London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230978)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230978

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 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 concerning this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The condition of the resident’s property at the time her tenancy commenced including:

i. holes in the floorboards.

ii. cracks in the walls.

iii. damp walls in the hallway, lounge, dining room, and kitchen.

Drainage and damp proofing works to the resident’s basement.
The associated damp to the resident’s hallway, lounge, dining room, and kitchen walls.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record-keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a 4-bedroom house under an assured tenancy that commenced on 16 October 2017. The resident’s daughter has sickle cell anaemia. The landlord said it was aware of this vulnerability and its repair records reflect this.
The resident reported the smell of sewage and damp on various walls in her property in December 2017. Between 2017 and 2020 the landlord inspected the property and re-lined the drain in the resident’s basement. However, the lining failed and the ground around the drain started to collapse. As a result, the landlord instructed a contractor to install a manhole and renew a section of the drainage pipework. Between February 2020 and October 2020, the work was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 October 2020 to report that the damp in her property was worsening. The landlord commissioned a damp survey of the property on 30 March 2021. This noted high moisture readings in the hallway, living room, and kitchen and said there was “possibly a major issue” which it put down to the structure of the property. The landlord said it completed works to renew the pipework on 22 November 2021. The landlord also instructed its contractor to conduct damp proofing to the basement.
The next damp survey on 13 January 2021 noted there was a structural issue with possible rising damp because the basement walls had high moisture readings. There was a follow-up damp report on 17 May 2023 which noted the damp affected areas in the property had been cleaned.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 March 2023. She said:
1. there were ongoing repair issues related to the walls and floor, from the time her tenancy began which the landlord had not resolved.
2. the landlord had raised works for a manhole to be erected and to renew some of the pipework related to the drainage in her basement, but these had not been completed.
3. the landlord’s delay in completing the drainage works was causing rising damp which affected her dining room, kitchen, hallway, and living room walls.
4. the landlord needed to provide her with a plan of action to address the outstanding repairs and reimburse her for the running cost of the dehumidifier.
The resident said the landlord did not issue a stage 1 response. The landlord said it could not access the stage 1 response due to staff turnover. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 18 April 2023 because of the missing response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 August 2023. It said:
1. it has raised works to render a plinth in the back garden and to carry out rendering to the front of the property.
2. it would hack off and re-render the walls in the lounge, dining room, hallway, and kitchen walls and paint them.
3. it would strip out the resident’s kitchen to ascertain if there was damp, if there was it would then decide if a new kitchen would need to be refitted.
4. it apologised for its delay in issuing its response and offered £100 compensation for this.
5. it offered to reimburse £1,802 for the running costs of the dehumidifier between 1 September 2022 and 31 March 2023.
The resident told the landlord she had concerns that replastering the walls would not deal with the root cause of the rising damp. Following the intervention of this service, the landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It said:
1. it had completed a CCTV drain survey on 27 September 2023 and when it received the report it would raise any necessary remedial works identified.
2. it had raised works to repair the plaster in the various rooms affected by the damp and had scheduled this for completion on 13 October 2023.
3. it assured the resident that the works raised by the surveyor would resolve the outstanding issues.
4. it referred the resident to its insurance provider for any personal injury claim she may wish to raise regarding the impact of the repairs to the drain on her daughter’s health.
5. it had delayed in issuing the compensation offered in August 2023 and it would send this to the resident by post. It offered a further £50 to compensate for its delay relating to this.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because:
1. the landlord had not carried out the major works to the drainage and the rendering of the external walls of the property it had agreed to.
2. the damp in her property remained unresolved.
3. the landlord had only carried out patch work repairs to the walls.
4. she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the additional running costs of the dehumidifier.

Assessment and findings

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. Having carefully considered the information presented, the complaints specified in paragraph 1(a)(i)-(iii) above will not be investigated by the Ombudsman for the reasons which follow.
The resident explained that part of her complaint related to the condition of her property at the time her tenancy commenced in 2017. 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.”
There is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint or had referred a complaint to this service during the relevant period. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, the condition of the property at the time the resident started her tenancy is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate. This means the complaint about the condition of the resident’s property at the time her tenancy commenced including; the holes in the floorboards, the cracks in the walls and damp walls in the hallway, lounge, dining room, and kitchen as specified in paragraph 1(a)(i)-(iii) above has not been investigated.

