Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231233)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231233

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 October 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. repairs to the resident’s ventilation unit and the associated damp and mould.
2. repairs to the resident’s balcony doors and the associated damp and mould.
3. the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions due to damage and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that commenced on 13 April 2015. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a balcony attached to the resident’s bedroom with a small patio area. The landlord said it was aware the resident had reported she was disabled during the complaints process but did not have further information about this.
The resident said she had ongoing issues with her ventilation unit since 2020. The landlord had isolated the resident’s unit in February 2021. It installed a new unit in October 2021, however, the resident made numerous reports that it was leaking. The unit was later isolated by the landlord’s contractor, however, it is unclear when this occurred. The resident started to report damp and mould in the property in October 2022 because the ventilation unit remained isolated. The landlord referred this to its surveyor, but the landlord could not demonstrate it attended.
The resident continued to report leaks from the machine from October 2022 onwards. The landlord’s contractor suspected this was related to water ingress from the roof tiles during heavy rainfall.
Separately, in November 2021, the resident reported her balcony doors were leaking water. She said this was damaging the sill and causing damp and mould to her property. The landlord also identified the balcony door seals needed to be replaced and the water damage to the sill rectified. The landlord struggled to source the specific seals for the balcony doors.
On 30 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. there were unresolved repairs that had been ongoing for several months.
2. the landlord needed to replace the ventilation unit because it had been incorrectly fitted. She said she was concerned this had not been picked up by the landlord during previous inspections.
3. when the ventilation unit was previously replaced, it was noisy and a nuisance.
4. she was concerned about the exacerbation of her health conditions because of the damp and mould build up due to the isolated ventilation unit.
5. the landlord needed to replace or repair the balcony doors to the patio because they were leaking.
6. she wanted the landlord to supply dehumidifiers to help with the damp and mould.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 25 November 2022. It found the wiring to the machine was incorrectly terminated when it was isolated. The unit was repaired, cleaned, and had new filters, as well as replacement ducting which had gone mouldy.
On 30 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint because:
1. it had confirmed at the recent assessment of the unit the electrical wiring had not been fitted correctly and this posed a risk.
2. it had identified a history of servicing the unit with leaks and reports about the noise throughout the previous 2 years.
3. the resident’s repairs were being dealt with urgently and the resident would be contacted within 10 working days.

The landlord offered the resident £160 for its service failures in handling the repairs and the resident’s time and trouble.

On 21 December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint because:
1. the landlord had not explained what went wrong and its wider learning from the complaint.
2. the landlord did not provide a list of summarised issues, and which actions it was taking to address them.
3. she was concerned her repair requests had not been recorded by the landlord or issued to surveyors.
4. she summarised her concerns over the ventilation unit and the balcony doors which had been compounded because of the lack of dehumidifiers.
5. she explained her property had been damaged because of the damp and mould but the landlord had not confirmed how it would deal with this.
6. she had concerns over the impact of the damp and mould on her health conditions.
The landlord supplied the resident with dehumidifiers on 12 January 2023. The landlord went on to survey the loft area on 4 January 2023. It found the roof space was free from moisture but areas underneath the loft insulation were causing condensation. It said the condensation was caused by inadequate fall points from the roof. It referred its findings to the construction company as a latent defect on 6 February 2023.
On 21 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint because:
1. it did not address the resident’s concerns about her damaged belongings, but it had since given her the details on how to make a claim.
2. the disrepair of the ventilation unit had been ongoing since early 2022. It provided a summary of the repair events during December 2021 and February 2022. It said it hoped to complete repairs to the ventilation unit by 20 February 2023 and gave her a single point of contact to communicate with for this issue.
3. the landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to repair the balcony doors and subsequent damage to the sill. It said its contractor had not been made aware of the extended scope of works when it attended an appointment in January 2023.
4. the landlord said the investigations into the water ingress related to the balcony doors fell under latent defect liability and it had contacted the construction company to progress further repairs. It also gave a point of contact to communicate with for this issue.
5. the landlord apologised for not arranging the dehumidifiers sooner. It said it had been working on the premise the ventilation unit would be recommissioned and these would not be necessary.
6. the landlord said it expected the damp and mould to dissipate once the repairs to the balcony doors and ventilation unit were completed.
7. it offered the resident £770 to address:
  1. its poor complaint handling.
  2. its consistent failure to manage the repair delays.
  3. the time and trouble caused to the resident regarding repeated reporting.
  4. missed appointments it had identified.
8. it also said it would reimburse the running costs of the dehumidifier.
On 6 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor adjusted the condenser pipe to the ventilation unit to allow the condensation to drain more easily. There were no further reports from the resident. The construction company agreed to conduct a leak detection test on 13 April 2023. It found the handrail junction to the capping needed to be sealed and completed this work on the same day.
The damage to the balcony sill was remedied by the landlord by 11 May 2023. It went on to replace balcony door seals on 5 February 2024. The landlord completed a post-inspection survey on 22 February 2024 and found the works to the balcony doors and sill acceptable. It also inspected the loft and found the timber deck was free from mould and had the correct moisture content.
On 22 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and said it had reviewed its complaint response. It said it would offer the resident an additional £225 regarding further delays between February 2023 and June 2023 which impacted the resident’s ability to enjoy her home.
The resident remained dissatisfied. When she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman she was seeking:
1. reassurance that the landlord offered a proportionate level of redress.
2. reassurance the landlord had done everything it should have in a competent manner.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the issues with her ventilation unit had been ongoing since 2020.
The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from February 2021. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords as soon as possible. This is usually within 6 months of the matter arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident said that her medical conditions had been exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property.
The resident’s distress about the property impacting her health conditions is acknowledged. However, while this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. 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.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This is because the landlord has failed to provide all the evidence relating to the resident’s reports for the repair issues she raised during her complaint. In addition, the landlord failed to provide the records relating to the dates of appointments, its contractor’s findings, necessary remedial works, and post completion surveys. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it did not have all the records of the resident’s reports. It said this was because “it seems communication throughout [the unit repairs] may have been lacking.”
The landlord’s record keeping has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was maladministration by the landlord and contributed to the delays identified in this report.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. 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 inadequate communication and redress.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows that the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

