London Borough of Newham (202301580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301580

London Borough of Newham

26 April 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 repairs to remedy damp and mould, adaptations to the property, and an associated decant.
2. The landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage caused to the resident’s property.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The property has sole use of a pram cupboard, which is accessed from the communal corridor. It is understood that the resident had several health and mobility related issues, which the landlord was aware of.
The resident claims that there had been periodic issues with damp and mould in the property over the course of her tenancy. The landlord states that it had addressed an issue with damp and mould in the property in 2013. However, no further damp or mould issues were reported until 16 July 2021.
After inspecting the property on 29 July 2021, the landlord identified the need to carry out extensive repairs to the property. The landlord moved the resident’s belongings into a decant property on 13 October 2021. Necessary works were completed on 20 January 2022.
The landlord carried out a joint property inspection with the resident on 27 July 2022. During the inspection, the landlord agreed to carry out additional works to the property, which were completed on 9 September 2022. The resident remained in occupation of the decant property pending adaptations.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2023, following a member enquiry made by her local Member of Parliament (MP). The Ombudsman has not seen the member enquiry, but notes the landlord’s response to the resident as follows:
1. The resident’s insurance claim for replacement of lost and damaged items was still being dealt with by its insurance team. It would contact the resident once it had an update.
2. It accepted that there was an OT report on file, but given the length of time that had passed, it was necessary to reassess the resident’s needs. It would arrange an OT assessment and committed to progressing any recommended aids and adaptation works urgently thereafter.
3. Works to the pram cupboard had been agreed, but the pram cupboard needed to be cleared of the resident’s belongings before work could begin. It had previously offered to assist the resident with this.
4. It apologised to the resident for any frustration and inconvenience that had been caused. In recognition of identified service failings, distress and inconvenience, it offered £3,000 compensation. The landlord also offered a rent refund for the period 13 October 2021 to 3 April 2023, which amounted to an additional £8,751.36.
5. Confirmed that works to the property had been completed as previously informed. It suggested that any additional works could be carried out while the resident was in occupation of the property. It asked the resident to confirm that she was willing to return to the property prior to aids and adaptations being completed.
The resident told the landlord on 7 April 2023, that she did not agree to the landlord’s offer of redress. The landlord had moved her into the decant property without a working toilet. The landlord had not completed all of the repairs. The resident wanted the landlord to complete required adaptations before she moved back into the property. She felt that the landlord was taking too long to provide an outcome in respect of her insurance claim.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 13 April 2023, about the landlord’s handling of her complaint about damp and mould. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the following day, asking it to respond to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 April 2023. It stated that it would consider the matter at stage 2 of its internal complaint process. It committed to providing a response by 15 May 2023.
It is understood that during the week commencing 1 May 2023, the resident raised additional dissatisfaction about damp and mould, uncompleted works to the pram cupboard, and that the landlord had not provided a space for her tumble drier when it refurbished the kitchen. The landlord reinspected the property on 10 May 2023, however it found no evidence of damp and mould.
The landlord told the resident on 12 May 2023, that its investigation was taking longer than expected due to the complexity of the complaint. It committed to providing the stage 2 response by 26 May 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 25 May 2023. The landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of issues around damp and mould in the property. It said it was satisfied that repairs had been completed in a timely manner. But, recognised that there had been a lack of engagement in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the pram cupboard and adaptations.
2. Said it had made arrangements for its contractors to carry out repairs to the pram cupboard on 7 June 2023. The resident was asked to remove her belongings from the pram cupboard by this date.
3. Recognised that it had not provided space for a tumble drier as part of the kitchen refurbishment. The landlord said it advised against using tumble driers in high rise blocks because there were no vents leading to the outside. It said that tumble driers cause moisture to build up, which can lead to damp and mould issues in a property.
4. Said it had been necessary to arrange a new assessment of the resident’s medical needs, which was carried out in January 2023. The resident could expect a decision regarding this by 30 May 2023.
5. Upheld the resident’s complaint about delays assessing the resident’s insurance claim. The landlord said that its legal team were in the process of reviewing the claim. A response would be issued within 14 working days.