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

Similarly, the scope of the investigation for the landlord’s handling of the drainage works (in paragraphs 1(b) and (c)) above has been limited. Although it is noted that there is a long history of reports by the resident relating to the drainage and the damp of various walls in the property, the Ombudsman has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s most recent reports. This investigation will only consider the events that occurred 12 months before the resident’s formal complaint from March 2022.
This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The longer the period between issues arising and a complaint to the Ombudsman can result in a less effective investigation. This is because over time processes and procedures change, as does knowledge and approaches. Data and information retention practices can change, staff can come and go, and memory is less likely to be credible. This can make it difficult to ascertain what happened and what should have happened. Therefore, reference to historical events will only be used when it is important to do so for context.
The resident also raised a complaint on 12 March 2021 about the length of time she had been waiting for damp works to be completed in her basement and that the landlord’s communication had been poor. Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”

This will only be considered in connection to the events that happened from March 2022. This is because the previous complaint was not referred to the Ombudsman within 12 months.
Lastly, the resident explained that the housing conditions were negatively impacting her daughter’s health. Although the investigation will consider the damp works and the vulnerabilities of the household, complaints about the effects of disrepair on health are better dealt with by the courts. This is because the court will expect the parties to agree to instruct a joint medical expert who will provide a report (a medico-legal report) which sets out the injury or illness (diagnosis), the cause, and the prognosis. Whilst the Ombudsman is not prevented from investigating this, these are reasons why the matter is better dealt with by the court.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to create and maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions, or further issues raised by the resident. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to poor communication and redress.
The landlord’s repair records did not provide sufficient detail about:
1. when the resident made her reports.
2. the findings of its operatives and third-party contractors from inspections.
3. the follow-on works required from its inspections and/or surveys, if any.
4. the scope of the jobs it raised to its contractors.
5. copies of surveys or associated notes referenced in the repair logs.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has significantly impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report.
As a result, there was maladministration because it is unclear how the landlord concluded that some of the jobs raised were “completed” or if they were completed it a reasonable time.

The drainage and damp proofing works to the resident’s basement

The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, including drainage pipework within the boundary of the property, as set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This is also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for maintaining drains and pipes.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.

Landlords are required to have policies and procedures to set out how they will manage their repair services effectively.

