caused to the resident, and the length of time the landlord failed to resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not punitive and are not intended to address issues such as claimed loss of earnings. It is also not possible for this service to determine whether there was any causal link between a landlord’s actions (or lack of) and reported health issues. The resident should engage the landlord’s compensation procedure or seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint.
The resident has provided evidence that his current rent at the property is £121.24 per week. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period between 8 October 2020 (when follow-on works were first issued to the landlord’s contractor) and September 2023 when repairs appear to have finally been completed, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £5,500 compensation for the impact on the resident of residing in a flat which was in a poor state or repair. This figure has been calculated as approximately 30% of the total rent during the period in question (30% of £121.24 x 152 weeks). While the Ombudsman acknowledges this is not a precise calculation, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account. This is in replacement of, rather than in addition to, the £500 the landlord offered in its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of a decant application

The complaint response the landlord provided in September 2021 acknowledged that a decant application had previously been submitted. However, while the landlord’s final complaint response referred to one being completed in 2020, this service has not seen evidence, such as the original form or contemporaneous notes from the landlord’s case management system, which makes clear exactly when the application was first completed and submitted to the relevant team. This is not appropriate and raises questions over both the landlord’s record keeping and its adherence to its own decant procedure, which sets out the specific steps required to progress a decant application, the relevant timeframes for completion, and which confirmation letters should be sent once an application has been approved. The lack of any such evidence means the landlord is not able to properly demonstrate the steps it took and whether it acted in accordance with its policies and procedure.
Following its reference to the form being submitted in 2020, the landlord also acknowledged there had been a “failure” to arrange a decant, which was in turn the cause of the “avoidable delays” in completing the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. It does not appear to be disputed that, by September 2021, there already been avoidable delay in progressing an agreed decant, which had been approved to enable works in the property to be completed. Even if the forms had been submitted at the end of 2020, this would have meant a period of 9 months had passed by the time of its September 2021 complaint response. This was a significant period during which the landlord is unable to evidence it had taken any steps to progress the application, such as trying to identify any suitable properties into which the resident could temporarily move. While the landlord did accept there had been a failing, its September 2021 complaint response did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reflect the seriousness of the situation and the knock on impact of its failure to progress the decant.
The landlord’s complaint response also advised it would be in contact “once the information of alternative accommodation is received”. However, there is no evidence within its records that any update was provided, and the matter of a potential decant does not appear to be referred to again until December 2021, when the landlord was noted to have carried out a “review” and chased up its Housing Team “on potential decant offers”. Landlord records then note that, as of 10 January 2022, the resident was “awaiting (a) decant”. Again, there is no evidence that the resident was provided with any letter or other confirmation that a decant had been agreed or approved, as per the landlord’s policy or regarding what concrete steps had been taken to progress the issue, despite another 4 months having passed since its complaint response. This was not appropriate and is further evidence of the landlord’s poor management of the process.
Subsequently, the landlord called the resident in May 2022 and advised him a decant was no longer required and repairs could be carried out in the property while he remained in situ. Although the landlord has provided internal correspondence which shows an Area Surveyor agreed with the decision made at the time, this service has not seen any records regarding any re-assessment of the property, any review of the application or other information that would clarify why it changed its position. This is not appropriate and again calls into question the landlord’s record keeping and management of the process. It is vital landlords keep clear records so they can provide a transparent audit trail, particularly when they are changing decisions as this has a large impact on a resident’s confidence in their decision making process and helps to manage expectations. From the evidence available, this was lacking in this case.
It is noted in the resident’s complaint escalation request of June 2022 he specifically stated he was unhappy that “no explanation” had been given as to why the landlord’s position had changed and that he considered it made “absolutely no sense”. However, the landlord’s final complaint response did not address this issue directly and this overall lack of clarity meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly. Its management of the application and the decant process, along with its inability to clarify when and why it made decisions which had a real impact on the resident’s housing situation, would have likely left him feeling confused and uncertain.
In its stage 2 complaint response, it was appropriate the landlord advised it had reviewed its decision. It had again decided that a temporary decant would be necessary, given the uncertainty over how long it would take to identify the cause of the leak and complete the associated repairs. It was positive it took an overview of the case and acknowledged some of the disruption the resident had been caused and that leaving him in the property while repairs of an indeterminate length were completed would not have been appropriate.
