Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202214891)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214891

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 May 2024 (amended 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 in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. damp, mould, leaks, pests and repairs to the property, and the resident’s concerns that her possessions were damaged.
2. the impact of repair issues on the resident’s family’s health.
3. complaint handling, including concerns raised about the conduct of contractors.
4. the temporary decant and storage of possessions.
5. repairs to the front door.
6. removal of bramble bushes and vines left by the previous tenant.
7. Japanese knotweed.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a fixed term tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house where the resident lives with her 2 children. The resident told us that she has asthma and fibromyalgia. The landlord says it had not been told of the resident’s vulnerabilities at the beginning of her tenancy, but that she has since referred to disabilities and vulnerabilities in conversations with staff. However, it said she had not provided supporting evidence of vulnerabilities to allow it to formally record them. The resident provided us with details of an email she sent the landlord at the beginning of her tenancy. This attached details of her employment and support allowance and her personal independence payment as evidence of her disability.
The landlord states in information available on its website that it is committed to ensuring lasting solutions to damp and mould. It says it will respond to damp and mould reports within 5 working days.
The landlord’s decant policy, from January 2024, states that to avoid disruption to the resident, it will always try to minimise the duration of a decant.
The landlord’s repair guide says it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days. It says that some repairs take longer than the usual 28 days, due to factors such as complexity. In such cases it will aim to complete the repair within 90 days.
The landlord’s pest control process sets out that it will respond to pest infestations, including mice. It outlines that it will arrange for pest control to attend to complete a survey and treatment through to resolution,
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation based on the circumstances and merits of the case. It says where there has been a failing in service it will consider payments of up to £50 for low failure, £51-£150 for medium failure, and £151-£350 for high failure. It says it will also consider payments of compensation of this scale for time and trouble. It says that claims of damaged to belongings should be considered by its insurance team if the loss is greater than £300.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says, if it cannot keep to these timescales, it will inform the resident and agree a new response time.

Summary of events

Records show that in February 2022 the landlord raised a repair to plaster, stain-block and redecorate the resident’s kitchen, hallway and bedroom ceilings. On 26 April 2022 the resident complained by telephone that the work on her kitchen ceiling was not in line with the repair raised. Internally the landlord noted the complaint had been passed to a manager and that the resident had sent photos. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact as a complaint and said it would be in touch within 5 working days. In May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord twice. She asked for an update on her complaint and said she had sent further photos of black mould. She said she had asthma and that the condition of the property was having an adverse effect on her health. At the end of May 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It apologised for the delay and said it would chase the matter up.
Records do not show further communication or action until 24 August 2022. At this time the landlord raised an emergency repair for an uncontainable leak from the resident’s bathroom into her kitchen. The next day the landlord noted the resident said the leak and flood had left her kitchen under water and that she wanted to be decanted while repairs were completed. The landlord arranged for the resident and her 2 children to be decanted to a hotel from 27 August 2022. This was initially for 10 nights, but continued beyond this. It recorded at this time that the resident had a disability. Later that month the landlord raised a number of repairs related to the leak.
On 9 September 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said she had complained earlier in the year and was still waiting for a response. She said:
1. she felt like the landlord was trying to “cover up the wrong actions”.
2. she had chronic asthma and other disabilities and that there was a “huge amount” of black mould throughout the property which the landlord had not dealt with.
3. she was currently decanted to a hotel, which was outside of the area she normally lived.
4. she found the landlord’s repairs manager “unsupportive” and that he had failed to provide her with a clear plan for work.
In mid-September 2022 the landlord noted issues with the resident not leaving the key to the property in the key safe. It said this was delaying work. It noted it spoke to the resident about this. On 23 September 2022 the landlord completed an inspection of the property. The report noted, amongst other things that the property was “very full” of the resident’s possessions.
On 28 and 29 September 2022 the landlord recorded internally that the work was of a large scale, involving ceiling reinstatement, plastering, redecoration, mould treatment and electrical work. It noted:
1. the work it had planned to start that day had not gone ahead as the resident had not moved her belongings.
2. the resident had arrived late to provide access for work.
3. the work needed was more than had been described.
4. the hallway was still damp.
5. the resident did not want work to progressed as she considered she had been promised more by the landlord.
6. a “vast amount” of the resident’s possessions were still in situ and needed to be packed away and stored.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said it wanted to set out a clear plan for work. It said it would provide a full schedule of work and that it would arrange for a removal company to pack and move the resident’s belongings for safe keeping. It also said it would open a formal complaint for the resident.
On 7 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about the complaint she made on 9 September 2022. She said she had no idea what was happening in relation to this. She said the repairs manager had been “abrupt and unhelpful” and asked that he make no further contact with her. She also asked the landlord to send timeframes for the work. The landlord responded that day providing her with a plan of work agreed by its surveyor. This did not include any timeframes. It said it would require uninterrupted access to the property while the work was completed. The landlord raised work to remove and store resident’s possessions and change the lock at the property on 10 October 2022. However, it noted this was on hold as the resident would not give access to the property.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It noted that the resident considered she had received “excessive and ineffective” communication from the repairs manager. It said:
1. it apologised if the resident felt the repairs manager had acted unprofessionally, and that no further contact would be made by him.
2. the regular communication was to reassure the resident that work was being done.
3. the schedule of work had been provided to the resident and this was due to start on 26 October 2022.
4. the work would be overseen by the regional repairs manager.
5. it partly upheld the resident’s complaint and had awarded her £20 for failings in its service.
Also on the 21 October 2022 a contractor for the landlord completed a treatment report form noting it had cleaned and sanitised the kitchen after pest activity. On 23 October 2022 the resident raised concerns about her possessions not being taken into storage. She said she had waited at the property with the landlord that day, but the removal company did not turn up. She said she was told after she left that only her fridge and dining table had been taken into storage. She asked that no further work be completed until the required items were stored. She also asked that the landlord complete pest control at the property for mice and slugs.

