London Borough of Hounslow (202302419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302419

London Borough of Hounslow

19 June 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. Reports of damp and mould to the bathroom.
2. The resident’s request to be reimbursed the cost of running a dehumidifier.
3. Ongoing repairs to the resident’s bathroom and notification of appointments.
The Service 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 the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Having carefully considered all of the evidence, complaint 1c falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 5 September 2023 about its handling of ongoing repairs and raised specific concern that it had failed to provide enough notice of an appointment. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 2 October 2023. There is no evidence that the resident has sought to escalate this complaint further.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As the resident did not escalate his complaint, it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a complaint handling failure and that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s concerns further. It follows that this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs and notification around appointments, he may raise a new complaint with the landlord or ask for the previous complaint to be escalated accordingly.
The details of this complaint and those noted under 1c above have not been included within this investigation. The details of the complaint and the landlord’s response to it have however been included within the summary of events below for the purpose of providing context to the resident’s complaints and the length of time over which the repairs were carried out.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. He has held the tenancy since 21 February 2007. The property is a 1–bedroom flat on the first floor. The resident has Multiple Sclerosis (MS) which affects his mobility.
The landlord has a corporate complaints policy which is dated December 2017. This covers all aspects of the service delivered by the local authority and in its introduction encourages feedback from those using its services. It says that the policy provides a framework to ensure that it treats customers fairly and consistently if they wish to complain or provide feedback.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It has a target of 15 working days to respond to a complaint at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It will also provide advice on how a resident can seek a further review should they remain dissatisfied, by approaching either the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) or the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The landlord has advised that it does not have a corporate compensation policy. It has said that it uses the remedies guidance provided by the Service.
The landlord’s repairs policy only covers responsive repairs. These are defined as “unpredictable, minor in nature, and can generally be completed on a first visit …”. The replacement of components, such as kitchens or bathrooms will not usually fall under this policy as these are considered planned works. In this it says that “an effective repairs policy implies a degree of partnership between residents and landlord”.
The policy sets out the landlord’s legal obligations to keep its properties in a decent state of repair and provides details of key legislation. In meeting its obligations, it says that it will offer appointments for non urgent works, minimise inconvenience to residents by co-ordinating multiple repairs and ensure that repairs are completed right first time wherever possible. It further says that it will closely monitor the effectiveness of its contractors.
The policy sets out the landlord’s priority system for repairs and the timeframe within which it will aim to complete each category of repair from an emergency within 4 hours to routine repairs within 20 working days.
Section 12 covers minor works and those repairs that may fall outside its “unplanned responsive repairs”. These may include structural repairs and replacements, such as new baths and sinks. If these are due to be completed through a cyclical or planned maintenance programme the resident will be advised accordingly. If there is no imminent planned programme the landlord says that it will ensure works are undertaken “as soon as reasonably practical and … residents will not have to wait more than 40 working days for completion of this type of repair”.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to ensure that properties are fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould issues in its property amount to a hazard and require remedying. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing which states that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category 1 under the HHSRS.
The landlord has shared with the Service its response to the recommendations contained within the Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould. This sets out that it was working on a strategy for addressing reports of damp and mould. This was not in place at the time that the resident first raised the issues.