It was appropriate that, in its final complaint response, the landlord apologized to the resident for the “inconvenience” caused by its failure to arrange a decant. However, the compensation it offered appeared to solely relate to the associated repair delays, rather than its muddled management of the decant process itself. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have considered whether an additional offer of compensation, specifically related to its poor handling of the decant process, would have been more appropriate redress. It should also have considered whether it would have been appropriate to offer the resident a permanent move, rather than a temporary one. Internal correspondence shows one member of staff proposed this as a solution, given that the landlord was unable to advise how long it might be before it traced the cause of the leaks. While it was entitled not to do so, this service would have expected to see evidence of its decision making process and it is noted that it did not address this possibility within any of its complaint responses, despite the resident having specifically suggested he should be moved permanently if the landlord was unable to resolve the recurring leaks to his property.
Following its final complaint response, records show a decant application form was submitted in October 2022 and the resident was offered a temporary property the same month, which he refused. This service will not comment on whether the property offered was reasonable or not, aside from noting that the landlord’s decant procedure states it does not have to offer “like-for-like” properties and is able to offer properties that are one bedroom smaller than a resident’s permanent tenancy, as was the case here.
Returning to the subject of the landlord’s record keeping, it is of concern that in its submissions to this investigation, it stated that while it had advised the resident that repairs could be completed while he remained in situ, a “decision had been made” during its stage 2 investigation to offer a temporary decant. In light of this, it “did not consider there was delay in offering…accommodation to (the resident) once it was agreed that he would need to be decanted”. However, this position fails to recognise the chronology of the case as evidenced by the landlord’s own repair records, correspondence, and previous complaint responses. These show it had agreed a decant as early as 2020 and that its position had already changed once before it ultimately decided to offer a temporary property in its final complaint response. This was not appropriate and means the landlord’s advice to this service either failed to consider its own records or misrepresented the chain of events. Either of these scenarios would represent a significant failing and the Ombudsman therefore disagrees with the landlord’s assertion that there was no delay in providing an offer of accommodation to the resident.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of a decant application. Landlord records and internal correspondence show that following the award of a decant in 2020, there was regular confusion between teams and service areas regarding whether a decant was still due to be offered, which had a significant impact on its repairs schedule, with some orders being cancelled or postponed on the understanding they could not be completed until a decant had been arranged. The resident was caused confusion, and distress, when he was advised in May 2022 that a decant was no longer necessary, but there are no records which fully explain why this decision was made and the landlord did not clarify this in its final complaint response, despite the resident specifically asking it to.
It was appropriate that it finally agreed to offer a decant at the end of its complaint procedure, and it identified a property promptly afterwards. However, that the landlord was able to find a property so soon following a stage 2 complaint calls into question why no progress had been made previously, given it accepted an application had been submitted in 2020, at least 22 months earlier. As a result of the failings outlined above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750 to reflects its poor management of the application.
Regarding the landlord’s decant procedure, while there is no evidence regarding whether the landlord followed it appropriately in this case, the Ombudsman has noted that it involves a significant number of steps and input from several members of staff before a decision is made. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s procedure is unnecessarily complicated and there is potential for it to be streamlined. While it is acknowledged that a landlord must have checks and balances in place to ensure that its limited housing stock and budgets are used as efficiently as possible, the number of steps required to be completed are likely to slow down the process and make it harder for the nominated staff member to be “in charge” of the process. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to review its decant procedure and consider whether changes can be made to improve its processes, while maintaining ultimate focus on its residents and their individual circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

Having submitted a complaint to the landlord in March 2021, the resident did not receive a response until September 2021, some 6 months later. This was a significant delay for which the landlord does not appear to have provided an explanation, either to the resident or this service. This was not appropriate, although in its final complaint response of October 2022, the landlord did acknowledge both the time and trouble the resident had been caused in pursuing his original complaint and the “unreasonable delay” in providing its response. Its apology and final offer of £225 was a reasonable attempt to provide redress for those failings and is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such cases.
However, there were further issues with the landlord’s handling of the complaint which it did not appropriately acknowledge. Having issued its initial response, it did not escalate the complaint despite the resident’s request to do so. While its final complaint response acknowledged this and that it had failed to reply to follow-up emails from the resident, it failed to offer any further redress. This is despite the fact its failure to escalate the complaint was arguably a bigger issue, given that the resident was denied access to its full complaint procedure as a result. This caused the resident detriment, further time and trouble and evident distress. It would also have left him feeling the landlord was not willing to fully address his concerns, particularly given that he had stressed his continued dissatisfaction with its actions and initial complaint response.