On 27 October 2022 the resident provided the landlord with a list of items she wanted it to store. Records we have seen do not detail when items were taken into storage. In November 2022 the resident’s solicitors sent a disrepair claim to the landlord. Later that month the landlord told the resident that its contractor would attend on 22 November 2022 to clear items at the property. It said work to the property would start after this. The landlord stated in subsequent correspondence that it changed the front door lock to the resident’s property in November 2022.
During December 2022 the landlord corresponded with the resident’s solicitor about storage of her possessions. In this, resident’s solicitor asked that work stop until her possessions were kept safe. Later that month the landlord said the resident had attended the property and had “ordered” contractors to stop work. The landlord said it had evidence the resident’s possessions had been put into storage. It said it would apply for an injunction with the aim of having the resident “refrain” from entering the property if her solicitor did not provide an undertaking that she would not disrupt the work.
While not recorded in contemporaneous records, the landlord noted in later correspondence that its removal contractor had attended on 19 January 2023. It said this was aborted due to the resident’s late arrival. The resident has provided details of a text message from the removal company asking her to arrive at the property at 7.30am. She said this conflicted with advice previously given by the landlord, that the appointment would be at 9am. She said she was told by the landlord after arriving at the property that the appointment had been moved again, and was later told by the removal company the appointment had been cancelled. The landlord noted a second attempt was made on 7 February 2023, but the removal company then refused to move goods due to rodent droppings.
Records do not show further action until 24 February 2023. At this time a contractor for the landlord completed an environmental clean following the mice activity. Shortly after this the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said she had returned to the property to find that items from her kitchen, including electrical goods, had been disposed of by the landlord without her permission. The resident said that during her last meeting at the property, removal of her possessions had been postponed again due to mice/rat dropping over items. She said she was told that day that an environmental service would come to clean belongings and lay traps.
Following this the landlord communicated with the contractor who had completed the environmental clean. The contractor said it had disposed of “low value items” that were contaminated by rodent urine. It said it was “self-evident” these items could not be kept. However, it acknowledged that items had been disposed of without the resident’s consent and that it could not provide an itemised list of what had been disposed of.
In March 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed a further treatment for the mice infestation. At this time the level of infestation was noted to be high. The contractor noted it was unable to access parts of the property due to “cluttering”.
In April 2023 the landlord corresponded with the contractor about arrangements for sorting and removing the resident’s possessions. The landlord noted the resident needed to be present during this. Attached to this correspondence were photos showing large amounts of bagged items in the resident’s property. However, we have seen no record of contact with the resident at this time.
Later In April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. she had made an initial complaint to the landlord in April 2022, but received no response.
2. the landlord had used the incorrect date for the decant in its stage 1 response.
3. she was still waiting for a copy of the survey report, so she understood the issues with the property.
4. the work had not started on 26 October 2022, and she was still waiting for an update on the work.
5. she wanted compensation for her damaged possessions as well as for the impact on her family’s mental and physical health.
6. the lack of communication from the landlord had made her “more anxious and depressed”.
7. she said she had a number of issues at the property, including Japanese knotweed, pests and mould and that these had been ignored by the landlord.
8. she had reported a serious incident when the landlord’s operatives had attended but had then refused to complete the work assigned. She said they became “rude” and had left without letting her know. She said she had lost trust in the operatives as a result. She asked if this matter had been investigated by the landlord and for it to compensate her for it.
In June 2023 the landlord noted internally that due to access issues “little had changed” at the property. It said it was still working on a solution to create a safe working environment following numerous reports of “threatening behaviour and harassment” of contractors/surveyors by the resident. It noted it was looking to build a compound around the house, which could take a further 2 weeks.