The landlord updated its repairs policy during the resident’s complaint. The relevant timeframes are as follows:
1. the repairs policy that was applicable during 2022 stated that the landlord would complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. the repairs policy that was applicable during 2023 stated that the landlord would complete routine appointments within an average of 25 calendar days.
For context, the landlord was aware of ongoing drainage issues at the property as early as 2017. The resident said the landlord had agreed to erect a manhole and rectify the U-bend in the drainage pipework. The landlord’s tenancy notes state it erected a manhole on 19 May 2021. A complaint response issued by the landlord in November 2021 said it had completed the works to the pipework in November 2021. When the resident raised her formal complaint in March 2023, she said the works remained outstanding.
The landlord’s repair logs show it had raised a job on 2 March 2022 to investigate the drainage in the resident’s basement because the toilet and sinks were backing up. The repair log did not contain the date this issue was reported. The repair logs note the job as “completed” on 23 March 2022. However, they do not contain information about what the landlord did to consider the job was completed.
It is unclear from the evidence what action the landlord took, if any, or its findings at this time. Given the importance of the missing information, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy during March 2022. This was evidence of poor record-keeping.
Although the repair logs note the landlord tried to book in “works” on 28 April 2022 and that the resident was “very non-committal” because she wanted a meeting with the relevant colleagues, it is unclear which repairs this was in relation to. At the time the resident was chasing multiple repairs unrelated to this complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to verify this action was taken as part of the landlord’s response to the drainage works. This is further evidence of poor record keeping.
The resident called the landlord on 18 May 2022 and expressed frustration because she “did not know where she stood with the works” to the drainage. She asked for the surveyor overseeing the works to call her to explain what the landlord intended to do and when. There is no evidence that the landlord responded despite the resident chasing this again on 27 May 2022. This was poor communication by the landlord. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to responded, given that the repair had been outstanding for at least 3 months at this point (based our scope of investigation). In addition, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain the delay and manage the resident’s expectations about the works it intended to carry out and when in order resolve the drainage issues.
The resident called the landlord on 8 September 2022. She explained she was stressed about the landlord’s delay and that it was causing damp and mould in her home. This was causing her anxiety because of her daughter’s recent hospitalisation with pneumonia. She said was concerned how the conditions in the property might impact her daughter as the winter approached. The landlord’s tenancy notes indicated it spoke with its contractor, who was waiting on a third party before it could arrange an inspection.
The repair logs noted there was a vulnerable resident in situ (as set out above). The landlord’s repairs policy, in force at this time stated it was able to “adjust its service standards where a delay would put [residents] at risk because of their condition.” The Ombudsman considers the landlord had the discretion within its policy to prioritise the repair. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider any additional support to the resident, given the resident’s daughters health condition.
The resident reported the issue again on 23 September 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that it needed to arrange an appointment with the resident and the contractor. Although the landlord chased its contractor on 26 September 2022, it failed to demonstrate it communicated to the resident it intended to inspect the property. This caused uncertainty to the resident and was a missed opportunity to communicate clearly with the resident about what it intended to do and when.
The evidence shows the landlord chased the contractor regarding “CCTV and liner works” on 24 October 2022. The landlord’s repair records noted on 11 November 2022 it conducted a joint visit with its contractor to carry out a CCTV survey to review the patch liner to the drain. The landlord did not provide evidence of its findings at this inspection. This was evidence of poor record keeping and was a significant failing because the Ombudsman was unable to verify the scope of works the landlord intended to follow to resolve the issue. As a direct result, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord’s repair records show on 24 November 2022 that its contractor had installed a resin patch liner to seal and rectify the defects made by a previous contractor. It also said this brought the structural integrity back to the section of the pipework which was then surveyed with CCTV to confirm the defects were rectified.
Overall, the landlord took 9 months to carry out any works to the resident’s drainage in her basement. This was inappropriate because the landlord acted outside of its repair policy timeframes, and this affected the resident’s enjoyment of her property. It also caused the resident anxiety over the impact of the landlord’s delays on her daughter’s vulnerabilities.
The resident explained in her formal complaint in March 2023 that the drains were still not clear. The landlord said in its second stage 2 response that on 27 September 2023 the landlord arranged for a CCTV survey of the drains. The repair records provided do not confirm this occurred within a reasonable time. This was evidence of further poor record keeping. Based on the repair logs there was a CCTV survey raised on 14 September 2023, but there is no evidence of this being completed within a reasonable. The repair records also noted a further CCTV drain survey completed on 21 May 2024. This appears to have been a significant delay of over 12 months to arrange a CCTV survey of the drains.
There was no evidence provided to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s findings from any of these surveys, or any remedial work it had identified, or any further action it intended to take as a result.
Overall, the Ombudsman has been unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably or in accordance with its repairs policy.
In summary, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration because:
1. the landlord’s record-keeping overall was poor, and this included important missing details about the landlord’s investigations and the scope of works it had identified was necessary to resolve the drainage to the resident’s basement. As a result, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it made a lasting and effective fix to the resident’s drainage works.
2. there were significant and avoidable delays in the landlord completing any works which resulted in damp and mould at the property. This affected the resident’s enjoyment of her property over a prolonged period.
3. the landlord failed to demonstrate it monitored the repair effectively because although the landlord did contact its contractors at different points, there were long periods where it failed demonstrate it took any action.
4. when the landlord did act it was usually after the resident had chased it. This caused time and trouble to the resident because she had to chase the works and undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to monitor the works.
5. the landlord failed to demonstrate it communicated appropriately with the resident to explain why it had experienced delays, or provided updated timeframes for when it would complete the works. It also missed opportunities to respond to the resident’s requests for call backs and meetings where it could have explained its position and managed the expectations over expected timescales for completion.
6. the landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s daughters vulnerabilities in its approach to carrying out the works. This is because it did not consider how it could utilise its policy to expedite the repair.
It is not clear if this long-standing issue has been resolved for the resident and this is unacceptable. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused from March 2022 until the date of this determination. The impact to the resident is likely to have been significant and therefore, £1,500 compensation would be fair to recognise the distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s maladministration between 2 Match 2022 and 28 June 2023.