Summary of events

On 5 November 2021, the resident reported damp and mould within his bathroom and the landlord arranged an inspection for 5 December 2021. In the interim the extractor fan to the bathroom was replaced as this was reported as not working.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord raised an order for repairs to the resident’s bathroom. These included removing the plaster to a wall, replastering, and painting. It specified the use of a fungicidal paint to eradicate mould. Works were also specified to mould wash and repaint the wall above the basin and to renew the silicone seal to the bath. This was booked with the resident to be carried out on 6 and 13 January 2022. Initial works were completed but the contractor was unable to complete external works to renew the sealant to the bathroom window due to an issue with accessing the exterior of the property. These works were competed on 10 February 2022. External repairs to the guttering were recorded in March 2022. On 11 April 2022, further works were carried out to the bathroom, and it was noted that the external wall by the window was still wet. On 5 May 2022, the landlord carried out works to realign the external guttering and downpipe.
Internal emails show contact from the resident with the landlord on 10 June 2022, as works remained ongoing to address the issues of mould and damp in the bathroom. The resident advised that he was considering disrepair action and wanted to be told when the works would be finished. He said that he wanted “someone to take ownership” and highlighted his disability. The final works within the resident’s bathroom, to treat and paint around the window, were completed on 15 June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2022. He said that he wished to formally complain about a lack of response to repairs in his home. No evidence has been provided to show if this was responded to.
Following reports from the resident that issues of damp and mould persisted within the bathroom, the landlord carried out an inspection on 30 November 2022. An order detailing further works to be carried out within the bathroom was raised on 1 December 2022, with works commencing on 30 January 2023. The landlord’s records show that it removed the plaster to 3 walls in the bathroom, back to the brickwork. It also placed a dehumidifier into the bathroom to dry the wall. In mid-February it was noted that the walls were drying out, but the resident was asked to keep the dehumidifier running.
The resident raised a complaint on 7 February 2023, which was logged by the landlord on 13 February 2023. In this he said that:
1. he was concerned that he had been “burdened” with the cost of running a dehumidifier. He did not believe that he should be covering the cost of this as he had been reporting issues of damp and mould since November 2021.
2. this had been very stressful as it had been ongoing for 16 months with no resolution. He was registered disabled, and his disability had not been considered. This had impacted him both mentally and physically.
3. he had previously experienced difficulties with paying his energy bills and the extra costs were placing him under pressure. He was seeking legal advice about taking action in the small claims court.
4. the surveyor had attended that day and confirmed that the wall was still not dry, and that the dehumidifier needed to remain on. He felt that he was bearing the cost of repairs. He wanted the landlord to confirm that this was a requirement under his tenancy agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 February 2023 asking for his bank account details as it was looking to reimburse him for the costs of using the dehumidifier. The correspondence did not specify the amount that it would reimburse, and internal emails indicate that this matter remained under discussion. On 17 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to report damage to his bath. He said that during works carried out on 30 January 2023 to remove plaster from the bathroom walls, large amounts of plaster had been placed into the bath causing dents and scratches.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 23 February 2023 and agreed with him that he would “obtain quarterly billing from last year and will compare to this year (take into account energy price increases with his energy provider) to substantiate losses, but he will not submit the claim until the dehumidifier is unplugged”. This approach was to be confirmed through the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. A visit was confirmed for 1 March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 reply on 3 March 2023. In this it apologised for the distress caused by the ongoing damp and mould issues, and the related works. It said that it had reviewed its repairs history, and provided the following detail:
1. An inspection was raised on 5 November 2021 and a surveyor inspected on 2 December 2021.
2. On 10 December 2021, it had raised an order for works to be carried out and these had started on 6 January 2022. These were finally completed on 15 June 2022.
3. Following further inspections of the property, a works order was raised for works to the bathroom which started on 30 January 2023.
4. A dehumidifier had been provided on 30 January 2023 and collected on 3 March 2023. It had been agreed that the resident should claim ‘out of pocket’ expenses for the cost of running this. To do so, it asked the resident to substantiate his claim by providing comparison energy bills and “to confirm from [his] energy supplier on how the spend figure could be increased further resulting from global energy increase which would inflate the figure”.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that the extensive repairs carried out in 2022 had failed to address the problem of damp and mould, which had returned to the bathroom. This had resulted in the provision of a dehumidifier and further works. It also accepted that rubbish from the works had been left outside the resident’s home requiring him to chase for its removal.
6. It confirmed an appointment for its contractor on 7 March 2023 to cover the tile area with plastic. This was to prevent the walls from becoming wet again. Further to this, repairs had then been booked for 18, 19 and 20 April. It explained that it would also be repairing the damaged enamel to the bath.
7. It offered a sincere apology for the inconvenience experienced by the resident and said that the level of service received was not representative of landlord’s high standards. It was grateful for his feedback.
The landlord collected the dehumidifier on 3 March 2023. The walls in the bathroom were covered with polyurethane sheeting “to prevent further damage” on 7 March 2023. This was re-stuck on 16 March 2023. Further works were then carried out to the bathroom in April 2023 in line with the commitments within the stage 1 letter.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 19 April 2023. He said:
1. he was unhappy with how the repair was proceeding.
2. he said that he had to ask for the bathroom cabinet be removed as it was not included in the works. On its removal mould was visible behind it. He remained concerned that this would return as it had just been wiped away.
3. that contractors had again left rubbish outside his property.
4. that the landlord should have a formal procedure for compensation, specifically regarding the use of dehumidifiers. He said that it had been very stressful trying to obtain information from his energy supplier as he had switched provider during the period.
On 20 April 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a copy of his energy consumption for the period when dehumidifier was in his property. He then chased a response from the landlord on 10 May 2023. Internal emails highlight that he had been asked to provide bills for annualised consumption to give a comparison. These also noted a lack of an internal policy on refunds for such costs. It noted that its housing team had previously made “sundry payments” for this.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord recorded that the resident had refused works to seal the walls in the bathroom ahead of retiling being carried out. On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting a schedule of works due to be carried out. The landlord responded to this request on 10 May 2023 and arranged for its surveyor to visit on 17 May 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 19 May 2023. It noted that the resident’s complaint about the ongoing issue of damp and mould within his bathroom. It acknowledged the points he had raised about the quality of workmanship, the lack of information about the use of a dehumidifier, a lack of acknowledgement of his vulnerability and the level of stress that had been caused to him. In its response it said:
1. that having commenced works in January 2022 these had taken 6 months to complete.
2. the problem had returned, and it had identified that this was related to the issue first reported in November 2021.
3. that it accepted that the removal of the bathroom cabinet should have been included in the scope of works and that the plastic sheeting put up to protect the newly plastered walls had not been carried out to a good standard.
4. it noted that despite surveyors, operatives and repair supervisors attending the property, the bathroom remained incomplete at the time of writing.
5. it was aware of his vulnerability and an occupational therapy assessment had been requested. It said that “its repairs service had dealt with the repair request in a standard manner”.
6. it had agreed at stage 1 that the resident could claim ‘out of pocket’ expenses for the increased energy costs relating to the use of the dehumidifier. It noted that he had found it difficult to provide the information it had requested in relation to comparison of his energy bills and noted that its repairs service did not hold information about the energy usage of the dehumidifiers when used to assist in drying out newly plastered walls.
7. it acknowledged that rubbish had been left outside his home and had been removed some time later.
8. that he had been left without a bathroom basin since 20 April 2023. It understood his dissatisfaction with its service.
9. the bathroom repairs were not complete and further works had been identified on 17 May 2023 to:
  1. Reinstate basin.
  2. Address gap between bath and wall.
  3. Address damp plaster on toilet wall.
  4. Remove all tiles on the toilet wall back to the brick and seal with bitumen, replaster and retile.
  5. The repair service was to contact the resident within 3 working days of the letter to arrange a date for these to be carried out.
10. Agreed that the stage 1 had not fully address his concerns and upheld his complaint. It said that there had been an unacceptable delay in diagnosing the cause of the damp and remedying the issue. There had been some poor quality repairs and rubbish left outside his home, and repairs were still to be completed. The clam for out of pocket expenses was too onerous. It acknowledged the distress caused.
11. It apologised and offered compensation of £271.28.
  1. £71.28 based on an average running cost for a dehumidifier of £2.16 per day for 33 days.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
The resident shared the stage 2 response with the Service on 23 May 2023 as he remained concerned that the landlord would not deal with the outstanding issues within his bathroom.
A dehumidifier was supplied to the resident again between 26 May 2023 and 2 June 2023. Works were carried out to the bathroom in June and July 2023. On 9 August 2023 it was noted in the landlord’s repair records that tiling to the bathroom has been completed and that the fitting of a wash hand basin “is to be done”.