6. Commented that it had unblocked the toilet and requested a camera survey in the decant property on 20 October 2021. After the resident moved into the decant property on 31 October 2021, it had reinspected the toilet and stack pipe, but no issues had been identified.
7. To remedy the complaint, the landlord apologised and again offered the resident £11,751.36 in compensation. The landlord said that its offer of compensation was separate to any insurance claim made by the resident and comprised:
  1. £3,000 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. A refund of rent for the period 11 October 2021 to 3 April 2023, amounting to £8,751.36. It clarified that this was the period of time between the resident being decanted and the date it made its previous offer of compensation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 July 2023, to provide an update following its stage 2 response. The landlord said:
1. A further review of the OT assessment for a level access shower was to be carried out. A member of staff would contact the resident regarding this.
2. Its legal team would provide an update in relation to the resident’s claim for insurance.
3. It had identified a location to store the resident’s belongings from the pram cupboard, while works were being carried out. It would meet the resident during the week commencing 17 July 2023 to take a full inventory. Works to the pram cupboard would start once the cupboard had been cleared.
The landlord phoned the resident on 5 January 2024, asking her to confirm her intentions regarding its offer of compensation. The resident told the landlord that there were still several outstanding matters as follows:
1. The landlord had not contacted her about her insurance claim.
2. The landlord had not recognised in its stage 2 response, the loss of amenity of a tumble drier.
3. She disputed that she had access to a working toilet at the time she was decanted.
4. The landlord had not provided a date for moving back to the property.
5. She was unclear why the landlord was not considering a refund of rent from 3 April 2023 onwards.
On 9 January 2024, the landlord’s legal team recommended that the landlord offer the resident an additional £3,000 in special damages.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 13 March 2024, that it had written to the resident offering to supply and fit a condenser drier at its own expense. It had arranged several appointments with the resident to clear the pram cupboard, but the resident had cancelled the appointments. The landlord did not provide evidence of this.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 2 April 2024, that the landlord completed adaptations to the property sometime around February 2024. The resident said that she was still reluctant to return to the property. She felt that the level of compensation offered by the landlord was too low, but she had accepted the amount it had offered. The landlord had made an offer to settle her insurance claim but she was unhappy with the proposed settlement. On 19 April 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had completed works to the pram cupboard but could not recall when this was. She was still waiting for the tumble drier to be installed. She believed that there was still mould in the mastic around the windows and in the bedroom cupboard but she had not been into the property for some months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
This case was unusual in that the resident did not make a formal stage 1 or stage 2 complaint directly to the landlord. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 May 2023, after the Ombudsman asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
The landlord included a wider range of issues in the stage 2 investigation, than directed by the Ombudsman. The landlord defined the resident’s complaint as the landlord’s “handling of issues around damp and mould in the property”, which the Ombudsman notes included its handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould, adaptations, and its handling of the resident’s decant. It also considered delays in assessing the resident’s insurance claim.
The Ombudsman’s complaint definition (paragraph 1a and 1b of this report), reflects the scope of the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process and that was brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. In consideration of these complaint points, the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s actions between 13 April 2022 and 25 May 2023. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising”.
The resident did not raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property within 12 months of the matter arising. When the landlord issued its stage 2 final response, this was not referenced as an individual complaint point. While it made several observations about its handling of repairs to the toilet, these were referenced under a separate heading named “additional information”. This implies that the landlord did not investigate the matter as a complaint and ultimately it gave no finding.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould, adaptations to the property, and an associated decant.

The tenancy agreement for the property states that the landlord will carry out the repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time of the resident informing it about them. The landlord has the right to take possession of the property if it needs to carry out major repair work. In such circumstances, the resident will normally receive a fixed amount of compensation or help with the cost of moving (or both). The landlord will offer permanent or temporary suitable alternative accommodation. If a resident agreed to a temporary move the landlord has the right to take possession of the temporary accommodation when the landlord has finished the work on the original property.
