London Borough of Islington (202313724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313724

Islington Council

26 March 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Water ingress, damp and mould.
2. Flooding in the communal basement.
3. Issues with her heating and hot water.
4. Issues with her windows and doors.
5. Concerns about subsidence.
This report also considers the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lived in the property from 1984 when her mother held the tenancy and succeeded the tenancy in 2000.
The property is a 2-bed maisonette on the second and third floor of a converted terraced property. The resident’s 2 adult children live with her.
The adjoining terraced property (referred to throughout this report as the ‘neighbouring property’) is privately owned.
At the time of this report the resident and her children are living in temporary accommodation due to subsidence in the property. They are waiting for permanent rehousing.
In November 2022 the resident reported damp in the property. In April 2023 she reported that her windows and internal doors would not shut due to movement in the property.
In April 2023 the owner of the neighbouring property began extensive works to convert it to flats. This included deep excavations to the basement. Shortly after the neighbour started works the resident reported concerns about subsidence and the structural safety of the property.
On 13 April 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 1) about the landlord’s response to her reports of:
1. Water ingress, damp and mould.
2. Issues with the windows and internal doors.
3. Flooding in the communal basement.
4. Subsidence.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 29 June 2023. It said:
1. It carried out a damp and mould survey in December 2022 and found the front of the property was in “disrepair”. The brickwork was “defective” allowing water ingress.
2. In April 2023 it had raised an order for a structural assessment following her concerns about subsidence. It had to reschedule this twice due to a “lack of surveyors”.
3. It completed the assessment on 10 June 2023. It found:
  1. The windows in the front bedroom, kitchen, and living room were “defective”. It would overhaul them.
  2. It would ease and adjust the internal doors.
  3. All rooms which shared a party wall with the neighbouring property had cracks.
  4. There was a flood and “foul smell” in the basement. It would pump this out.
4. It would confirm appointments for these repairs.
5. Its surveyor would visit again on 11 July 2023 to assess the damp and mould.
6. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered £75 compensation for this.
On 8 January 2024 the resident made a further stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2). She said she was concerned about subsidence and that the landlord’s operative said her home was “unsafe”. She also said she had been without heating and hot water for almost 3 weeks.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 9 February 2024. It said:
1. The resident’s boiler was condemned on 22 December 2023. It installed a new boiler on 12 January 2024.
2. It was aware she was waiting for it to install new radiators. It apologised for the delay and would remedy this “as a matter of urgency”.
3. It offered her £373.34 for loss of heating and hot water.
4. Her concerns about the planning process were outside the remit of the housing team. The planning team however had confirmed the owner of the property had received approval for the work.
5. It reiterated the findings of the structural survey in June 2023. It could not carry out any works relating to structural damage until the work to the neighbouring property was complete.
6. It had offered her another property but she had rejected this offer. It would continue to look for suitable alternative accommodation for her.
7. It upheld her complaint and apologised for its service failures.
8. It offered her £700 compensation which included:
  1. £50 for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. £25 for the delay in carrying out a structural survey.
  3. £300 for inconvenience.
  4. £25 for time and effort to complain.
  5. £300 for distress.
On 15 February 2024 the resident escalated Complaint 2 to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said:
1. She wanted to know why the landlord had not completed the repairs she reported in April 2023.
2. The landlord had not taken her concerns about the works next door seriously. Had it done so she would not be “losing [her] family home”.
3. While she waited to be moved, she continued to live with drafts, damp, and a “disgusting” smell from the basement.
4. The landlord told her it would move her to a “like-for-like” property but offered her a high-rise flat.
5. The compensation it had offered was an “insult”.
On 3 March 2024 the resident told the landlord she continued to experience issues with her boiler and radiators. She said she had been without heating and hot water for 27 hours. She asked it to add this to her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 13 March 2024. It said:
1. Since its stage 1 response it had become clear that due to structural damage her home was “unsafe”. She would need to move out.
2. It was unable to confirm it had promised her a like-for-like move but apologised if it had led her to believe this would be possible. Due to the properties it had available, this would be “unlikely”. It would however move her to a “safe and suitable property”.
3. It “empathised” with her having to move from the home she loved but stressed the most important thing was her safety.
4. It had legal obligations and may have to decide to move her. It would however prefer to work with her.
5. It could not consider her concerns regarding the planning process as this was a legal matter. If she contacted the housing team, it would provide the information she needed to “progress this issue”.
6. It upheld her complaint and revised its offer of compensation. It offered her £1,200 which included:
  1. £50 for its delayed stage 1 response.
  2. £50 for the delay in completing a structural survey.
  3. £100 for time and effort to complain.
  4. £1,000 for inconvenience and distress.
  5. It would reimburse her for any costs associated with any moves she had to make.
7. This compensation was in “full and final settlement” but did not prevent her from bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.
In July 2024 the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues and her complaint and escalated her case to the Ombudsman. The matter became one we could investigate in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep the structure of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s repair policy provides the following repair timeframes:
1. Emergency repairs – attend within 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – attend within 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs – attend within 20 working days.
4. Planned works – within 60 working days.
The landlord’s subsidence procedure states that it will carry out a structural assessment within 7 working days of a report of subsidence. It will then record whether there is no subsidence, confirmed subsidence, or whether it needs to continue to monitor the issue.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that where a complaint involves more than one service area, the council will issue one response. It states it will only separate complaints “in exceptional circumstances” and must inform the resident that it is doing so in its complaint acknowledgement.
The complaint policy states that it will not deal with claims for damages and legal disrepair claims through its complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the repair issues and her complaint has caused damage to her health and her belongings.
While the serious nature of the resident’s concerns are noted, we are unable to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing and damage to belongings. This would be more appropriately addressed by an insurance claim or personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue such a claim. This investigation will however consider distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issues.
The landlord in this case is a local authority and is handling the resident’s permanent rehousing via its allocations scheme. Complaints about such applications are the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and therefore this report will not consider this issue.
We will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant. This formed part of the landlord’s handling of the subsidence issue which is part of its landlord social housing repair function.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the planning process for the neighbouring property. This matter relates to the landlord’s role as a local authority and not as a social housing provider. Therefore, this is a matter for the LGSCO and is not something we can consider. If the resident remains concerned about this issue, she may wish to consider escalating this aspect of her complaint to the LGSCO.