Post internal complaints procedure

A further complaint was raised by the resident on 5 September 2023 about the continued poor handling of repairs to his bathroom. He advised that he had been told at 8.50am that a contractor would be attending that day, requiring him to change his plans. He had still not been provided with a detailed schedule of repairs. He had been left without a bathroom sink for over 6 months and a bathroom resembling a building site. He said that he had emailed a complaint on 22 June 2023 about the contactors failure to tidy up after works. This had been acknowledged but he had received no response.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2023. This confirmed the issues raised by the resident and noted that the landlord had spoken with him on 12 September 2023. It included an apology for the late response to his complaint. In responding to the issues raised by the resident it said:
1. It had investigated the appointment on 9 August 2023 where the resident had received less than an hour notice of the contractor’s attendance at his home. It noted that where appointments were cancelled other works could be brought forward to fill the slot with limited notice to the resident. It acknowledged that this was not suitable for everyone, recognising that residents may have other commitments at that time.
2. The resident had identified outstanding works to the tiling and grouting within the bathroom. These works were scheduled for 3 November 2023. Further it had arranged for 2 multi tradesmen to attend to ensure that all outstanding works in the bathroom were completed on the day. It had also recorded a note that the contractor should ensure that there was effective cleaning up once the works had been completed. It had taken on board the resident’s comments about its failure to do this previously.
3. It had discussed the replacement of the wash hand basin with the resident. The resident had been advised that this was a rechargeable repair as there was a crack to the original sink. The resident had purchased his own and the landlord had agreed to install it as part of the ongoing works, but this had not been planned. This was to be carried out, along with other works on 3 November 2023.
4. That the repair was first raised on 1 December 2022. It then provided a history of its attendance at the resident’s home to carry a range of works. It noted that whilst the repairs had been initially delayed due to the walls in the bathroom being too wet, its planners had not booked an appropriate number of consecutive appointments for the repairs to be completed. This had caused the delays, and it upheld his complaint. It advised that feedback had been given to its planning team and that it would be carrying out necessary training.
5. In recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident it offered him £100 compensation.
6. It apologised for the poor level of service received and that this was not representative of the high standards it set.
The landlord has confirmed that all the works have now been completed. It has arranged with the resident to undertake a post inspection of the works on 24 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Through the complaints process with the landlord, the resident has raised concerns about the impact that the ongoing repairs had on his health. Highlighting the level of stress caused by the length of time over which the repairs were carried out and his concerns about the increased energy costs, including the process for reclaiming this from the landlord. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands this situation may have had a detrimental impact on his wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
The resident’s further complaint raised on 5 September 2024 is outside of the Service’s jurisdiction, as set out earlier in this report as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. However, as it relates to the continuation of the repairs to the resident’s home and that these continued beyond his referral of his complaint to the Service, its detail has been included here to provide additional context.