In correspondence with the resident’s solicitor later in June and in July 2023 the landlord stated its belief the resident was “deliberately obstructing” access to contractors. It asked that the resident be available to “facilitate access” for a pre-works inspection. In response, the resident’s solicitor asked for details of what the resident was doing to obstruct access. It said the landlord had changed the lock to the property and the resident no longer had a key for access.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2023. It said that while the resident had made a complaint in April 2022 by telephone, it was not logged as a formal complaint but instead sent to a repairs manager to review. In its response, the landlord outlined the reasons it believed work at the property had not gone ahead on 26 October 2022 as planned. It said its contractor attended on 19 January 2023 to remove furniture and start the first steps of repairs, but this did not go ahead due to the resident’s late arrival. It said a second attempt to remove furniture was arranged for 7 February 2023, but this was cancelled due to the discovery of signs of pest. It said pest control was arranged for 27 February 2023.
In respect of a timeframe for work, the landlord said it aimed to complete all outstanding work by 31 August 2023. It apologised for the length of time work had been ongoing. It said the work was not complicated but had been “problematic”. It said:
1. there were several delays due to pests, concerns about how the resident had left her personal effects after the decant and about the resident’s “reported hostile interactions” with staff/contractors.
2. there were reports the resident or her family members tried to gain entry each time the landlord arrived to complete inspections or work.
3. the resident had a legal disrepair case open and that there had been reported difficulties in agreeing matters with the resident’s solicitors.
4. it had now erected a site control fence (hoarding) around the property so it could complete the work safely.
In respect of the incident the resident had reported, it said it held its contractors accountable and had queried this with it at the time. It said:
1. the contractor’s account was that operatives had been “verbally assaulted” by the resident and were unable to remain the property.
2. it acknowledged this should have been raised directly with the resident at the time and discussed further.
3. it did not tolerate rudeness or retaliation by its colleagues, and it had ensured this had been raised.
4. it had received several complaints internally about the resident’s interactions with staff and contractors.
5. it acknowledged the frustration and the difficulties of the work delays, but this was “not grounds for taking these out on our operatives”.
It said it upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded further compensation of £360, made up of:
1. £150 for time and trouble.
2. £150 for failings in its service.
3. £60 for poor complaint handling.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord’s disrepair manager set out details of his attendance at the resident’s property on 17 and 18 August 2023. In this he noted he had attended the property with a removals company to pack items for storage for the duration of work, and that the resident was also present. He noted the resident:
1. was unhappy and had “demanded” items such as her sofa, be replaced due to mouse droppings.
2. made allegations that items had been stolen from her property.
3. “cursed” the landlord and him.
The landlord’s records show its contractors bagged up the resident’s remaining possessions and completed an environmental clean of the property on 5 September 2023. Later that month a contractor for the landlord completed proofing work and cleared the back garden at the property after noting this was cluttered and could attract rodents.
At the end of October 2023, a disrepair survey was completed by a surveyor instructed by the resident’s solicitor. This concluded that there was no disrepair present, and that refurbishment had been completed to a good standard with only minor work remaining. The surveyor noted there was no evidence of pests at the time of survey. Also at the end of October 2023 a pest control contractor inspected the property and noted proofing had been completed and was in good condition and that there was no evidence of mice. On 16 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said work was now complete and the property was ready for the resident to return on 19 November 2023.
In January 2024 the resident made further complaints to the landlord, which included her concerns about the decant/decant expenses, what she considered to be theft from the property while she was decanted, the standard of work completed and ongoing issues with pests. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to this complaint in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, complaints 1d to 1g as set out above are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In January 2024 the resident raised with the landlord concerns about its handling of the following:
1. the temporary decant and storage of possessions.
2. repairs to the front door.
3. removal of bramble bushes and vines left by the previous tenant.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to these issues in February 2024. There is no evidence the resident has requested escalation of this complaint or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, while the resident’s concerns are noted, these issues are currently outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, in considering the resident’s complaint about the handling of repairs, it has been appropriate to consider some of the circumstances around the decant and storage of possessions.

