London Borough of Lewisham (202231098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231098

Lewisham Council

27 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestations in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that contractors stole items from her loft.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective washing machine.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including damp and mould, temporary flooring in the bathroom, roof repairs, cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling and gaps in the window frames.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be decanted.
6. The resident’s reports of discrimination and infringement of her human rights.
7. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that contractors stole items from her loft.
2. The resident’s reports of discrimination and infringement of her human rights.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”. In this case, the resident has confirmed to this Service that the alleged theft of items from her loft occurred in 2010. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that contractors stole items from her loft has not been investigated by the Ombudsman.
Paragraph 42(f) states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. In this case, the resident has stated that in her view the landlord was responsible for discrimination based on her protected characteristics and had infringed her human rights.
The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and the Ombudsman has no legal powers to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act. These are legal matters that would have to be determined by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to the Equality Act and to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
This Service therefore considers the resident’s reports of discrimination and infringement of her human rights to be outside of its jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has therefore not investigated this element of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The property is a 4-bedroom house and the resident has a secure tenancy, which started on 24 January 2000. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord has confirmed that it was advised by the resident that she is partially sighted, has dementia, has a hearing impairment, has an allergy to cement, is unsteady on feet and has other medical conditions.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 14 January 2022 for a ‘property MOT’, which entailed a full inspection of the property by a technical inspector. The inspection was carried out on 21 February 2022 and the report showed:
1. Some of the walls in the property were affected by damp and mould.
2. The kitchen units were in poor condition.
3. Some of the windows could not be opened.
4. The kitchen taps and waste were leaking.
5. A new wash hand basin and bath were required.
6. The tiling in the bathroom needed to be renewed.
7. There were broken electrical sockets.
8. There were cracks in the internal and external walls.
9. The roof was in good condition based on a visual inspection.
10. The garden was overgrown, there were significant levels of rubbish present and there were signs of pests in the garden.
11. The inspector could not access some of the bedrooms due to the amount of belongings in bags and could not properly inspect the living room due to the number of boxes present.
12. The report stated that there were significant signs of hoarding.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 2 March 2022 to carry out follow-on works resulting from the property MOT. However, the log does not show any details regarding the works that were ordered and the completion date is shown as “null”.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 9 August 2022 to inspect the bathroom flooring for a possible trip hazard. The log shows that the inspection was carried out on 30 August 2022 and follow-on works were booked for an operative to attend on 8 December 2022. However, the landlord has confirmed that works were not completed on this date but the reasons are unclear. The operative attended on 9 December 2022, however, there was no access and he left a card. (The landlord’s records state that the job was “abandoned” on 25 January 2023).
On 9 December 2022, the landlord raised an order to replace the doors to the 4 bedrooms and the living room following a fire risk assessment. The landlord’s records state that the work was completed on 14 December 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 16 January 2023 to investigate “major cracks” on the bathroom wall and ceiling and in the toilet.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that its contractor attended the property on 13 and 19 April 2023 and carried out an electrical inspection and testing as part of the landlord’s electrical programme.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2023 and questioned why the landlord had visited her property the day before without prior confirmation of an appointment. The resident referred to the surveyor’s visit on 21 February 2022 and said she had requested a copy of the report. She said the surveyor had advised her she would need to be decanted to allow the works to proceed. The resident also included details of the following issues which she said were outstanding:
1. The resident said she had written to the landlord’s heating contractor on various occasions since November 2022 regarding her defective washing machine. She believed the heating engineer had been responsible for damaging the washing machine when it carried out boiler repairs on 4 November 2022. The resident said she had sent the housing officer copies of the emails. She requested compensation for the loss of use of the washing machine.
2. She mentioned a broken thermostat, which she stated had led to higher energy costs.
3. She again requested a copy of the surveyor’s report from the inspection carried out in February 2022. She said she had requested a copy on various occasions from February 2022 to April 2023.
4. The resident said she had agreed with her housing officer that the officer would speak to her manager about the possibility of a decant to a like-for-like property. However, the resident had not received any further information.
5. A contractor had attended the property on 4 March 2022 to remove mould from the windows. The contractor had placed temporary floor protection in the bathroom and the resident had slipped and fallen on this several times. The resident said the housing officer had agreed to investigate this in July 2022.