The tenancy agreement for the decant property states that the tenancy is granted because the resident’s former property requires remedial works. The resident will give up occupation of the decant property when the remedial works are complete and will return and take up occupation of the former property when so advised in writing.
The landlord’s website states that it will carry out adaptations for council tenants where recommendations for adaptations are approved.
The landlord appropriately inspected the property by appointment on 29 July 2021, after the resident made a new report about damp and mould in the property. During the inspection, the landlord identified major damp and water ingress in the bathroom, hallway, and external pram cupboard. The landlord identified the cause of the damp and mould and committed to carrying out extensive repairs. It is unclear from the information seen if the landlord has a repairs policy, which sets out expected timescales for completion of major works. However, in accordance with its tenancy agreement, the landlord would be expected to complete such works in a reasonable timeframe.
Considering that extensive works were required, the landlord acted reasonably by making arrangements to decant the resident. This was also in line with the tenancy terms and conditions. However, it was approximately 10 weeks before the resident was decanted. The Ombudsman has been unable to fully access the landlord’s actions over this timeframe on the available evidence but accepts that it can often take time to find suitable alternative accommodation. It is also understood that the resident requested additional time to prepare for the move, in view of her disabilities.
The landlord was able to reduce the level of inconvenience caused to the resident, by moving her into a flat within the same building. In accordance with the tenancy terms and conditions, it assisted the resident by moving her belongings into the decant property on 13 October 2021.
The landlord’s decant form indicated that works to the property were expected to take around 8 weeks to complete. The resident claims the landlord told her she would be able to return to the property within 12 weeks. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this timeframe was reasonable in view of the size of the works required and the number of trades that the landlord would need to coordinate.
It is understood that repairs were completed sometime around 20 January 2022. This included the renewal of the kitchen and bathroom, carpeting throughout the property, and a full redecoration. While the timeline for completing these works appear to have slipped, the Ombudsman does not consider the additional delay to be excessive. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have kept the resident updated if the timeline had changed. There is no evidence that the landlord kept in contact with the resident over this time, which is of concern.
In line with the terms of the tenancy agreement, once the landlord notified the resident in writing that the repairs had been completed, the resident was required to move back to the property. The resident disputes that the landlord notified her in writing around this time that the property was ready for occupation. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord emailed the resident confirming this on 20 January 2022. In response, the resident reasonably queried when she could view the property. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it responded. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that no viewing was arranged. This was unfair and was likely to have contributed to the overall delay in the resident being able to return to the property.
The Ombudsman has been unable to determine from the evidence seen, what action the landlord took over the next 6 months, or how matters were left with the resident. Again, this is of concern. The landlord either did not provide the Ombudsman with all of the evidence relevant to this case, or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping and information management.
It is understood that the resident viewed the property with the landlord on 27 July 2022. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delay in arranging this. Upon inspection, the resident raised concern about the standard of the property.
It is encouraging that the landlord agreed to complete further works if these were required or would help resolve the matter for the resident. It is understood that this included cleaning mould stains from around windows, renewing mould-stained radiators, repainting of walls and ceilings, and a deep clean. It also committed to completing several non-standard minor jobs and to make a space in the kitchen for a condenser tumble drier, which it agreed to supply and fit at its own expense. Finally, it stated that it would provide a date to complete outstanding repairs to the pram cupboard once it had agreed what to do with the resident’s belongings. This is evidence that the landlord was responding to the resident’s concerns and was endeavouring to find a resolution.
The landlord claims that its contractors began the additional works on 22 August 2022. These were later completed on 9 September 2022, with the exception of the outstanding works to the pram cupboard and the installation of the new tumble drier. The landlord has not provided a record of its repair logs to evidence this. However, a week later, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord gave the resident the code to the key safe and encouraged her to independently inspect the property.
The resident states that after this, she had a discussion with the landlord about her longer-term housing need and adaptations. The landlord has not recorded its conversation with the resident. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did make enquiries around this time about completing outstanding works urgently, because the resident was reluctant to return to the property until these were completed. This included repairs to resolve damp in the pram cupboard and the fitting of “grab rails etc” which had not previously been fitted due to damp in the walls.