Water ingress, damp and mould.

The resident first reported damp and mould to the front of the property in November 2022.
The landlord inspected the issue in mid-December 2022. This was a reasonably prompt response. It found water ingress caused by damage to the adjoining property due to a tree growing through the brickwork. It said it would write to the neighbour and advise them to resolve the issue and that no follow-on works were required as the property would “dry out naturally”.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord wrote to the neighbour. It is not clear whether it failed to send a letter or sent it but failed to provide us with evidence of this. Either way, this was a failing.
While it may have been the case that the damp would resolve itself once the damaged brickwork was addressed, we would still expect the landlord to monitor the issue. It should therefore have arranged a follow-on inspection to ensure the neighbour had completed works and that this had resolved the damp. That it did not was a failing.
In April 2023 the resident told the landlord her neighbour had not resolved the issue with the brickwork and she continued to experience damp. Records show the landlord said it would write to the neighbour. Again, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This was a further failing.
We acknowledge that the water ingress was caused by repair to the neighbouring property and resolving this was the responsibility of the neighbour. However, the landlord was obliged by the terms of the tenancy and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property in good repair. It should also have acted to ensure its asset (the property) was not being damaged. We would therefore expect it to be proactive in ensuring the neighbour carried out the required works, including taking legal action if necessary. That it did not demonstrate that it took any action was a serious failing.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it would carry out a further survey to inspect the damp on 31 May 2023. The records show the landlord cancelled this appointment and rearranged it for 3 June 2023 but no one attended. This caused the resident unreasonable time and trouble in chasing for an update.
The records show that the landlord completed a survey on 11 July 2023. The surveyor who carried out the survey then left the organisation. The landlord could not find any records of the outcome of the survey and at the start of August 2023 decided it would need to carry out a further survey. A copy of the survey should reasonably have been recorded. That it was not is poor record keeping. This caused avoidable delays and further time and trouble to the resident.
The landlord carried out a further survey at the start of September 2023. It found flooding in the basement and said this was the likely cause of the damp. The report made no reference to the damaged brickwork caused by the tree growing through the neighbour’s property. The damaged brickwork was right next to the resident’s front bedroom where she reported the worst of the damp, it would therefore have been reasonable for it to explore this.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between October 2023 and December 2023. She said the damp was spreading throughout the property and causing black mould in her bedroom. She said her neighbour had not resolved the issue with the tree or the damaged brickwork.
The resident contacted the landlord on in December 2023 and said it had called about someone attending to treat the mould later that day. There is no record of the landlord completing any mould treatments. It is not clear whether this is because it did not complete any or because the records are inadequate. Either way, this is inappropriate.
In January 2024 the landlord carried out a further survey. The surveyor said that water was “entering the property from the basement and every other floor”. He said the tree growing through the neighbour’s roof and brickwork had not been resolved and mould was now an issue.
The day after the survey the resident reported that the walls were “wet” and that the damp was affecting the health of her family. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns about her family’s health. This was unreasonable and failed to demonstrate empathy.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord completed any works to address the water ingress and damp and mould between November 2022 and July 2024 when it moved the resident to temporary accommodation. This was a serious failing.
Overall, the landlord failed to carry out works to address the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould for over 20 months. While the neighbour was responsible for addressing the repair to their property, the landlord still had a duty to maintain the resident’s property. This may have included considering taking action against the neighbour. That it did not address the issue was a serious failing. We therefore find severe maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould.