6. The resident said there were mice in the attic.
7. The resident said that roof tiles had been replaced and gaps had been left between the tiles. Consequently, some of her possessions had been damaged and she was waiting for compensation. The resident said the landlord’s housing officer had agreed to investigate this but she had not received any further feedback.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and questioned its statement that it had no record of her reporting issues since 1985. She stated that the landlord had not acted on various surveyors’ reports dating back to 1985. The resident requested to be decanted while the landlord carried out repairs/refurbishment of the property. She advised the landlord that she had experienced stress, anxiety and had to postpone medical operations to her eyes and arms. The resident stated that the outstanding issues were:
1. Damp and mould;
2. Window gaps;
3. Cracks on the bathroom walls;
4. The washing machine was still defective (her daughter was having to take clothes to her friend’s house to be washed); and
5. The black ‘Proplex’ sheets were still covering the bathroom floor. She said they had been left on the bathroom floor by the contractor on 4 March 2022.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 5 May 2023 and stated that she had not received a response to her email of 26 April 2023. She stated that there were ongoing problems with mice infestations, issues with the washing machine and rain damage through reported gaps in the roof tiles. The resident added that she had experienced problems with mould for several years and this had affected her children’s health, leaving them with medical conditions affecting them as adults.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 12 May 2023 and confirmed it had been logged as a stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay in logging the complaint, which it said was due to a backlog that it was working to clear.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply and stated the following:
1. The landlord had carried out a property MOT and some works had been completed at the beginning of 2022. However, due to the time that had elapsed since then, the landlord had booked an appointment for a technical inspector to attend on 7 June 2023.
2. The landlord said its housing officer had been trying to inspect the resident’s washing machine and discuss rehousing with her but had been unsuccessful. The housing officer had last called on 17 April 2023 but the resident had advised that she was unwell. The landlord had therefore booked an appointment for the housing officer to visit on 1 June 2023.
3. In relation to the resident’s reports of mice in the property, the landlord advised that it had tried to contact the resident on 18 May 2023 but had been unable to get through or leave a message. The landlord stated that the council was responsible for pest control but would charge her for any treatments. The landlord advised her of the council’s phone number for reporting pest issues.
4. The landlord stated that its heating contractor was unaware of any problems with the resident’s thermostat. They had tried to speak to the resident on 17 May 2023 but had not been able to contact her or leave a message. The contractor had therefore sent the resident a letter and email.
5. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation and apologised that it had attempted to contact her regarding the mice and the repairs but had been unsuccessful.
The landlord’s repairs log states that the resident refused the contractor access to carry out work to repair the reported cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling on 31 May 2023. The notes said that the resident had refused access because it was an inconvenient time and that she would call to rearrange the appointment. The notes added that the job was eventually ‘abandoned’ as the resident did not ring back.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 in response to its stage one letter. The points raised by the resident included:
1. The resident requested clarification on the reason it had offered her £100 compensation.
2. The resident said there had been 5 surveyors’ inspections in 2022 and 2 in 2023 and no follow-up action had been taken. She said she wanted information about these inspections before allowing a further inspection of the property.
3. The resident requested copies of all surveyors’ reports dating back to 1985. She mentioned that she had requested the information as part of a Subject Access Request (SAR).
4. The resident advised the landlord that she was classed as “critically vulnerable” due to physical, mental and sensory disabilities.
5. The resident stated that the issues with the roof tiles were still outstanding.
6. She stated that the landlord’s heating contractor had not responded to her regarding the reported damage to the washing machine.
7. The resident mentioned the ‘Proplex’ flooring in the bathroom, which she said dated back to March 2022.
The landlord’s records state that it spoke to the resident in June 2023 about referring her to the council’s Adult Social Care team (the exact date is not shown). However, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of a referral. The resident also refused an offer from the landlord to assist her to downsize to a property that was more suitable for her needs.
On 5 June 2023, the resident wrote to the council to complain about its Adult Social Care team. However, she also mentioned issues such as mice, damp and mould in the property, the temporary floor covering in the bathroom and her request to be decanted.
On 8 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated the following:
1. She was sometimes called for urgent hospital appointments and this caused her to miss appointments on some occasions.
2. The resident said her washing machine had been broken for 8 months, there were mice, broken tiles, rain damage and mould.
3. The resident said she suffered from blindness, dementia and Alzheimer’s.
4. The resident requested the landlord to decant her to a like-for-like property.
On 12 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to apologise for not opening the door in time when the housing officer had visited the property that day. She stated that she had not been able to get to the door in time.
The resident wrote to the landlord (the Mayor’s Office) on 15 June 2023 and stated the following:
1. She had requested to be decanted to a furnished like-for-like property until such time as her property had been refurbished.
2. The landlord’s housing officer had visited on 12 June 2023 but the resident had not been able to get to the door quickly enough.
3. The resident mentioned the reported defects to the washing machine and the defective roof, which she said was allowing rain to enter the loft.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2023 regarding her washing machine, which she reported had been damaged by a contractor. The landlord stated that as the incident had occurred 8 months ago, it would not log a complaint. The landlord added that the resident would need to provide a good reason why she had not complained within 6 months of the incident as per its complaints policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 and provided further information about her complaints, including the defective washing machine, thermostat, mice in the attic and low temperatures in the property due to draughty windows. The resident also reported damp and mould in the property. In addition, the resident’s email included the following points:
1. The resident stated that she had experienced falls and slips due to stagnant water on the ‘Proplex’ flooring in the bathroom. She said this had resulted in a fractured toe and chest and head injuries.