The associated damp to the resident’s hallway, lounge, dining room, and kitchen walls

The landlord must ensure its properties are fit for habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires properties to be free from hazards including damp and mould and to not cause significant harm. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System requires properties to be free from hazards. The statutory operating guidance sets out what landlord’s should do. This includes inspecting properties when a hazard is reported to consider if there is a risk to resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home including the walls.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy became effective from May 2023. This was part way through the resident’s complaint. It states:
1. following a report of damp and mould it would establish if an immediate repair was required in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. an assessment of the property will be carried out within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. The assessment would identify the underlying cause of damp and mould in the property.
3. any remedial works would be raised within 10 working days and if multiple fixes are required it will keep residents informed throughout.
The Ombudsman’s approach to damp and mould is set out in our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould – ‘it’s not a lifestyle’. This states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It sets out that damp and mould needs to be a higher priority for some landlords and a proactive approach should be the bedrock of their approach.
For context only, the evidence shows the landlord was aware of damp in the property as early as 2021. As part of its response at this time, it recognised the drainage had contributed to the recurring damp issues in the property. It also acknowledged that as part of a survey it conducted in January 2022, there were high moisture readings in the hallways. The report said there was rising damp from the basement because of a structural issue.
The landlord noted in its first stage 2 response that it had supplied the resident with a dehumidifier between 1 September 2022 and 31 March 2023, to mitigate the impact of the damp in the resident’s property. This was an appropriate short-term action by the landlord. It also shows an awareness by the landlord of the damp issues from September 2022.
The resident re-reported concerns over the level of damp and mould in her home on 8 September 2022. This is detailed at paragraph 32 of this report. Although the evidence indicates at this time the landlord’s focus was on repairing the drainage to the basement, there is no evidence the landlord explained it needed to complete these works before it took further action for the damp.
In March 2023, following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord offered to start its decant process whilst it carried out the internal works plastering works at the property. The resident initially accepted the landlord’s offer but later decided not to be decanted.
The evidence shows the landlord took 12 months before it considered any long-term actions it could take to mitigate the impact of the damp on a household with vulnerabilities. Due to the nature of the vulnerabilities present, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been alert to this and offered a decant property at an earlier opportunity. Given that the resident declined to be decanted, there is no evidence that an offer to decant her earlier would have put her in a different position.
During a call on 28 February 2023, the resident confirmed that she was still using a dehumidifier. It is clear the landlord was aware at this point the damp issue was still present, despite the works to the drainage the landlord had completed in November 2022.
It is unclear why the landlord did not act during this period to inspect and gauge the level of damp present and then to mitigate this by arranging appropriate remedial action or providing advice and guidance to the resident about what she could do to help the situation whilst it sought to fix the root cause. This was a failure to action the resident’s report which caused distress and inconvenience because she was living in a property with damp for period.
On 1 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to call her regarding the ongoing damp issues. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this. This was a missed opportunity to mitigate the resident’s complaint and resulted in the formal complaint made by the resident on 6 March 2023. This was further evidence of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident.
On the 8 March 2023, the resident reported that there was water was dripping from the walls. She also raised concerns for the costs of the dehumidifier. The landlord responded by arranging for a mould wash to the bedroom which it completed on 17 May 2023. It also arranged for a healthy homes assessment on 19 June 2023. This confirmed the affected areas of the property had been cleaned and that it had treated the mould behind the wallpaper in the main bedroom.
As the landlord’s damp and mould policy only came into effect in May 2023, the landlord would have been bound by the timescale in its repairs policy. The mould wash was completed within 258 calendar days (8 months) and the assessment within 291 calendar days of the resident’s initial report in September 2022. This was inconsistent with the landlord’s repairs policy of 25 calendar days. This was a significant and avoidable delay which would have caused the resident distress and anxiety.
The repair logs noted on 19 June 2023, the external rear of the property was allowing moisture into the walls and causing the wallpaper to go mouldy. It also noted that the mould had been treated and was not related to condensation but a “structural issue.” Although the repair logs note this repair as completed on 25 August 2023, it is unclear what action the landlord took, if any, to resolve the excessive moisture at the rear of the property.
There was an additional roofing job raised on 2 June 2023 which was noted as completed on 20 June 2023. Again, due to missing information, it is unclear what action the landlord took, if any, to resolve the excessive moisture at the rear of the property. The Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord responded reasonably to the excessive moisture coming through the property from the rear.