It is of concern that the landlord repeated some of these mistakes when the resident made his second complaint in May 2022. Although it promptly provided a stage 1 response on this occasion, there is again evidence it failed to properly escalate his complaint when he made such a request on 13 June 2022. It took the intervention of this service in August 2022 before the landlord sought to progress the complaint to stage 2. There was an unreasonable delay of 2 months during which the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and it did not identify this as a failing within its final complaint response, which was a failing.
Despite the landlord failing to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request, there is evidence it was aware of the request as, in internal correspondence from 22 June 2022, an investigating officer asking for more information regarding issues the resident had raised stated they were trying to “avoid going to stage 2 (of the complaint procedure) at all costs”.
While it is acknowledged this was a comment made by one member of staff and could be interpreted as a willingness to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction as soon as possible, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the fact there were repeated instances in this case of the resident’s complaints not being appropriately escalated, with different staff involved both times, indicates instead a wider reluctance to progress complaints through its procedures in accordance with its policy and obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is concerning and suggests the landlord was more focused on the number of complaints labelled as “stage 2” than it was about allowing residents fair access to its complaint procedure.
Additionally, by seeking to avoid escalating the complaint(s) through its procedures, the landlord risked not seeing the complaint as a potential opportunity for learning. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles makes clear that “the lessons learned from a complaint…can improve the quality and focus of services provided” to tenants and effective and positive complaint handling can provided valuable insight into a landlord’s service provision and the landlord should ensure it keeps sight of this during its future complaint handling.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, when it did provide a final complaint response it was detailed, and it was appropriate it decided to draw together the issues the resident raised across both his March 2021 and May 2022 complaints. Overall, its response gave the impression that a thorough complaint investigation was undertaken. However, it still failed to fully answer some of the concerns the resident raised. These included why he had been advised in May 2022 that a decant was no longer needed and why he had been told that March 2021 complaint had been “resolved” when the evidence available shows this was not the case. Although the landlord acknowledged both events took place, it provided no further details or explanations which will have left the resident feeling the issues were not satisfactorily concluded. It also failed to respond to his request for a permanent move rather than a temporary one. These omissions were not appropriate and undermined efforts the landlord otherwise made to carry out a fair review of the case.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling. While it provided reasonable redress regarding its late response to the resident’s original complaint, it failed to provide further redress for its failure to progress the complaint through its procedures. It also did not acknowledge its failure to act on his escalation request regarding his May 2022 complaint, which was only progressed after the intervention of this service. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay £600 compensation to reflect the additional failings identified. This is in replacement of, rather than in addition to, the £225 offered in its final complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of leaks into his property and resultant damage
2. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of a decant application.
3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord responded promptly when it received reports of leaks at the resident’s property, these recurred regularly and it failed to ascertain the cause in a reasonable period. It failed to progress follow-on works, leaving the resident in a property which it acknowledged was in a degree of some disrepair. While it acknowledged some avoidable delays, partly caused by confusion over whether the resident was to be offered a decant, and there appeared to be a lack of cohesion between service areas and overall ownership of its management of the repair process. Its proposed remedies did not reflect the severity of the case and its impact on the resident or the length of time the repairs had remained outstanding.
Records show the landlord agreed to offer the resident a decant in 2020 but there is no evidence that it appropriately progressed this, leading to delays in carrying out repairs. It then changed its mind in 2022 but there are no records that explain why, and it did not provide its reasons to the resident, despite him specifically asking for clarification within his later complaint. Its complaint response, and submissions to this service, did not reflect the chain of events and it was not appropriate that it failed to recognise what was a significant delay in offering the resident a decant property.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint for 6 months and then failed to progress it further through its complaint procedures. While it was appropriate that it awarded reasonable compensation for the delayed response, it then made a similar error when dealing with his second complaint, failing again to progress it to stage 2 of its complaint procedure, only doing so after the resident had had cause to contact this service. It did not appropriately acknowledge this fact within its final complaint response and missed the opportunity to offer further redress.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this response:
1. Pay the resident £6,900 compensation, consisting of £5,500 to reflect its poor handling of repairs, £800 to reflect its poor handling of the decant application and £600 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
2. Write to the resident to apologize for the failings identified in this report. This should be issued by its Chief Executive.
3. Contact the resident to arrange a further survey of his property and clarify whether any damp or mould is present. It should share a copy of this report with both the resident and this service and, if it identifies any issues, it should compile an action plan setting out the steps it will take to address them, providing a copy of any plan to this resident and this service.
The landlord is also ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date of this response, review its decant procedure, paying particular consideration to whether changes can be made to streamline the process, while maintaining ultimate focus on its residents and their individual circumstances.