Concerns about damaged/lost possessions

The resident complained to the landlord in January 2024 about issues with damaged/lost possessions. Her concerns included that her property had been broken into during her decant and that items had been stolen. This complaint is also still to conclude the landlord’s complaint’s procedure. As such it is not currently within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, we have considered the landlord’s response, during its stage 2 handling of the complaint in July 2023, to resident’s earlier request for compensation for damaged possessions.

Pests

The resident said that since returning to the property she continues to experience issues with mice and slugs. It is noted that she raised a further complaint to the landlord about this in January 2024, with it providing stage 1 complaint responses to her in February 2024. We have seen no evidence this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. It follows that in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the continued infestation have not been considered as part of this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her recent concerns about pests it would be appropriate for her to request escalation of her complaint of January 2024.

Japanese knotweed

The resident raised concerns in her complaint escalation of April 2023 about Japanese knotweed at the property. That complaint was not addressed by the landlord in the stage 2 response of July 2023. We have considered the landlord’s complaint handling of July 2023 further below. However, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about Japanese knotweed is currently outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. It would be appropriate for the resident to raise this matter with the landlord if she remains concerned about Japanese knotweed.

Impact of repair issues on the resident’s family’s health

The resident raised concerns about the impact of issues on her family’s mental and physical health. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim. As such, we have recommended the landlord provide the resident with details of how she could make such a claim to its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being and whether it was appropriate. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Handling of damp, mould, leaks, pests and repairs to the property, and concerns her possessions were damaged.

Concerns raised in April 2022

The resident raised concerns at the end of April 2022 about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her kitchen ceiling. She later noted she had attached photos of black mould. Despite acknowledging the resident’s complaint and noting it had been passed to a manager, there is no record of any steps taken to attend the property or to contact the resident to discuss her concerns. The landlord should reasonably have done so, in line with its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould of October 2021 sets out that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take prompt action to investigate the cause of the black mould the resident had reported. When chasing a response to her concerns, the resident told the landlord she was asthmatic and that she was concerned the condition of the property was having an adverse effect on her health. But the landlord gave no apparent regard to this. There is no evidence the landlord had taken any steps to address the resident’s concerns by 24 August 2022, when she experienced a significant leak within the property. The landlord’s failure to take any apparent action about the resident’s concerns about the work to her kitchen ceiling, and about mould at the property was exceptionally poor.