Reports of damp and mould to the bathroom.

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report sets out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.” The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
The resident first raised his concern about damp in his bathroom in November 2021. Initially replacing the extractor fan, the landlord inspected the bathroom on 5 December 2021 and raised a works order on 10 December 2021. The repairs covered a range of actions from stripping back plasterwork in the bathroom to treating the walls and redecorating. It also undertook external repairs to guttering and the downpipes, along with repairs to the window seal. It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake remedial works within the bathroom to try to resolve the issues that had been reported. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the source of the problem had been identified prior to the works commencing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have had some clarity about the cause of the problem prior to commencing the works. Approaching the repairs in such a manner would have helped to ensure that the repairs and follow on works were coordinated and carried out efficiently. It is also unclear what information was given to the resident as to the extent of the works that would be carried out and whether he was updated as to how long the works would take. With the final repairs only being completed on 15 June 2022, the resident faced disruption to the use of his bathroom over a period exceeding 7 months. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord had handled the repairs in the most pragmatic manner. It is therefore unknown whether some of the disruption could reasonably have been avoided.
As above, the evidence is unclear as to whether the cause of the damp was identified prior to the works commencing or once they were underway. External works carried out suggest that there was an issue with penetrating damp from the exterior of the property. However, when the damp returned some 5 months later no external works were included. On this second occasion the repairs took just over 9 months to complete, with the final repairs scheduled for 3 November 2023, following a further complaint by the resident.
The level of disruption experienced by the resident over such a lengthy period is unacceptable. There is a lack of clarity in the evidence provided by the landlord why the initial works carried out from January to June 2022 took so long to conclude. It is acknowledged that there were some access issues to the exterior of the property, but it is not clear why this caused a delay to the internal works. When the damp returned at the end of 2022 there were further delays in starting the works and another lengthy period over which these were carried out. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been an unacceptable delay and poor quality repairs. Its further complaint response in October 2023 identified an issue with how the works had been scheduled for contractors to attend.
These have left the resident with a bathroom in a state of disrepair. Plaster had been hacked off the wall back to the brick work. The resident reported that the contractor caused damage to his bath by placing the discarded plaster in it and he was left without a wash hand basin for over 6 months. There is no evidence that a full schedule of works had been drawn up by the landlord or that this had been shared with the resident. The repairs were carried out as part of its responsive repairs programme when these may have been better overseen as part of a planned maintenance approach. There is no evidence that the landlord took ownership of the repairs to ensure that these were progressed at a reasonable pace. The resident’s disability does not appear to have been considered throughout the works, or how the lack of and disruption to facilities would impact him. The landlord also failed to consider this and review its handling of the matter when the resident raised his concerns as a formal complaint. It therefore missed an opportunity to put things right.
There were significant failings and maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to review its handling of this case, together with an award of compensation to the resident in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. In calculating the compensation award the Service has considered the loss of amenity to the resident because of the ongoing repairs to his bathroom. While he had continued use of the room, this was for long periods in a state of disrepair as each step of the repairs were carried out over a period of months.
Based on the average social rent, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £715.52 compensation for loss of amenity. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period in question. This covers the 2 periods of repairs which took 6 months and 9 months respectively to complete. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account. As the landlord does not have a policy on compensation this is based on the Ombudsman’s own guidance.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response, of £200 compensation in respect of the inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the level of disruption identified and the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s disability through the period of these works this offer is insufficient in these circumstances. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The resident request to be reimbursed the cost of running a dehumidifier.