The evidence shows that between 16 September 2022 and 26 September 2022, the landlord made internal enquiries about what aids and adaptations were required. The resident has told the Ombudsman that around this time, the landlord suggested that it could install a wet room in the bathroom. The landlord had explained that it could complete these works after she moved back to the property and would take approximately 12 weeks to complete. The resident claims that the landlord asked her how she felt about moving back to the property on this basis. The resident states that she told the landlord that she would rather stay in the decant property until these works were completed. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the evidence seen.
The landlord’s records then fall silent for another 6 months, which has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess whether the landlord’s subsequent actions were reasonable. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman has assumed that the landlord agreed to the resident’s continued occupation of the decant property until adaptations had been approved and completed. The Ombudsman views this as a reasonable adjustment in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
However, from the evidence seen, there was continued confusion between departments over what adaptations were required, whether a new OT report was required, and there was a lack of clarity internally as to which team had overall responsibility for progressing the matter. There was delay in the landlord inspecting the property, caused by confusion over who held copies of the keys. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was an inadequate level of oversight over the progression of aids and adaptations in this case and an apparent lack of urgency. This was inappropriate and was likely to have further delayed the resident’s return to the property.
The landlord tried to put things right on 31 March 2023, by setting out its approach to the adaptations, explaining next steps in connection with repairs to the pram cupboard, and offering compensation. It is unclear how the landlord arrived at its valuation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not explain its rationale for refunding the whole of the resident’s rent for the period 13 October 2021 to 3 April 2023. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was encouraging that the landlord recognised it could have done things differently and was willing to provide redress outside of a formal complaint process.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident raised further issues with the property in May 2023. The resident felt that there was still an issue with damp and mould in the property, works to the pram cupboard were outstanding, and she was unhappy that the landlord had not fitted the new tumble drier as promised. In particular, she was concerned that there was still mould in the bedroom cupboard and on the mastic around the windows. The landlord acted appropriately by ordering a new damp and mould inspection, however no mould was identified on inspection. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the landlord’s records.
It is positive that the landlord formally recognised in its stage 2 response, the impact that had been caused to the resident by its lack of engagement concerning adaptations and the completion of works to the pram cupboard. Unable to place the resident back in the position that she would have been in had these failings not occurred, it was reasonable for the landlord to make a further offer of compensation. However, it would have provided greater clarity for the resident had the landlord explained its reasons for not uplifting its previous offer of compensation, considering the additional time that had passed without resolution.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that delays progressing works to the pram cupboard were in part caused by the resident cancelling prearranged appointments, however, the landlord has not provided evidence of this. The resident has confirmed that works to remedy the damp in the pram cupboard have now been completed. She was unable to recall when this was.
The resident states that the landlord’s contractor told her that the wet room adaptations were completed in February 2024, but this had not been confirmed by the landlord. The resident also told the Ombudsman that the landlord had been responding to her calls and emails. The resident feels that the landlord sees her as a nuisance. This is concerning and suggests that the landlord’s engagement with the resident did not sufficiently improve after issue of its stage 2 response.
It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to fully assess whether the length of time taken to agree and complete the wet room adaptation was reasonable in this case, based on the available evidence. However, the Ombudsman would have expected an adaptation such as a wet room to have been completed in around 3 to 4 months, based on good practice guidance produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government (“Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: June 2006”). It is noted that the landlord was still waiting for an updated OT assessment in July 2023. If the landlord was unable to deliver the adaptations in a timely manner, it should have discussed this with the resident and made arrangements for the resident’s return to the property with an action plan. The landlord’s failure to keep the situation under review, shows a lack of oversight over this case.