Handling of issues following the leak in August 2022

The landlord took steps to decant the resident following the leak of August 2022. That was reasonable given her request and as it had noted the kitchen and bathroom were unusable. As the landlord acknowledges in its decant policy, while a decant may be necessary due to scale of repairs or the condition of the property, moving to temporary accommodation will inevitably be disruptive for a resident. It would therefore have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to plan and complete work promptly to minimise the length of this disruption. Records show that steps were quickly taken at the end of August 2022 to raise work, However, following this there was poor planning and communication about work by the landlord.
The resident told the landlord in September 2022 that the repair manager had failed to provide her with a clear plan for the work. Her request for a plan was reasonable. She was decanted to a hotel with her 2 children, which would have been a significant upheaval and inconvenience. It was understandable that she would want to know what work was to be completed at the property and when. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly set this out as soon as possible. This would have helped the resident to prepare for the length of her stay away from the property. It might also have helped avoid her concerns in September 2022 that work the landlord was planning to undertake was less than she had been promised. While the landlord sent the resident a schedule of work in early October 2022, this provided no indication of when the work would start or finish. Even after telling the resident in its stage 1 response of October 2022 that it planned to start work later that month, it gave her no indication of how long the work was likely to take. That was poor communication by the landlord.
The evidence demonstrates that a significant factor that delayed the landlord in completing the work was the large amount of the resident’s possessions in the property. That was noted during the survey in September 2022, and later that month when the landlord’s contactor noted the work could not start before possessions were packed and stored. The landlord told the resident at the beginning of October 2022 that it would arrange to do so. But by this time, she had already been decanted for over a month, with no real progress made towards completing work. It should reasonably have been clear to the landlord from the outset that it would need to take steps to pack and store resident’s belongings. Not only did it need to protect these from damage, but it also needed to ensure work could be completed unobstructed. But there was an apparent failure by the landlord to even consider this until October 2022.
The landlord’s records do not detail clearly steps it took to arrange removal and storage of the resident’s possessions at this time. That was a failing in record keeping. This was an integral part of the planning towards completing the work, and it would have been appropriate for it to record what action was being taken towards this. By this time the landlord had said in its stage 1 response of October 2022 that the work would be overseen by the regional repairs manager. But is difficult to see how this could be done effectively without adequate recording of actions it was taking. It is acknowledged that the surveyor/contractors had noted the property was “cluttered”, with a large amount of possessions. But there is no clear evidence the landlord took any level of control of organising work to pack and remove items.
While the resident said in her email towards the end of October 2022 that removal contractors had attended the property, she said at this time that only 2 items of furniture were removed from the property. The landlord later said it attempted to arrange removals again on 19 January 2023, but this was aborted due to the late arrival of the resident. This attempt and, any efforts to communicate with the resident, are not detailed in records we have seen. It is a further record keeping failing and it means we cannot evaluate whether reasonable notice had been given to the resident, who would need to travel from her temporary accommodation. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider at this time the resident’s disability. In such circumstances it would have been appropriate for it to explore with her whether she needed support in arranging items to be packed and stored. In the absence of records, we cannot conclude that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to consider/offer this support. The landlord stated that a further attempt to removal items from the property for storage was abandoned in February 2023 as its contractor refused to move/store items because of rodent droppings. There is an absence of records in respect of this, a further record keeping failure, but this was confirmed by the resident. It is acknowledged that the rodent issue was an obstacle to removal possessions at that time, but it is unclear why the landlord had failed to arrange for items to be boxed/removed prior to this date. That it had not was a failure.