Flooding in the communal basement.

In April 2023 the resident told the landlord the basement was flooded and this was causing the property to smell.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 June 2023 and said no one had attended to inspect the flooded basement. The landlord attended later that week and said it needed to flush the pipes which ran through the basement and pump out the stagnant water which was causing the “foul” smell. It is not clear why it took the landlord 2 months to carry out its assessment. This was outside the timeframes outlined in its policy and was unreasonable.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2023 in response to an enquiry from her MP. It said it needed to clear the basement of items belonging to a previous resident and that this had caused delays.
We accept that the landlord needed to remove the items and would need to serve the appropriate legal notices to do so. We do not however consider that it was reasonable that 3 months after reporting the issue it remained unresolved and residents continued to experience foul smells.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor provided a quote for emptying the basement and pumping out the stagnant water. It did not however pump out the stagnant water until 7 November 2023. The reason for this delay is unclear.
That it took the landlord almost 7 months after the resident’s report to remove the stagnant water was a failing. During this period, the resident had to invest avoidable time and trouble repeatedly chasing an update and reporting “foul” smells. It is evident that this caused her distress and inconvenience.
Less than a week after the landlord pumped the stagnant water out, the resident reported more water was entering the basement.
At the end of December 2023 the landlord raised a repair to pump the stagnant water out of the basement and to investigate the cause of the flooding. It is unclear why there was a delay of 6 weeks between the resident’s report and the landlord ordering this work. The delay was, however, unreasonable.
In February 2024 the resident stated that the basement was still full of stagnant water. She said this was causing a “disgusting smell”.
The records do not show that the landlord took any action until mid-April 2024. At that time its contractor pumped out the basement and jetted out the rainwater gulley which was blocked. It recommended the landlord replace the gulley and level the surrounding area. It also recommended that it carry out a CCTV survey to check for breaks in the gulley that may have been causing the basement to flood.
It is not clear why, despite having been aware for over 3 months that the gulley needed to be replaced, the landlord had not done so. It has not provided us with evidence to show that it carried out this work prior to it moving the resident to temporary accommodation. This was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s reports of flooding in the basement. It then delayed in removing the stagnant water and failed to carry out works to prevent further flooding. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the communal basement.

Issues with her heating and hot water.

The landlord’s contractor condemned and disconnected the resident’s boiler on 21 December 2023 due to a carbon monoxide leak.
The resident telephoned the landlord that day and said the contractor had told her it would be “at least 7 days” before it replaced her boiler. The records show the landlord advised she could call its housing options team if she was unable to stay in the property.
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord regarding temporary accommodation. She was not obliged to do so and we recognise that moving to temporary accommodation would have caused inconvenience. We also acknowledge that at that time she was under the impression that the landlord would resolve the issue within a week. However, that the landlord made the resident aware of this option was reasonable.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord offered to provide the resident with electric heaters while her boiler was out of use. Given it was winter, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer an alternative heating source to mitigate the discomfort that was caused to the resident and her family.
The contractor installed the new boiler on 12 January 2024. This was 22 days after the boiler was condemned, a much longer timeframe than the 7 days originally indicated. The reason for this delay is unclear however that the resident was without heating and hot water for this period was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £373.34 for the loss of heating and hot water. The letter did not outline how it had calculated this amount. While it said it would send a separate letter about this issue, we have not seen that it did so. However, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord is broadly consistent with the amount we would have ordered. We therefore consider the amount offered was reasonable.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would remedy the issues with her radiators “as a matter of urgency”. We would therefore have expected the landlord to carry out any required works promptly. We have seen no evidence that it carried out any works to the radiators in the 5 months in which the resident remained in the property. It therefore failed to do what it said it would. This was unreasonable and caused unnecessary discomfort, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 2 March 2024 the resident reported that she was again without heating and hot water. The records show the contractor attended on the same day and topped up the pressure in the boiler. This timeframe was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Overall, the landlord failed to replace the resident’s boiler within a reasonable timeframe but the compensation it offered was reasonable. It did not however fulfil its promise to address the reported issue with the radiators during the resident’s remaining 5 months in the property. This was unreasonable and there was therefore service failure in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her heating and hot water.