2. The resident said she had reported defects with her boiler thermostat and her washing machine on 4 November 2022. An operative had attended on 8 November 2022 and advised the resident that the defective thermostat and washing machine were both related to problems with the boiler.
3. The resident questioned why she had not been decanted to a like-for-like property following a surveyor’s inspection in February 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2023 to confirm it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord understood the resident’s complaint was about:
  1. The low temperature inside the property caused by the landlord replacing the previous radiators with smaller ones and the double-glazed windows being ill-fitting.
  2. The landlord’s handling of mice due to holes in the roof.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s falls and trips in the property and her request for adaptations.
  4. The resident felt she had been victimised, discriminated against and her human rights had been infringed.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that items had been stolen from her loft by contractors.
  6. The landlord’s handling of various repairs.
  7. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for her daughter’s sleepless nights and for having to do her laundry elsewhere.
2. The landlord said that its housing management team had unsuccessfully been trying to visit the resident for some time. The landlord stated that the resident had declined the appointment booked for 1 June 2023. Therefore, due to concerns about her welfare, the landlord had booked a further appointment for 12 June 2023 but the resident did not grant access on the day.
3. The Landlord’s Property Manager had also been unable to access the property when he visited on 7 June 2023 to carry out a full property inspection.
4. The landlord requested the resident to make contact in order to book suitable appointments.
5. In terms of the mice, the landlord reiterated that the resident was responsible for pest treatments. However, the landlord had spoken with the resident on 12 July 2023 and she had confirmed that she had treated the mice herself. The landlord said it should be able to carry out proofing works to resolve the problem but it would require access to the property to identify the works.
6. The landlord had checked its records and had not found any requests for adaptations. The landlord included a phone number for the council’s Gateway team, which it said the resident would need to ring for further assistance.
7. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to complete a rehousing application form via the council’s website in order to request a transfer.
8. The landlord summarised its commitment to meeting its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
9. The landlord stated that it had not received any previous reports from the resident about theft from her loft. The landlord encouraged her to report the matter to “the authorities”.
10. The landlord said it could not compensate the resident for having to use someone else’s washing machine as it had tried unsuccessfully to inspect it.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

On 17 October 2023, one of the council’s social workers wrote to the landlord asking for it to address some outstanding repairs regarding mould and the thermostat.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order on 12 January 2024 to replace loose wall tiles in the bathroom. The notes stated that the resident had requested the landlord to reschedule the repair to 29 March 2024.
The landlord raised an order on 5 February 2024 to replace broken tiles on the roof causing a leak when it rained. (The landlord advised this Service that it had “abandoned the job in error” and therefore a new job had been raised on 10 June 2024).
An order was raised on 19 February 2024 to repair the double-glazed windows in the kitchen and bathroom as they were hard to open and there were gaps. The notes stated that an appointment had been booked for 3 May 2024. However, the notes stated the work did not take proceed because the resident was unhappy with the design of the windows.
On 20 June 2024, the landlord advised this Service that at the time of the resident’s property MOT on 21 February 2022 it had halted all works resulting from property MOTs because the budget for the scheme had been fully used. The landlord stated that information about the suspension of property MOT works was communicated to residents via its website.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 May 2023 and stated that she had experienced problems with mould for several years and this had affected her children’s health, leaving them with medical conditions. The resident had also mentioned in her email dated 3 July 2023 that she had experienced falls resulting in a fractured toe, chest and head injuries. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The Ombudsman has not investigated events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response letter dated 27 July 2023. This is because a key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestations in the property

The landlord’s Pest Management Policy states:
1. “We have no specific duty to treat pests at [all], and will not routinely fund treatments to, individual homes”.
2. “We are committed to working in partnership with other parts of the Council…including the specialist pest control team which delivers both block and individual pest treatments through its in-house pest control team.”
On 19 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to report various issues affecting the property, including mice in the attic. The landlord stated in its stage one reply dated 26 May 2023 that it had tried contacting the resident to discuss the matter but had not been able to get through. It advised the resident that the council’s pest control team was responsible for pest control but would charge her for any treatments. The landlord provided the resident with the contact details for the pest control team.
It was appropriate that the landlord had tried to speak to the resident about her reports of mice so that it could find out more information about the extent of the problem. It was also appropriate that the landlord had advised the resident the council was responsible for pest control treatments as this was consistent with its Pest Management Policy. It was therefore helpful that the landlord provided the resident with the contact details for the council’s pest control team.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 July 2023 and she confirmed that she had arranged and paid for the mice treatment herself. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 27 July 2023 that it would be able to carry out proofing works to deal with any entry points but the resident would need to provide access for the landlord to identify the works. As the resident had arranged the mice treatment herself, it was reasonable that the landlord offered to inspect the property to identify any proofing works required. The proofing works would prevent mice entering the property in the future.