The landlord made numerous references to the resident being “obstructive” to the work being completed. It noted in December 2022 that the resident had ordered contractors to stop work. But it appears there were understandable concerns about the safe storage of her possessions during work. Having told the resident it would do so, the landlord should reasonably have ensured that her possessions had been stored safely. Instead of recognising this and taking appropriate steps, the landlord told the resident’s solicitor that it had evidence possessions had been stored. But, while some items had been moved into storage, it is evident from later correspondence and photos on file that a large amount of items remained at the property. The landlord had acknowledged before that the work was of a large scale and that this work was in various parts of the house.
From records we have seen, the issues around the storage of items continued until at least August 2023, a year after the decant started. Very limited progress was made by the landlord towards completing the work in that time. In June 2023 the landlord said that little had changed at the property and that it was looking to create a safe working environment as there had been “threatening behaviour and harassment” by the resident. It later referred to the resident verbally assaulting a contractor. The only record we have seen of this nature is from August 2023, when a manager for the landlord noted the resident had “cursed” him and the landlord.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to make detailed records of any incidents of this nature, particularly if it wanted to rely upon this as an explanation of why work was prolonged to the extent it was. In addition, if the landlord or its contractors had experienced this behaviour, it would have been reasonable to correspond with the resident/her solicitor with clear details of incidents. If the landlord had concerns about the resident’s behaviour towards staff/contractors, it would have been appropriate for it to take immediate action, in line with any relevant policies, to raise this with her. This would have given the resident the chance to respond to the report, and the landlord the opportunity to consider reasonable steps to manage the situation/reported behaviour. But the landlord acknowledged it had not raised with the resident the report that she had “verbally assaulted” contractors, nor is there evidence of it raising other specific incidents.
The lack of records relating to the incidents the landlord said its staff/contractors reported is a failing in record keeping. It goes without saying that its records should have been better. However, it is apparent that there was a significant breakdown in relations between the resident and the landlord during this time. It was appropriate for the landlord to highlight that harassment, abuse or intimidation of staff/contractors would not be tolerated. But, as the landlord noted, the ongoing situation would have been a cause of significant concern and frustration for the resident.
In February 2023 the resident reported to the landlord her concern that contractors had thrown away items from her kitchen without her consent. The landlord confirmed that had been the case but did not apologise to the resident for this or looked to how it could rectify the situation. The lack of any apparent concern about the resident’s possessions can only have damaged her trust in the landlord and its contractors. As well as acknowledging its error, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident about how she could submit a claim to its insurer. While the landlord/its contractor may have believed it was “self-evident” these items could not be kept due to rodent contamination, that was not a decision for either the landlord or the contractor to make. It is acknowledged that the landlord has recently directed the resident on making a claim to its insurer in respect of these items, but it should not have taken so long for it to do so.
The resident told the landlord on 23 October 2022 that she wanted it to complete pest control for mice and slugs at the property. While the landlord’s procedures on pests note that it will respond to reports of mice, it does not say that it will deal with slugs. It has since told the resident that any issue with slugs would be for her to deal with. Given this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident in October 2022 that it would not address this matter. We have seen evidence that on 21 October 2022, prior to the resident’s request for pest control, contractors had completed a clean of the kitchen after pest activity. However, there is no evidence it took any further action in response to her concerns. It is clear the landlord was aware there was potential issue with rodents. But it took no further action until February 2023, after the removal company had refused to store items due to rodent activity. The landlord’s actions to respond to the request for pest control between 23 October 2022 and 24 February 2023 was inadequate. This lack of action can have done nothing to help control the level of rodent activity at the property, which in turn contributed to issues with storage and completing repair work. It is noted however, that it subsequently took reasonable and appropriate steps to bait, monitor activity and complete proofing at the property. It is acknowledged that the resident continues to experience issues with pests at the property but, as noted earlier, it would be appropriate for these concerns to be fully considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Records do not detail when repair work was eventually completed – a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. However, the resident was only able to return to the property in November 2023. That was nearly 15 months after her decant from the property in August 2022. This was far in excess of the 90-day timeframe for complex repairs set out in landlord’s repair records. It is acknowledged that the landlord had to take steps to arrange packing and storage of possessions, and that there is some evidence of issues with obtaining access from the resident at the outset, as noted in September 2022. But the landlord changed the lock at the property in November 2022 so access to the property should reasonably have not been an issue after that point. It is also acknowledged there was a need to complete pest control, and this was a complicating factor in both the removal or items and completion of work. However, overall, we have seen significant failings in the landlord’s planning and communication about the work to the property, which was a major contributor to repair work being delayed to the extent it was. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, leaks, pests and repairs to the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded the resident £150 for failings in its service, which was in addition to the £20 it had awarded during its stage 1 response. That amount does not adequately compensate the resident for the level of inconvenience, distress and frustration she experienced as a result of its failings. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failings.
We have considered the resident’s loss of amenity since August 2022, when she was decanted. While it was appropriate for the landlord to decant her at this time, as a result of the landlord’s failings she remained decanted into 2 rooms in a hotel for nearly 15 months. During this time, her and her children were unable to enjoy and make full use of their 3 bedroom house. That was a significant detriment. We have calculated this loss of amenity to be 50% of the property. We have noted the resident has paid weekly rent of between £160.02 and £171.22 during her decant. Using these amounts, we have calculated the total compensation ordered for loss of amenity as £5,300. This represents 50% of the rent payment from the end of August 2022 to the point the resident moved back to the property in November 2023. It is acknowledged that it is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home. We have also ordered a separate award to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings to respond within a reasonable time to the concerns the resident raised in April 2022 about the repair to the kitchen ceiling and mould.
In January 2024, following an investigation of another complaint about the landlord, we issued orders as part of the determination in case 202011109. Paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme allows the Ombudsman to make wider orders. In that case the landlord was ordered to undertake a comprehensive review of its practices in relation to responding to requests for repairs, record keeping, and complaint handling. This included a review of the processes and procedures it has in place for:
1. responding to reports of repairs, including damp and mould.
2. ensuring that repairs are completed in a reasonable timescale.
3. record keeping, including reports of repair issues, all actions taken in response, inspection notes, and details of any repairs carried out.
Our records show that the landlord has recently begun to provide evidence of its compliance with this order. In view of this, to avoid duplication of the wider order, we will not make any similar orders on this case. However, we will monitor the actions taken.
In January 2024 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – ‘relationship of equals’. This says landlords should empower themselves with knowledge about their residents in order to be more proactive and effective. As outlined, above, while the resident told the landlord of her vulnerabilities and disabilities, we have seen evidence that the landlord failed to respond appropriately when she raised concerns about the condition of the property. We have also seen inadequate evidence that the landlord explored with the resident whether she required additional assistance in packing/moving possessions.
While the landlord has since said the resident had not provided it with any evidence of her vulnerabilities/disabilities, we have seen no evidence this information was requested from her during the course of events complained about. With this in mind, an order has been made that the landlord review policies and procedures in place, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that it has appropriate processes, guidance and training in place around identifying and supporting residents with vulnerabilities.
The resident’s specific concerns about her decant – such as the expenses she was paid, and why she was not moved to other accommodation – do not form part of this investigation. As outlined earlier, her complaint about this has not concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure. However, it is extremely concerning that the resident and her 2 children (who were 13 at the time) remained decanted to a hotel for nearly 15 months. The landlord’s decant policy states that for stays of longer than 4 weeks it would generally look to decant to one of its vacant properties. In view of this, we have recommended that the landlord undertake a detailed review of the circumstances of this decant. This should be done so it can evaluate whether appropriate steps were taken to consider moving the resident and her family to alternative temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling and consideration of concerns raised about the conduct of contractors