Issues with the windows and doors.

In April 2023 the resident reported that movement in the property had caused issues with the windows and internal doors. She said they would not close fully.
The landlord carried out a structural assessment in June 2023. It said the property had “defective windows in all rooms”. It took the landlord 33 working days to carry out the survey which it raised as a routine repair. It therefore failed to adhere to the timeframe of 20 working days outlined on its website.
The records show the landlord eased the living room window and fitted a new draft excluder on 30 June 2023. It also eased 2 internal doors. It completed these works within a reasonable timeframe of carrying out the survey.
During the appointment on 30 June 2023 the operative noted that the bedroom and kitchen windows were “beyond repair” and that the resident could not close them. He reported it was “very drafty in the house”.
In November 2023 the resident again reported that her home was cold due to drafts caused by her windows and doors not closing properly. She said her son had a compromised immune system which was aggravated by the cold.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the impact of the repair issues on her son’s health. This was inappropriate. We would have expected it to respond to her concerns and express appropriate empathy. That it did not do so was a failing.
One week later the landlord attended to inspect the windows again. The report stated that 3 different operatives had inspected the windows and that the bedroom and kitchen windows needed to be replaced. It also said that the living room window needed to be overhauled again.
It is not clear why the landlord repeatedly inspected the windows despite previous recent inspections recommending that the windows needed to be replaced. This caused unnecessary delays causing the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between November 2023 and December 2023. She reported that the windows were causing the property to be cold and were letting water in. She also said that, since they had last been adjusted, further movement meant the internal doors would not close.
At the end of January 2024 the resident told the landlord the property was like an “icebox” and that she had to have the heating on “constantly” due to drafts from the windows. She asked when it would replace the windows and requested compensation for the increased cost of heating the property.
The Social Housing Regulator’s quality standard states that landlords must ensure that residents’ homes meet the Decent Homes Standard (DHS). The DHS states that homes must provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. We would therefore expect the landlord to carry out an assessment of the thermal comfort of the property and the impact of the windows on any heat loss. That it failed to do so was inappropriate.
In April 2024 the resident expressed concerns about security issues. She said the landlord had erected scaffolding to allow it to install structural supports to the property. She said that her windows would not lock due to their condition and she was worried someone could climb the scaffolding and enter her property.
Landlords are required to consider the security and safety of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Entry by intruders is a potential hazard that falls within the scope of the HHSRS.
It is evident that the resident experienced distress due to her understandable concerns. That the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s security concerns was inappropriate.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out any works to the bedroom or kitchen windows despite being aware in June 2023 that they needed replacing. It therefore failed to adhere to the 60 working day timeframe for planned repairs outlined in its repairs policy. The resident repeatedly reported that, because the windows would not close, water was entering the property and it was cold and costing her a lot to heat. We would have expected the landlord to replace the windows within its policy timeframes or put measures in place to make the property wind and watertight. That it did not do so was a failing.
Overall, the landlord failed for over a year to address the condition of the windows in the bedroom and kitchen. It also failed for 3 months to address the security concerns posed by the window not locking when scaffolding was in place. The landlord’s failure to act caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience along with avoidable time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response. We therefore find severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the windows and doors.

Concerns about subsidence.