Although the landlord’s property MOT in February 2022 had identified signs of pests in the garden, it had not identified signs of pests inside the property. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident had reported signs of mice inside the property prior to April 2023. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord responded reasonably following the resident’s reports of mice in the attic in April 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective washing machine

The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2023 and raised various issues, including her defective washing machine. She stated that the landlord’s heating contractor had damaged the washing machine when it had attended in November 2022 to repair the boiler. The resident said she had written to the contractor on various occasions since November 2022 as this had been suggested by the landlord’s housing officer.
The resident wrote to the landlord again about the washing machine on 26 April 2023 and 5 May 2023. She stressed that her daughter was having to use a friend’s washing machine as her washing machine was broken.
The landlord sent a stage one reply to the resident on 26 May 2023 in which it advised the resident that its housing officer had tried to inspect the washing machine on 17 April 2023 but the resident had been unwell. The housing officer had therefore booked a further appointment on 1 June 2023. As the resident was requesting compensation for the reported damage to the washing machine, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to inspect it and find out more details about how it had been damaged.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the washing machine. She mentioned that the heating contractor had not replied to her emails. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 8 June 2023 to say that the washing machine had now been broken for 8 months. The landlord’s records show that the housing officer visited the property on 12 June 2023 but was not given access. The resident later said that she had not been able to get to the door in time. It was again reasonable that the landlord had attempted to visit the resident to inspect the washing machine and obtain details of the reported damage.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2022 and stated that it was unable to log a complaint about the washing machine as the incident had occurred 8 months earlier. The Ombudsman’s assessment of this decision is covered below as part of the landlord’s complaints handling.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2023 that it could not compensate the resident for the washing machine because it had tried unsuccessfully to inspect it. This was reasonable as the landlord had attempted to inspect the washing machine but had not been able to do so. However, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had not used the stage 2 reply to offer a further appointment given that the resident had apologised on 12 June 2023 for not being able to get to the front door in time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including damp and mould, temporary flooring in the bathroom, roof repairs, cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling and gaps in the window frames

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including the roof. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s repairs policy identifies the following 3 repair priorities:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, if possible, otherwise the contractor will make the defect safe and raise follow-on works.
2. Urgent works will be completed within 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord carried out a property MOT inspection on 21 February 2022. The resulting report showed that the property was generally in poor condition with many of the walls affected by mould. The property was also found to be significantly cluttered with boxes, refuse bags and other items.
The landlord has advised this Service that repairs resulting from property MOTs were suspended prior to the inspection of the resident’s property due to budgetary reasons. Therefore, the works identified by the surveyor during the property MOT were not carried out.
The landlord has stated that information about the suspension of property MOT works was communicated to residents via its website, however, it accepts that the resident was unlikely to have read this given her vulnerabilities, including sight impairment. The landlord has therefore accepted that its communication with the resident regarding the property MOT and the decision not to proceed with the resulting works was poor.
The Ombudsman has not seen any communication sent by the landlord directly to the resident explaining that the works would not proceed and apologising to her. This was unacceptable as the property MOT had raised the resident’s expectations that the landlord would carry out works to remedy the defects identified during the inspection. The landlord’s communications and handling of the repairs following the inspection lacked transparency and this led to the resident writing to the landlord on various occasions to request information about the outcome.
The Ombudsman understands that landlords must operate within budgets, however, this should not take precedence over the landlord’s statutory and contractual obligations or its duty of care in relation to the resident.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord produced a plan for ensuring that the repairs were carried out within a reasonable timescale. This was unreasonable as the property MOT had identified some repairs that were urgent, for example, the damaged electrical sockets and the leaking waste pipe in the kitchen. As a result, the resident had no information about when the repairs would be carried out and this caused significant detriment to the resident due to the condition of the property and her vulnerabilities. As well as the discomfort caused by the outstanding repairs, the resident stated in her email dated 26 April 2024 that the situation had caused her stress and anxiety.
The resident requested a copy of the property MOT report on various occasions, such as on 19 April 2022, but was not sent a copy of the report, nor did the landlord give a reason why the report could not be provided. This was unreasonable as the resident was entitled to know the landlord’s findings from the inspection and its plans for carrying out works to the property.
During 2023, the resident made various reports of mould in the property. For example, she reported this in her email dated 26 April 2023. The landlord had previously noted the presence of mould in various rooms during the property MOT on 21 February 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out mould treatment on the walls in 2022 or 2023 following the inspection. This was unreasonable as the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), “Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing”. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking the problem of mould in the property seriously.