It is understood that at the time of this report (2 years and 6 months after the resident was initially decanted), the resident is still waiting for a date to return to the property. The resident continues to worry about mould spores in the bedroom cupboard and mould in the mastic around the windows. She is concerned that the landlord had not yet installed the new tumble drier as promised. To bring about a resolution in this matter, the landlord should endeavour to meet the resident at the property, explain the work that it has completed to date, and agree an action plan which supports the resident’s return to the property. The action plan should detail indicative timescales for resolving any outstanding matters, in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and adaptations to the property, and associated decant. While the landlord has recognised there were failings in its handling of the substantive issues and made a substantial offer of compensation, this cannot be viewed as reasonable redress, while substantive issues remain outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage caused to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s website states that if a resident does not have contents insurance and something happens which causes damage or loss to a resident’s property, they may have a claim against the landlord. When this happens, residents should complete and return its insurance incident report form. If the landlord is found to be responsible for the loss or damage, it will base any payment made on the age and condition of the items, with deductions made for wear and tear. It will ensure that the resident is returned to the position they were in before the incident occurred, but any payment made would not be on an old for new basis.
The landlord emailed the resident with an insurance claim form on 10 March 2021, after she expressed concern about damage to her personal belongings caused by damp and mould. The resident said that she completed and returned the insurance claim form in July 2021, but the landlord later said that it could find no record of receiving the form.
The landlord showed a willingness to resolve the matter by completing a new insurance claim form on behalf of the resident. It is understood that the resident valued her losses to be in the region of £13,000. Although the new form was submitted on 19 August 2022, there is no evidence that the claim was acknowledged or addressed by the landlord in a timely manner. This was unreasonable and would have left the resident uncertain as to whether her claim had been accepted.
The landlord’s internal communications indicate that the landlord passed the claim form to its corporate insurance team, who in turned passed the claim onto its legal team for consideration. However, the landlord’s legal team did not open a case as they were not directly instructed by the landlord’s housing team in the matter. There is no evidence that the landlord’s housing team were made aware of this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assumed that its insurance team were progressing the claim.
It was positive that the landlord arranged an internal meeting in May 2023, to discuss a way forward, after it became aware that the insurance claim had not been progressed. Although the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with outcomes from this meeting, the landlord accepts that delays assessing the resident’s claim for damages was likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was encouraging that the landlord set out to put things right in its stage 2 response, by promising to issue the resident with a response by 15 June 2023. But there is no evidence that this happened. This was unreasonable and was likely to have added to the resident’s frustration.
The Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence of the landlord’s complaint team tracking settlement of the claim as an outstanding action, and that it was endeavouring to keep in regular contact with the resident until the substantive issue was resolved. However, no contact was made with the resident about this until 13 July 2023, when it confirmed that it was still waiting for an update from its legal team. It offered no explanation for its delay in responding and it neglected to set out a revised timescale for a full response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communications were inadequate and left the resident uncertain as to when the matter would be resolved.
It was a further 5 months before the landlord’s legal team provided advice to the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was an inadequate level of oversight over the resident’s claim for damages, which contributed to overall delays in the landlord awarding a settlement.
It is noted that the landlord’s offer of £3,000, was significantly less than the value of the losses estimated by the resident. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability for damages to personal belongings. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this settlement appears to be reasonable considering the level of information and evidence that the resident gave to the landlord about her claim, and also taking depreciation into account. However, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this settlement, she has the option to seek independent advice.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance claim for damages caused to the resident’s property fell short. There was an apparent lack of oversight over the claim by the landlord after it was made aware that its legal team were not instructed in the matter. There was a lack of urgency in securing a response from its legal advisors and the resident was not kept adequately updated. This caused the resident continued frustration and uncertainty. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints policy. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints in 2 working days, with a full complaint response issued in 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and in 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The landlord was permitted to extend the timescale for responding to a complaint at stage 1 by a further 10 working days. The policy did not reference extensions at stage 2. Lastly, the landlord would not usually investigate complaints about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages landlords to escalate a complaint through all of its complaint stages. The landlord’s complaint policy (in operation at that time), did make provision for complaints to be taken straight to stage 2 when necessary. However, it is possible that a timelier and independent resolution may have been reached in this case, had the landlord not restricted the complaint to a single stage process. It is noted that the landlord has since brought its complaint policy in line with the Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances that it will offer compensation. It will offer £50 (low impact) to £150 (high impact) in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble. For delay and distress it will offer £50 – £150 for low to moderate impacts, rising to £400 – £500 in very significant and exceptional cases. Where there has been a loss of amenity or access, it will pay £40 per month (minor impact) to £150 per month (significant impact).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within expected timescales. It set out its intention to provide a full response within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy.