In April 2023 the resident reported that she was concerned that the owners of the neighbouring property were due to start work to turn it into flats. She said the foundations of the landlord’s property were already “not good”. She said was unable to close her windows and internal doors due to structural movement.
The landlord arranged to carry out a structural survey on 31 May 2023 but cancelled the appointment due to a “lack of surveyors”. It booked another appointment for 3 June 2023 but again failed to attend. It eventually carried out the survey on 10 June 2023.
It took the landlord 33 working days to carry out an inspection. This far exceeds the 7-working day timeframe in its subsidence procedure. That it failed to adhere to this timeframe and cancelled 2 appointments was inappropriate and caused the resident unnecessary distress, time, and trouble.
The structural survey found cracks in the bedroom and hallway. It also stated that all rooms which shared a party wall with the neighbouring property had cracks. The landlord raised works to replaster the cracked walls. It completed this in September 2023.
The report did not specify whether it found subsidence or needed to monitor the issue. This was a further failing to adhere to its subsidence procedure. Given the works to the neighbouring property and the resident’s safety concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider monitoring the cracks. This would have allowed it to assess whether they were worsening. At minimum we would have expected it to record why it did not consider it necessary to do so. This was a missed opportunity to identify the structural issues in the property.
In October 2023 the resident reported that a tree in her garden had fallen. She said she thought this was caused by movement from the works to the neighbouring property. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out further structural assessments at this time. This was a further missed opportunity to identify structural issues.
The resident contacted the landlord again in late December 2023. She said the work to the neighbouring property was causing “even more damage”. She said cracks were appearing throughout her home and doors that the landlord had adjusted 6 months earlier could not close again. She said the property felt “unsafe”.
In early January 2024 the landlord inspected the property. Landlord emails show the officer who carried out the inspection had “serious concerns” about the property. He said the owner of the neighbouring property had “dug down deeply without adequate support” and was concerned “the ground could be closing in on itself”. The officer said movement was “definitely” occurring and the landlord needed to “seriously consider decanting the tenants”.
The evidence indicates that the landlord began looking at options for permanently rehousing the resident within days of the survey. As previously explained, we have not however assessed its action in relation to the permanent rehousing application.
The landlord’s internal communications state it offered the resident temporary accommodation in February 2024. Later comments by the resident indicate that the landlord did make an offer of permanent rehousing. We would expect to see records of such an offer but the landlord has not provided us with such. This is an example of poor information management by the landlord.
We acknowledge that the resident was reluctant to leave the property. This was understandable given she had lived there for 37 years having first moved in as a child with her mother. The landlord was aware of this and it is noted that it wanted to cause as little inconvenience and distress to the resident as possible. However, its obligation to ensure her safety should have outweighed such concerns.
Within its final complaint response the landlord expressed empathy that the resident would have to leave the home she had lived in since she was a child. That it did so was appropriate. The landlord also, however stressed the “urgency” of moving her to another property. It said it was obliged to ensure she was not at risk by remaining in the property. This was correct. It is therefore not clear why it did not move her immediately.
The Regulator of Social Housing’s safety and quality standard requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of residents in their homes. We have not seen evidence that the landlord did so in this case.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between February and May 2024 asking for an update on her decant. The resident stated the issue was causing her “anxiety”. While the evidence shows it forwarded her communications to another team for a response, we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident. This was inappropriate and demonstrated poor communication.
The evidence shows that in May 2024 the landlord told the resident the property was “unsafe” and she needed to move out. It said she could move to a hotel. The resident asked the landlord what other options were available but we have seen no evidence that it responded. This was a further example of either poor information management or poor communication.
In June 2024 an independent structural surveyor carried out an inspection on the landlord’s instruction. The report found “significant” cracks internally and externally to the rear of the property. It stated that there had been plaster falling in the property and that this was a “safety concern”. It recommended that the resident be “decanted as a priority”.
The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation on 21 July 2024. This was almost 6 weeks after the independent surveyor recommended that it move her. We do not consider that this was a reasonably prompt response. We acknowledge that the resident may have been reluctant to move to temporary accommodation, but we have seen no evidence that explains the delay.
The evidence suggests that the resident’s belongings remained in the property until October 2024 when they were placed in storage. The resident also states that she paid her moving costs and must pay a “fee” each time she wishes to access her stored belongings. As the landlord told her it would pay all moving costs, this was unreasonable. We have made an order in relation to this issue.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed unreasonably in carrying out a structural survey.
2. Failed to explain why it was plastering over the cracks rather than monitoring any movement.
3. Did not communicate effectively with the resident causing her unnecessary time and trouble.
4. Delayed for 7 months in ensuring the resident’s health and safety by moving her to temporary accommodation.
5. Failed to fulfil its agreement to cover the resident’s moving costs.
We therefore find severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.

Handling of the complaint.