One of the other issues raised by the resident was that she had fallen over temporary flooring in the bathroom. The resident said the temporary flooring had been fitted in the bathroom on 4 March 2022 by a contractor to protect the floor while it was working in the property.
It is unclear why the contractor left the temporary flooring in place following completion of the work. However, the landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised a job on 9 August 2022 to inspect the flooring in the bathroom. The order stated that the flooring was a potential trip hazard. The inspection was carried out on 30 August 2022 and follow-on works were booked for an operative to attend on 8 December 2022. The landlord’s records show that the operative did not attend on this day, however, the reason for this is unclear. The operative attended on 9 December 2022 but there was no access and therefore he left a card. The landlord’s records state that the job was “abandoned” on 25 January 2023.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, including being partially sighted and unsteady on her feet, it was unreasonable for the contractor to have left the temporary flooring in place since March 2022. Neither the landlord nor the contractor had explained to the resident why the floor protection had not been removed. It was also unreasonable that it took until 9 December 2022 for an operative to attend the property having been made aware on 9 August 2022 that the flooring was a potential trip hazard. The Ombudsman considers the landlord to have failed to give due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
Although the operative had left a card at the property on 9 December 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord was proactive in contacting the resident to rebook the job. As she was known to be vulnerable and she had reported the potential trip hazard, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not contacted the resident before abandoning the job on 25 January 2023. It had been almost 6 months since the landlord had raised the order on 9 August 2022 to inspect the flooring and over 10 months since the temporary flooring had been fitted in March 2022.
In her email to the landlord on 19 April 2023, the resident reported that she had slipped and fallen on the temporary flooring in the bathroom. She also wrote to the landlord about the flooring on 26 April 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply on 26 May 2023 and advised her that an appointment had been booked for a technical inspector to attend on 7 June 2023. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was unreasonable that the landlord had not treated the matter with greater urgency. The resident had reported tripping/slipping on the temporary flooring and the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities, including sight impairment.
The Government’s HHSRS guidance states: “The dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants”. The HHSRS identifies falls associated with a bath, shower or similar facility as a hazard.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply of 27 July 2023 that the resident had refused access for the planned inspection on 7 June 2023 and had not provided access to its housing officer on 1 and 12 June 2023. The landlord requested the resident to make contact to rebook the appointments.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord faced challenges in accessing the property. However, the landlord did not specifically mention the temporary flooring in its in its stage 2 reply. Instead, the landlord advised the resident that she could contact the council’s Adult Social Care (Gateway) team as she had reported slips and falls. The landlord stated that the team could carry out an assessment for adaptations. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly stated in her email dated 3 July 2023 that the slips and falls were due to water collecting on the Proplex flooring in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor had fitted the floor protection and therefore it was incumbent upon the landlord to address any issues connected with it.
The Ombudsman accepts that there may have been a wider need for adaptations to the property given the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, the resident had made it clear that the bathroom flooring was the immediate issue that needed to be resolved.
Despite the access issues in December 2022 and June 2023, the evidence shows a complete lack of urgency and proactivity on the landlord’s part regarding the bathroom flooring. The landlord has not disputed that temporary flooring was left in the property in March 2022 and therefore the flooring had been in place for 17 months at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply. This was unacceptable given that the resident had reported tripping and slipping on the flooring. The Ombudsman has concluded that in terms of the bathroom flooring, the landlord did not give sufficient regard to its duty of care towards the resident given her vulnerabilities.
Another of the concerns raised by the resident was the condition of the roof. The resident stated in her email dated 19 April 2023 there were gaps in the roof tiles and this was allowing rain to enter the loft. The resident also raised the issue in her emails dated 31 May 2023, 8 June 2023 and 15 June 2023.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it did not raise any jobs during 2023 for its roofers to carry out repairs. Instead, the landlord had booked a general inspection of the property to take place on 7 June 2023 and, as stated previously, the resident did not give access on this date. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show why it had not acted earlier to inspect the roof as it had been 7 weeks since the resident had reported on 19 April 2023 that rain was entering the loft. The delay was inappropriate, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it raised an order on 5 February 2024 for its roofing contractor to repair the roof tiles. However, the job was “abandoned” in error and therefore the landlord raised a further order on 10 June 2024. As stated earlier, this Service has not investigated events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply. However, an order has been made for the landlord to arrange a full inspection of the property and for the report to be used to produce a schedule of repairs and plan for carrying out the repairs. The schedule of repairs should include any works needed to the roof.