Although the landlord’s policy did not make provision for extending the timescale for issuing stage 2 responses, an extension of up to a further 10 working days was permitted under the Code, in agreement with the resident. The landlord appropriately notified the resident in advance that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It set out its reason for this and confirmed a new timescale for responding. The resident did not raise any objection. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response according to the new deadline.
As previously stated, the Ombudsman is unclear on the landlord’s methodology for calculating the compensation it offered, which amounted to £11,751.36. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation was higher than might have been reasonably expected when compared with the landlord’s compensation policy, or when applying the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
However, the Ombudsman is concerned that despite the landlord recognising there was an issue with engagement, the landlord has been unable to evidence that it had taken learnings from the complaint. Apart from updating the resident on 13 July 2023, there is limited evidence that the landlord’s housing or complaints teams were proactively keeping in touch with the resident concerning outstanding matters. This was inappropriate and would have left the resident unclear when the substantive matters of complaint would be fully resolved.
The Ombudsman makes a final comment about the landlord’s decision to reference matters in its stage 2 response, which were not investigated by the landlord as a formal complaint. The landlord was not obliged to formally investigate the resident’s concerns about its handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property, as this was a historical matter. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have considered issuing a separate response outside of its complaint process about this. Adding commentary about matters that were not investigated formally as a complaint caused unnecessary confusion for the resident, and later disappointment when the matter could not be further escalated to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord may wish to look again at the additional information it gave the resident about its handling of repairs to the toilet. The landlord’s statement that repairs to the toilet were completed prior to the resident moving into the property appear to be at odds with the timeline of the decant. If the resident’s new tenancy began on 11 October 2021 and the landlord moved her belongings into the property on 13 October 2021, it must follow that the resident was already in occupation of the property at the time the toilet was unblocked on 20 October 2021.
When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

While the Ombudsman determined this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s record keeping and information management was either inadequate or the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with all available evidence when requested. The Ombudsman gave the landlord several opportunities to provide evidence which the Ombudsman felt was missing from its evidence bundle but no further evidence was provided. Ultimately, the investigation proceeded on the basis that where gaps or omissions in the landlord’s records were noted, the evidence did not exist and / or the resident’s evidence was accurate and reliable.
When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the:
1. Landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould, adaptations to the property, and an associated decant.
2. Landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage caused to the resident’s property.
3. Landlord’s complaint handling
4. Landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must the endeavour to meet the resident at the property to explain the work that it has completed to date and agree an action plan which supports the resident’s return to the property. The action plan should detail indicative timescales for resolving any outstanding matters, in a timely manner.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must consider:
1. Enhancements to its existing approach and oversight processes where a resident has been decanted pending completion of major works. The landlord must satisfy itself that there are adequate processes in place to keep residents informed over the duration of the major works. The landlord should consider periodically reviewing the continued suitability of a decant with the resident, where works are taking longer than expected.
2. A review of its complaint handling on this case, to identify any learning opportunities. In particular, the landlord must consider the adequacy of its existing processes for tracking remedies and outstanding actions to a successful completion following closure of a complaint, and its mechanism for keeping residents updated.
3. Its record keeping in this case to identify learnings. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should also consider why it did not resend the evidence that was requested by Ombudsman during the investigation, after an issue with missing evidence was identified.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider if it is able to add alerts on its housing management system when it is holding keys to a property, to avoid delays competing inspections and carrying out work on such properties.
The landlord should review the additional information that it gave to the resident in its stage 2 response concerning its handling of repairs to a toilet in the decant property. If the landlord finds that it misinformed the resident, it should apologise for its oversight and act accordingly.