It took the landlord 52 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 1. This far exceeded the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. The landlord however acknowledged and apologised for this failing and offered the resident £75 compensation. We consider that this was reasonable.
Within its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 the landlord addressed each of the resident’s concerns. This was positive and in line with the Code.
The landlord outlined the works required to resolve the repair issues and said it would contact her with appointments to complete them. We have seen no evidence that it did so. That it did not do what it said it would, was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing a resolution.
It took the landlord 24 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 2. Again, this exceeded the timeframes in the Code and the landlord’s own policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
Within its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 the landlord addressed each of the resident’s concerns in reasonable detail.
The landlord accepted there had been service failings and offered the resident compensation of £700. While it went some way to explain what the compensation was for, it did not explain what issues the payments for distress and inconvenience were in relation to. Nor did it outline how it calculated the amount offered.
At the time of its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 the landlord had not yet resolved the issues the resident had reported with her radiators. The landlord said it would address this, along with her reports of damp and mould “urgently”.
Had the landlord then carried out the repairs as agreed, this would have been reasonable. However, it did not. It therefore mismanaged the resident’s expectations and caused her further avoidable disappointment.
The landlord advised in its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 that issues surrounding the planning process were outside the remit of a housing complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a complaint involves more than one service area, one response will be issued on behalf of the council. It is therefore unclear why the landlord was unwilling to address this issue of complaint within its complaint response. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy, this was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy.
Within her stage 2 escalation, the resident asked the landlord to explain why it had not completed any of the repairs raised in April 2023. She also said it had failed to take her concerns regarding work to the neighbouring property seriously when she first reported them.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. That the landlord did not respond to these points was therefore a failing.
Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it could not consider her concerns regarding the planning process as this was a legal matter. This differs from its explanation at stage 1 for why it could not consider the matter.
The landlord told the resident to contact the housing team for the information she needed to “progress this issue”. We consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to proactively update the resident on this matter. That it expected her to invest additional time and effort in doing this was unreasonable.
In its final complaint response the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,200 in “full and final settlement”.
It was inappropriate to refer to the offer as “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase indicating that, if she accepted the offer, the resident would not be able to raise further complaints or make an insurance or civil claim. That was misleading. The use of the phrase may have led the resident to understand there was no further negotiation open to her.
It is inappropriate to use such a term without explaining the implications of such a phrase. The landlord should avoid the use of the term in the context of a complaint altogether. It should only use it where the parties were explicitly seeking a final settlement, in which case, the landlord should explain itself.
We do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the serious detriment experienced by the resident over a prolonged period. We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace its offer of compensation.
During the period of the complaint the resident paid approximately £725 per month in rent. We consider that, in the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate that the landlord pay compensation in recognition of the time that the resident’s enjoyment of the property was impacted by outstanding repairs.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident:
1. £1,450 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. We have calculated this as approximately 10% of the total rent for 20 months.
2. £1,088 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of her reports of issues with her windows and doors. We have calculated this as approximately 10% of the total rent for 15 months.
3. £1,631 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of her concerns about subsidence. We have calculated this as approximately 15% of the total rent for 15 months.
It is important to note that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
We have also ordered that the landlord pay the resident:
1. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of her reports of flooding in the basement.
2. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of her reports of issues with her heating and hot water.
3. £50 for delays in completing a structural survey.
4. £500 for distress in relation to its response to her concerns about subsidence.
5. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of her complaint.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Failed to carry out the works it said it would in its complaint responses.
2. Did not clearly and consistently explain why it could not consider the resident’s concerns about planning issues.
3. Failed to offer proportionate redress for the detriment experienced by the resident.
There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the communal basement.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her heating and hot water.
4. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the windows and doors.
5. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £5,592.34 which comprises:
  1. £1,450 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of reports of flooding in the basement.
  3. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of reports of issues with her heating and hot water.
  4. £373.34 for loss of heating and hot water.
  5. £1,088 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of reports of issues with her windows and doors.
  6. £1,631 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of concerns about subsidence.
  7. £500 for distress in relation to its response to concerns about subsidence.
  8. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of her complaint.
3. The compensation ordered includes the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response. If the landlord has already paid this, it should pay the remaining amount.
4. On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased costs) the landlord to reimburse the resident for the increased cost of heating the property due to drafts caused by subsidence-related damage. The landlord should demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and agreed a compensation amount within 2 weeks of the resident providing the evidence.
5. On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg invoices from removal and storage companies) the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of moving to temporary accommodation. It must also reimburse her for the storage of (and access to) her belongings. The landlord should demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and agreed a compensation amount within 2 weeks of the resident providing the evidence.