The resident told the landlord in April 2022 that she wanted to raise a complaint about its handling of repairs. Despite acknowledging this complaint, the landlord took no apparent steps to respond to it. It later said in its stage 2 response of July 2023 that it had not raised this issue as a formal complaint, but instead passed the matter to a manager to respond to. While it may be reasonable to explore early resolution of a complaint, there is no evidence the landlord discussed or agreed this with the resident. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it is not reasonable for the landlord to obstruct access to the complaints procedure or have extra stages, such as a pre-complaint stage. Crucially, there was no evidence the landlord was taking any active steps to resolve the issues the resident had raised. It was poor handling of the matter by the landlord.
The resident set out clear concerns in September 2022 about the landlord’s handling of issues since the leak at the property and her decant. But the landlord did not take any steps to log this matter as a formal complaint until nearly a month later. That was poor, particularly as the resident had questioned at this time what was happening to her earlier complaint.
When providing its stage 1 response in October 2022 the landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the repairs manager’s communication. It took appropriate steps to assure her that she would not receive further contact from him. However, it did not address the resident’s concern that she had received no response to her earlier complaint. In addition, while the landlord told her it was due to start work on 26 October 2022, it should reasonably have gone further by providing her with an estimated timescale for the work. As noted earlier, the resident was decanted from her home with her 2 children, and this would have been disruptive and a significant cause for concern. Providing adequate information about how long it anticipated she would be decanted would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and allay her concerns. Despite the resident asking for the landlord to provide her with a copy of the surveyor’s report, it did nothing to respond to this request. While the landlord was not required to provide the surveyor’s report, it would have been reasonable for it to summarise the findings of this inspection.
The resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint in April 2023. The landlord’s response to this complaint was delayed far beyond timescales set out in its complaints policy, with it taking 3 months to issue a stage 2 response. It appropriately acknowledged this delay in its eventual response. However, there were a number of shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, including its failure to fully acknowledge or identify how its own poor planning and communication had significantly delayed work. The landlord also did not acknowledge or identify delays in its treatment of pests at the property. It also, again, failed to respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the survey.
The resident asked that the landlord compensate her for damaged possessions, but it did not respond to this point at all, or attempt to seek clarification from her about this. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy the landlord could consider paying compensation of up to £300 for damaged items, otherwise it could direct the resident to submit a claim to its insurer. The landlord’s failure to do either was poor and can only have given the resident the impression it was ignoring her concerns.
The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about Japanese knotweed. The landlord told us that this matter had not been raised by the resident during her stage 1 complaint. But it should reasonably have directed her to raise a separate complaint about this matter, and responded accordingly. Its failure to do so, can only have given the resident the impression it was ignoring her concerns, again. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether her concern about Japanese knotweed is ongoing.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concern about the conduct of contractors, who she said had been rude and had left her property without notifying her. The landlord said it had obtained accounts from its contractor, and it also considered how it had communicated with the resident about the incident. In principle, the actions the landlord said it had taken to review the matter were reasonable. But records do not show when this incident occurred, or the steps the landlord said it took to obtain accounts. That was a record keeping failure. We cannot conclude the landlord took appropriate action to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns on the basis of records we have seen. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord review its handling of this and provide appropriate information to demonstrate how it investigated this matter.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £210 in respect of failings in its handling of her complaint. This amount does not go far enough. With reference to the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact of the delays and poor handling of the complaint.
As part of the wider order outlined earlier, we ordered that the landlord review processes and procedures in place for responding to complaints. This included responding within an appropriate timeframe and ensuring that its complaint responses deal with all complaint points raised, or provide reasons for not considering a complaint under its complaints policy. In light of this, we have not made further complaint handling orders to avoid duplication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp, mould, leaks, pests and repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and consideration of concerns the resident raised about the conduct of contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of issues on her family’s health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the follow issues falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have yet to conclude the landlord’s complaints procedure:
1. the temporary decant and storage of possessions.
2. repairs to the front door.
3. removal of bramble bushes and vines left by the previous tenant.
4. Japanese knotweed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should come from the landlord’s chief executive and should be in line with guidance on apologies contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £6,680, made up of:
  1. £5,300 for loss of amenity between August 2022 and November 2023.
  2. £920 for distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of damp, mould, leaks, pest and repairs to the property. This includes the £170 previously awarded.
  3. £460 for the impact of failings in its complaint handling. This includes the £210 previously awarded.
3. contact the resident to confirm whether her concern about Japanese knotweed is ongoing.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management review of the case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this determination. It should include a:
1. review policies and procedures in place, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that it has appropriate processes, guidance and training in place around identifying and supporting residents with vulnerabilities.
2. review its handling of its investigation of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors and provide appropriate information to demonstrate how it investigated this matter.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide the resident with details of how she could make a personal injury claim to its insurer.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should undertake a detailed review of the circumstances of the resident’s decant. This should be done so it can evaluate whether appropriate steps were taken to consider moving the resident and her family to alternative temporary accommodation during the 15 months she was decanted to a hotel.