The resident reported cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling. The landlord therefore raised an order on 16 January 2023 to investigate the reported cracks. The resident chased the landlord about the order on 26 April 2023 as it had been over 3 months since it had raised the order. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence explaining the reason for the delay and therefore the delay in progressing the repair was inappropriate. It meant that the resident had to chase the landlord about the reported cracks on the walls and ceiling and the resident said in her email that the outstanding repairs were causing her stress and anxiety.
The landlord’s repairs log shows the resident refused the contractor access to repair the cracks on 31 May 2023 because it was an inconvenient time. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident would call to rearrange the appointment, however, the job was abandoned as the resident did not ring back. The landlord had therefore taken over 4 months from 16 January 2023 to 31 May 2023 when it attempted to carry out the repair. This was significantly outside its 20-working day target for carrying out routine repairs and was therefore unreasonable. The delay resulted in further frustration for the resident about the outstanding repairs.
In her email dated 26 April 2023 the resident reported there were large gaps in the window frames throughout the property. The landlord advised the resident on 26 May 2023 that it had booked an appointment for a technical inspection of the property to be carried out on 7 June 2023. The landlord’s records show that it had intended to carry out a full inspection of the property, including the windows. As the resident had reported gaps around the windows, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the windows to identify any remedial works needed to them.
As previously stated, the resident refused access to the landlord on 7 June 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states: “If we need to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, we will be clear that this is the reason for the visit and will arrange any follow on works promptly”. In this case, the landlord had advised the resident on 26 May 2023 that the appointment had been made to inspect the condition of the property for repairs. The landlord had therefore acted appropriately by giving advanced notice of the appointment and stating the purpose of the visit.
Whilst the Ombudsman understands, the resident’s frustrations that there had been previous inspections carried out, the resident is required under the tenancy agreement to allow access for inspections and repairs. The tenancy agreement states: “You must give all authorised employees and agents of the Council reasonable access to your home to inspect or carry out any work”. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord took reasonable steps to inspect the windows following the resident’s report on 26 April 2023 of gaps around the windows.
Overall, the evidence shows that there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. Although the landlord faced issues with access to the property, the Ombudsman has found there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs because:
1. The landlord had identified several defects during the property MOT on 21 February 2022 but had failed to carry out remedial works or produce a plan for carrying them out.
2. The landlord had also failed to communicate with the resident regarding the repairs and had not been transparent with her about why it had not carried out repairs following the property MOT.
3. The landlord did not take effective action to address the mould issues identified during the property MOT and did not demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously.
4. The landlord failed to resolve issues relating to the temporary floor covering in the bathroom. The resident advised the landlord that she had tripped and slipped on the flooring, which she said had caused her injuries. However, at the time of its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2023, the landlord had not taken effective action to address the flooring some 17 months after it had been fitted, despite the resident’s vulnerabilities.
5. There was a delay in the landlord arranging an inspection of the cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling.
6. There was a delay in the landlord arranging an inspection of the roof tiles.
7. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a copy of the property MOT report from the inspection carried out on 21 February 2022, despite her requesting this on various occasions. This added to the resident’s view that the landlord was not being transparent about the repairs.
8. The landlord failed to give due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities, any reasonable adjustment required to its service or to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
The Ombudsman’s investigation has been hampered by the landlord’s poor record keeping and information management. For example, information in the landlord’s repairs log submitted to this Service was incomplete and contained insufficient detail. The poor record keeping was likely to have been one of the factors that led to the failure of service provided to the resident.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation which takes into account the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay financial redress equivalent to 50% of the full rent to compensate the resident for the failings identified in its handling of various repairs to the property. The rental figure used is £170.29 per week. The start date used for the calculation is 21 March 2022, which was 20 working days after the property MOT. The end date used is 27 July 2023, which is the date of the landlord’s stage 2 reply. The compensation ordered in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs is therefore:

21 Mar 2022 – 27 Jul 2023: 493 days x £24.33 (daily rent) x 50% = £5,997

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be decanted

The landlord’s Temporary Relocation (Decanting) Policy states:
1. “If essential repairs are required and cannot be carried out while a tenant and their household is living in their property, we will confirm how long we expect the repairs to complete and communicate a start date and estimated end date”.
2. “If repairs are going to take more than six weeks to complete, we will aim to identify a suitable property within our stock to use for temporary decanting…Tenants who are under-occupying their permanent home will be offered a temporary property that meets their immediate household’s current needs”.
The tenant lives alone in a 4-bedroom house, although she has advised this Service that her daughter stays in the property at weekends. The resident is therefore under-occupying the property. Under the landlord’s decanting policy, she would be offered a property that meets her immediate needs if there was a need to temporarily decant her.
The resident advised the landlord on 19 April 2023 that she had been informed by the surveyor who carried out the property MOT on 21 February 2022 that she would need to be decanted to allow the works to proceed. She wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and requested to be decanted to allow her property to be refurbished.