The resident was provided with a dehumidifier following the return of damp and mould to his bathroom. This was initially for a period of 33 days, followed by a second period of 7 days. The resident raised concerns about the cost of running the dehumidifier from the outset and later highlighted to the landlord difficulties he had experienced in covering the cost of his energy bills. The landlord initially asked the resident to provide his bank details so that it could reimburse him the costs. It then spoke with him and agreed that he would provide copies of his energy bills. Further, it set out in its stage 1 response a process of comparison of his energy bills which would account for changes to energy costs over the period. The resident found this difficult to comply with.
The landlord has advised that it does not have a compensation policy and has no agreed formulae for compensating residents when there is a requirement to run dehumidifiers within their homes. It is recommended that the landlord considers implementing a compensation policy. A policy may help to ensure that there is clarity about the circumstances in which compensation may be paid and how figures will be calculated; and consistency in relation to when offers are made. In this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident when installing the dehumidifier of the potential costs and that it could consider reimbursing him for any increase in his energy bills. This could have provided reassurance and encouraged him to use the appliance continually throughout the period it was in situ. Without this and based on the advice that the resident said he was given, that the dehumidifier would cost around £20 per day, he was reluctant to leave the dehumidifier on 24 hours a day. This was understandable.
Through its complaint response at stage 2 the landlord addressed this issue by making an offer of compensation based on an average running cost of £2.16 per day. The landlord did not provide an explanation of how it reached this figure. However, it is noted that the resident was unable to provide (through no fault of his own) the requisite billing information. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decide on a figure so that the resident could be recompensed accordingly. Based on information available this does appear to be a reasonable estimation of the cost and the level of compensation awarded for the first period of 33 days was appropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord offered to pay the resident for the further 7 days that the dehumidifier was installed for. It is unclear why.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue. It expected the resident to bear the cost of the dehumidifier without consideration for his financial circumstances or providing him with any reassurance to the costs. It further led him to believe it would provide him with a payment by requesting his bank details and then set in place a very specific process by which he could claim for the potential costs. In recognition of the distress caused to the resident and in line with the Services guidance on remedies a further order for compensation has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is noted that the landlord provided responses to the resident’s complaints in line with its own complaint’s policy. It is however noted that this policy is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). It should therefore consider a review of its policy.
The landlord is required to self-assess against the new Code as part of its membership of the Scheme. As such, a separate order has not been made in relation to this. However, this will provide it with the opportunity to make the necessary amendments to the timeframe for its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
It is further noted that the landlord has advised the Service that it has no corporate compensation policy in place. While it has referred to the Service’s Guidance on Remedies, an appropriate recommendation has been made that the landlord should review its position on this and consider implementing a policy accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of running the dehumidifier.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs to his bathroom and its notification of an appointment is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was a failure by the landlord to effectively manage the works required to the resident’s bathroom to ensure that these were completed within a reasonable time scale. That the issue returned within less than 6 months requiring further extensive works to the property led to an unacceptable level of inconvenience to the resident. Throughout this process the landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge the resident’s disability and the possible impact of the works on his health and mobility within his home.
With no clear compensation policy, the landlord presented a complicated range of suggestions to the resident as to how he could reclaim the cost of running the dehumidifier. If it had a policy in place some of the delay and inconvenience to the resident could reasonably have been avoided.
The landlord’s complaints policy is out of date and does not align with the Code.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s Guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £880.64 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £715.52 for the loss of amenity caused by the continued disruption of the works to his use of the bathroom.
  2. £15.12 for the cost of running the dehumidified for 7 days between 26 May and 2 June 2023.
  3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident throughout this process.
3. This is in addition to the £271.28 offered by the landlord. This sum should be paid to the resident now if it has not been paid already.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Undertake a review of its handling of the resident’s repairs and consider how this process could have been improved. As it has already identified an issue with how repairs are scheduled it should further consider its approach to this and consider the development of additional guidance and training for staff.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its handling of this case – in particular the response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs associated with running the dehumidifier. In doing so, the landlord should consider whether it is necessary to introduce a compensation policy for its housing service. This should include guidance for staff on covering additional energy costs incurred by residents through the running of equipment such as dehumidifiers.