There is no evidence the landlord took any further action relating to the damp until the resident asked for an update on 10 July 2023. The landlord noted there “were jobs related [to the damp] that were incomplete or closed.”
It is unclear why the landlord did not take this opportunity to take further action to investigate the structural issues at the rear of the property. This was indicative of a failure to follow the landlord’s damp and mould policy to inspect properties within 20 working days and to raise remedial works within 10 working days. This added to the delay experienced by the resident and caused her further time and trouble in chasing the landlord.
The resident made a further report about the damp and mould and requested a mould wash on 1 August 2023. The landlord’s notes during this time show that it raised a roofing job for the back of the property. The notes also indicate that the landlord was unable to carry out a further mould wash as one had been completed 5 months prior. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to carry out a further mould wash at the property whilst it sought to resolve the structural issues. It ought to have explained why this was the case to the resident.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord provided an action plan for the damp walls in its first stage 2 response. It said it would hack off and re-render the wall in the lounge, dining room, hallways, kitchen and once dried, it would repaint them. It also said it would need to strip out the resident’s kitchen to ascertain if there was damp that needed rectifying, and if so, a new kitchen would be fitted. This was 11 months after the resident’s reports and was an unacceptable delay.
The evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord for an appointment it gave for 13 October 2023 relating to the works in its stage 2 response. The resident said the appointment did not go ahead. Although there is considerable evidence of the resident chasing the landlord, there is no evidence it completed the works.
There is also evidence of the landlord raising a repair in May 2024 for an intrusive investigation into the damp issues in the kitchen, hallway, and basement. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there was a failure to demonstrate it had resolved the damp issues at the time of this investigation.
Overall, the failure to resolve the damp issue, combined with poor record-keeping, demonstrates the landlord’s poor co-ordination, escalation and monitoring of the repairs required to mitigate and resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
The resident said her property remains damp and mouldy at the time of this investigation. There is no evidence that the landlord has surveyed with a view to considering if any hazards are presented within the property or whether it is fit for human habitation. This means the landlord has potentially left a resident with a vulnerable member of the family in conditions which could pose a real risk to their health. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have satisfied itself that the property was not hazardous. This is a significant failure.
The Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould because:
1. the landlord delayed in assessing the level of damp in the property between September 2022 and June 2023.
2. the landlord delayed in providing any advice to resident or to clean the damp and mould between September 2022 and May 2023.
3. the landlord’s record keeping meant it was unable to demonstrate to the Ombudsman it acted reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. the landlord’s record keeping failed to demonstrate it provided a lasting and effective fix to the damp and mould and this impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
5. the landlord consistently failed to communicate appropriately to the resident about the findings of its investigations, what it intended to do, and when. It also failed to communicate its delay.
6. the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of the household and did not demonstrate it considered this in its approach to the damp and mould between September 2022 and March 2023.
Based on this, the inconvenience, frustration and worry caused to the resident is likely to have been significant. It follows that the level of compensation here should recognise the increased level of distress and inconvenience from September 2022 and remains unresolved for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
2. landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
3. any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.
4. outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days. It also states it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it is unable to adhere to these timeframes it says it will explain why and write again within a further 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord did not provide evidence that it issued a stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord explained to the Ombudsman that a member of staff had left the organisation, and it could not access its stage 1 decision. The resident explained to this service that she did not receive a stage 1 response from the landlord.
This was evidence of poor-record keeping and as such the Ombudsman was unable to verify if the landlord issued the resident with a response at stage 1 of its complaints process. This was a significant failing because the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied the landlord adhered to its complaints policy which caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident in pursuing her complaint. It also delayed the resident from seeking recourse from the Ombudsman.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 April 2023. This is detailed at paragraph 8 of this report. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 18 August 2023 which was 85 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The response did not explain its position on the missing stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman notes:
1. the response did contain an action plan for the re-rendering and redecoration of the various walls in the property. This was appropriate because the resident asked for an action plan in her escalation request.
2. although the landlord acted outside of the stipulated timeframes when it issued its stage 2 response, it also acknowledged this and offered the resident £100. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
3. the landlord recognised the costs the resident had incurred because of its delay. This is because it offered to pay the resident £1,802 for the running costs of the dehumidifier it had supplied. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response was not compliant with the timeframes in the Code and the landlord did not explain its position regarding missing stage 1 response. This meant part of the resident’s complaint remained unanswered.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2023, following contact from the resident, asking it to take action to respond to the resident. This was inappropriate because the Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate with residents without the intervention of this service. The landlord ought to have been clear at an earlier stage that it intended to re-investigate the resident’s complaint or that she had exhausted its complaints process and signposted her to the Ombudsman.
There is no evidence the landlord monitored and expedited the outstanding repairs after it issued its response. This caused further time and trouble to the resident because there is evidence of her chasing the repairs on numerous occasions. This was inappropriate because the outstanding actions should have been overseen as part of the complaints process.
The landlord re-allocated the complaint and wrote to the resident on 11 October 2023 explaining it would review its decision at stage 2 of its process. It issued a further stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. The response stated that it was apologetic for the level of service the resident received and that repairs and communication should have been managed for effectively and delivered more swiftly.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response did not explain its position regarding the missing stage 1 response. This was a missed opportunity to rectify its previous failure to address this issue. In addition, the landlord’s position it still unclear as it told this service that it could not access the stage 1 response, however the internal communications indicated the landlord acknowledged it did not issue a stage 1 response. This was a further failure because part of the resident’s complaint was not answered by the landlord.
Although the landlord acknowledged it had not managed the repairs swiftly and this caused delays, it is unclear why neither complaint response went on to explain what went wrong, the reasons behind this, and any learning it had identified as a result. This was a failure because the Ombudsman expects landlords to use its complaints process to ensure transparency, to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.
When considering what remedies are appropriate in a case, the Ombudsman has regard to the landlord’s compensation policy, our own remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, particularly the level of impact of any maladministration on a resident.
In summary, the landlord offered the following redress during its complaint’s procedure:
1. £100 for its delay in responding at stage 2 on 18 August 2023.
2. £1,802 for the running costs of the dehumidifier between 1 September 2022 and 31 March 2023.
3. £50 for the delay in issuing the compensation offered on 18 August 2023.
4. acknowledgement and an apology for not managing the repairs and communications with the resident more swiftly and effectively.
The Ombudsman considers this was not sufficient redress. This is because the complaints process did not take into account:
1. the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it issued a stage 1 response and its failure to address this in its complaint responses.
2. the landlord’s delay in resolving the drainage and damp proofing as well as the damp and mould in property between February 2022 and October 2023. This would have been information available to the landlord during its complaint procedure.
3. the time and trouble of the resident in chasing the repairs for the drainage between March 2022 and October 2023 and requesting action for the damp issue between February 2022 and October 2023.
4. the vulnerabilities of the resident’s daughter which meant she would be more adversely affected by the unresolved damp issues in the property.
5. the landlord’s investigations and repairs for the drainage and the damp and mould issues were ongoing at the time the last stage 2 response was issued.
6. the landlord’s continuous poor communication during the repair journey and the complaints process.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord addressed the dehumidifier costs up to 31 March 2023. This was appropriate. However, it is unclear if the resident incurred any further costs for this, given the damp remained outstanding beyond this point. The landlord must consider if the resident incurred any further heating or dehumidifier costs as a result of the ongoing damp issue.
Overall, it is noted the complaints process tried to resolve some of the resident’s complaint. However, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that it did not go far enough to identify and explain the wider learning it had identified, and it did not offer a remedy that addressed the extent of its failures. As a result, there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s property at the time her tenancy commenced is outside of the jurisdiction of this service to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the drainage and damp proofing works to the resident’s basement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated damp to the resident’s hallway, lounge, dining room, and kitchen walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record-keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Arrange for the CEO to call the resident to apologise for the failures summarised at the end of each complaint. This must be followed by a written apology and include the landlord’s position about the missing stage 1 response.
2. Pay the resident £4,100 compensation comprising of:

i. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it made a lasting and effective fix to the drainage issues at the resident’s property between March 2022 and October 2023.

ii. £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it made a lasting and effective fix to the damp and mould at the resident’s property between February 2022 and October 2023.

iii. £100 for the landlord’s failure to respond to all of the resident’s complaint, provide an adequate remedy, and explain the wider learning it had identified.

Upon submission of receipts by the resident, the landlord must pay any additional costs incurred by the resident for heating and/or dehumidifier costs between February 2022 and June 2024.
Provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Complaint handling

The property condition

The landlord must contact the resident to mutually agree a convenient time for an independent survey to completed. The survey must inspect the drainage to the resident’s basement and result in a report which sets out:
1. any disrepair found.
2. the structural integrity of the pipework.
3. a scope of works and indicative costs and timescales to complete the works.
4. photographs of the condition of the pipework and basement area.
5. the surveyor must be encouraged to produce a report within 5 working days of the inspection.
6. the report must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure any works to the drainage in the basement are completed within 56 days of the date of the survey. Where it cannot meet this deadline, the landlord must set out its reasons to the Ombudsman together with evidence of why it cannot make this deadline.
The landlord must instruct a specialist damp surveyor to inspect the property. The instruction and inspection must take place within 28 days of the date of this determination. The surveyor must produce a report with its findings, setting out:

i. the levels of damp and mould within the property, with accompanying photographs.

ii. whether the property is habitable.

iii. whether the drainage pipework in the basement has any causal relation to any damp and mould identified or alternatively any further investigations required to determine the root cause of the damp and mould.

iv. a scope of works and indicative costs and timescales to complete the works.

the surveyor must be encouraged to produce a report within 5 working days of the inspection.
the landlord must share the full report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt.

The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the works to resolve the damp and mould are completed within 56 days of the date of the survey. Where it cannot meet this deadline, the landlord must set out its reasons to the Ombudsman together with evidence of why it cannot make this deadline.
The landlord must consider whether it should offer a temporary decant property to the resident while it completes the works.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a case review to identify:

i. why the landlord frequently missed opportunities to communicate with the resident about the repairs and during the complaint’s procedure during the from February 2022 onwards.

ii. why the landlord delayed between February 2022 and June 2023 in assessing the damp and mould in the resident’s property.

iii. why the landlord delayed between February 2022 and May 2023 in cleaning the damp and mould in the resident’s property.

iv. why the landlord did not adhere to the timeframes in its complaint’s procedure.

v. why the landlord’s record keeping did not contain key information such as details of findings from surveys, associated remedial works, and reporting dates of the resident.

vi. what actions the landlord needs to take that it has not identified already to strengthen its service provision and to ensure these failures are prevented in the future.

The landlord must write a report with its findings and present this to its senior leadership team, the resident, and the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to ask its staff to complete the training on our Centre for Learning site on Knowledge Information Management.