The landlord did not address the resident’s request to be decanted in its stage one reply dated 26 May 2023 and did not give an indication of whether its surveyor had recommended a temporary decant for works to be carried out. This was unreasonable as the landlord had an opportunity to state clearly whether it believed the resident would need to be decanted. This was important as the resident had advised the landlord on 26 April 2023 that she was experiencing stress and anxiety regarding her housing situation.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply that it had booked an appointment for a further technical inspector to attend on 7 June 2023. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord wanted to check the current condition of the property, it was clear from the resident’s email dated 31 May 2023 that she was frustrated about the lack of a clear plan for the works following the previous inspections. The resident said in her email that there had been 5 surveyors’ inspections during 2022 and 2 during 2023. Therefore, she advised the landlord that she wanted information about the outcome of these previous inspections before allowing a further inspection.
In its stage 2 reply dated 27 July 2023, the landlord again did not address the question of whether its previous inspections had recommended a decant to allow works to proceed. Instead, the landlord stated that the resident would need to complete a rehousing application via the council’s website to request a transfer. This was inappropriate as the landlord was aware the resident had requested a decant to enable works to proceed and that the property MOT had confirmed that significant remedial works were needed. It was therefore unhelpful of the landlord simply to direct the resident to the council’s transfer application form without first addressing the question of whether a decant had been recommended by its surveyor.
The evidence seen shows that the landlord attempted to discuss the subject of rehousing with the resident and tried to provide support during 2023. For example, the landlord’s records show that it took the following action:
1. In June 2023, it suggested a referral to the council’s Adult Social Care team, however, the landlord stated that the resident refused this offer.
2. The landlord’s records also state that in June 2023 it had offered to assist the resident to downsize to a property that was more suitable to her needs but again she had refused this offer.
3. The landlord had offered an appointment for its housing officer to visit the resident on 1 June 2023 but the resident had declined the appointment.
4. The housing officer had visited the property on 12 June 2023 to discuss the resident’s housing situation but had not obtained access.
The evidence also shows that the resident was requesting a decant to “a like-for-like” property, which was contrary to the landlord’s decant policy as she was significantly under-occupying her home.
The Ombudsman therefore recognises that the situation was challenging for the landlord given the lack of access and the resident’s requests for a decant to a like-for-like property. Nevertheless, this Service has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted. Although the landlord was aware that significant repairs had been identified during the property MOT, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord engaged meaningfully with the resident during 2022 to discuss a potential decant.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s question about whether previous surveyors had recommended a decant to enable works to proceed. It had opportunities in its stage one and two complaint replies to clarify the position and to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the size of the property she was likely to be decanted into.
The Ombudsman’s finding takes into account the landlord’s efforts to meet with the resident to discuss rehousing and to support her during 2023. Compensation of £300 has been ordered, which is within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to work with the council’s Adult Social Care team, if appropriate, to assess the resident’s rehousing/decanting needs and agree a plan with her for addressing these needs.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 3-stage complaints process. It aims to reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the timescales, it will let the resident know more time is required and the reason for the delay. Any extension will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
Stage 3 is optional for residents – the policy states that residents can request its Independent Adjudicator to review the stage 2 complaint response if they remain dissatisfied. Stage 3 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responses issued within 20 working days. In this case, the resident approached the Ombudsman rather than requesting the landlord to refer her complaint to its Independent Adjudicator.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states: “A complaint should be brought to us within six months of the problem coming to your attention so that we can investigate it properly and put things right. However, we understand there may be exceptional circumstances that stopped the complaint being raised earlier and each case will be considered on its own merit”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of various repairs. The resident then chased the landlord on 5 May 2023 for a reply to her email. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2023 to confirm it had logged a stage one complaint and apologised for the delay in doing so. It said the delay was due to a backlog and that it would respond by 26 May 2023.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 26 May 2023, which was 20 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2023. The landlord therefore exceeded its published timescale for responding to stage one complaints. It meant that the resident had to spend further time and effort chasing the landlord for a reply.
The landlord acted fairly, however, by acknowledging the delay on 12 May 2023, apologising and notifying the resident of the new target date for its reply to the stage one complaint. As the delay was not excessive, the Ombudsman’s view is that the action taken by the landlord to acknowledge the failing and update the resident of when she would receive a reply was reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the stage one reply.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2022 and stated that it was unable to log a complaint about her washing machine as the incident had occurred 8 months earlier. The landlord added that it would not log a complaint unless the resident could provide a good reason why she had not raised the complaint within 6 months of the incident. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord acted unreasonably by refusing to log the complaint because:
1. The resident had included the issue in her stage one complaint and the landlord had included a response regarding the washing machine in its stage one reply dated 26 May 2023.
2. The resident had written to the landlord about the washing machine on various occasions since April 2023. The resident had also stated in her email dated 19 April 2023 that she had been writing to the heating contractor since November 2022 about the washing machine and had forwarded copies of the emails to her housing officer. Therefore, the landlord should have taken into account that the resident had been raising the issue either with the contractor or with the landlord since the incident occurred in November 2022.
3. The resident was known to be vulnerable and had described the inconvenience she was experiencing in making alternative arrangements to wash her clothes. The landlord therefore should have had greater regard for her vulnerabilities in deciding whether to log the complaint.
As the matter had already been considered at stage one of the complaints process, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2. Its failure to do so delayed the escalation of the resident’s complaint and meant she had to spend additional time and effort explaining why it should be considered.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 and provided additional information about the washing machine and other aspects of her complaint. The landlord confirmed on 7 July 2023 that it had logged a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2023, which was 14 working days after it had logged the stage 2 complaint on 7 July 2023. The landlord had therefore replied within its target timescale after it had logged the complaint. However, as stated earlier, it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have initially logged the complaint about the washing machine. This delayed the resident receiving the stage 2 reply, which took 41 working days after the resident submitted her stage 2 complaint on 31 May 2023.
The Ombudsman has found there were some important omissions from the landlord’s stage one and 2 complaint responses, which were:
1. The landlord did not provide an answer in its stage one or stage 2 replies about whether its surveyor had recommended a decant to allow the works to be carried out.
2. The landlord did not include any information in its stage 2 reply about the resident’s reports of issues regarding the bathroom flooring.
3. The landlord did not address the resident’s request for a copy of the property MOT report and for previous surveyors’ reports.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code published in March 2022 stated: “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. In this case, the landlord’s omissions meant that the resident did not consider the landlord had fully investigated her complaint.
In considering the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman has taken into account:
1. The cumulative impact of the various repairs on the resident;
2. The landlord’s failure to address all the points in the resident’s complaints; and
3. The landlord’s initial decision not to log the resident’s complaint about the washing machine.
The Ombudsman has also taken account of the landlord’s failure to use the complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In terms of these principles, firstly this Service has not seen evidence demonstrating that the landlord used the complaints process to take sufficient account of the resident’s individual circumstances, which is an essential part of treating residents fairly. The landlord does not appear to have identified the increased risks faced by the resident due to her vulnerabilities. Secondly, although the landlord was aware that it had not progressed the repairs following the property MOT, it did not acknowledge this failing and did not put things right. In this case, putting things right would have involved producing a plan to address the repairs and offering appropriate financial redress. Lastly, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of learning during the complaints process.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and has ordered compensation of £300, which is within the range of financial redress in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including damp and mould, temporary flooring in the bathroom, roof repairs, cracks on the bathroom walls and ceiling and gaps in the window frames.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be decanted.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestations in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a defective washing machine.
In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that contractors stole items from her loft is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of discrimination and infringement of her human rights is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Reasons

There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. These included a failure to carry out essential repairs identified in the property MOT, a lack of transparency in its plans following the inspection, a failure to address the mould in the property, a failure to address the temporary flooring in the bathroom and delays in inspecting the roof and cracks in the walls.
The landlord did not engage meaningfully with the resident during 2022 to discuss a potential decant despite being aware that the property MOT had identified significant remedial works. The landlord failed to address the resident’s question about whether previous surveyors had recommended a decant to enable works to proceed. The landlord did not use the opportunities in its stage one and two complaint replies to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the size of the property she was likely to be decanted into.
The landlord did not use the complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It did not take sufficient account of the resident’s individual circumstances by identifying the increased risks due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had failed to progress the repairs following the property MOT and did not seek to put things right. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of learning by the landlord during the complaints process.
The landlord responded reasonably following the resident’s reports of mice in the attic in April 2023.
The landlord had attempted to inspect the washing machine in order to assess the damage but had not been able to do so because of access issues.
The alleged theft of items from the resident’s loft occurred in 2010. Therefore, the matter was not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.
The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and the Ombudsman has no legal powers to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of this report to:
1. Arrange for the Chief Executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £6,597 made up of:
  1. £5,997 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £300 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be decanted.
  3. £300 for the landlord’s complaints handling.
3. Provide the resident with a copy of the property MOT report from February 2022 or write to the resident setting out the reasons why the landlord will not provide a copy.
4. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property and produce a report with their findings and recommendations, which is to be shared with the resident.
5. Use the report to produce a schedule of repairs and a draft action plan with timescales based on the recommendations in the surveyor’s report. The plan must include any arrangements to work with teams such as the Adult Social Care team and arrangements to decant the resident if necessary.
6. Arrange for the floor covering in the bathroom to be removed if no longer required or made safe.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord inspects the resident’s washing machine and writes to the resident setting out its decision on whether it will compensate the resident for the reported damage and the reasons for its decision.