The repairs to the resident’s ventilation unit

For context, the resident provided evidence that she had raised concerns with the ventilation unit as early as February 2021. At this time, the landlord’s contractor had isolated the unit. The landlord has not provided repair records that detail:
1. why the unit needed to be isolated.
2. any remedial works it intended to take to recommission the ventilation unit.
3. any follow up appointments it had scheduled with the resident.
4. any reports the resident made between February 2021 and October 2021 regarding the unit.
It is unclear from the evidence which actions the landlord took, if any, to recommission the unit after it was isolated in February 2021. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted reasonably in the circumstances. The Ombudsman expects landlords to monitor and action outstanding repairs through to the conclusion.
The repair records note that after an appointment on 12 October 2021, the landlord intended to install a new ventilation unit. It is unclear from the evidence what prompted this appointment. However, the evidence shows that the landlord replaced the unit on 17 October 2021. The landlord took a further 8 months to re-assess the unit in October 2021, exceeding its repair policy timescale of 28 calendar days. This was a significant and unreasonable delay in identifying the need to replace the unit or to carry out any remedial repairs in the interim.
On 19 November 2021, the resident reported that the new ventilation unit was leaking water. The landlord’s repair records show it intended to refer this issue to its contractor because the unit had just been installed. This was reasonable. The landlord then raised an order to install 2 attenuators (a component that can be installed to reduce noise) because of the excessive sound being generated by the unit. Although the order was raised on 24 December 2021, the landlord was unable to confirm whether this work was completed.
This was evidence of poor record keeping. Therefore, the Ombudsman has been unable to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s report on 19 November 2021 or in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
The resident said that between November 2021 and October 2022, she had not had contact with the landlord because the unit was isolated. The evidence indicates there were “limited notes” on the system, but the landlord understood that during this time the unit was “unusable”. The evidence suggests the landlord took no action to ensure that the source of the leak was investigated, and the unit recommissioned accordingly.
The Ombudsman considers this was also 11 months where the landlord failed to demonstrate it actioned the repairs and/or the recommissioning of the unit. This was a significant and avoidable delay because the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence of the landlord actioning and monitoring the recommission of the resident’s unit during this time. This was unacceptable because it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was living in a property with damp and mould without a unit to mitigate the poor conditions.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord’s records show the resident reported the isolated unit had led to a build up of moisture causing damp and mould. She said this was causing her health conditions to worsen. She asked the landlord to provide dehumidifiers to help to manage this. The landlord responded by referring the issues with the ventilation unit to its surveyor. It asked the surveyor to assess the property on 15 November 2022. This was 20 months after the resident put the landlord on notice of the issue (in or around February 2021).
The Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to have been aware that while the unit was isolated, it was likely that the damp and mouldy conditions in the property would deteriorate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered how it could mitigate the damp and mould while it sought to reinstate the unit, such as the use of dehumidifiers. There is no evidence it did this until January 2023, after the resident’s request in November 2022. This was evidence of poor practice and a failure to consider how it could mitigate the impact of the landlord’s delays on the resident.
In October 2021 we published our Spotlight on ‘Damp and mould. It’s not lifestyle’. This reflects that the Ombudsman expects landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach and be proactive in its response to damp and mould reports. The landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. It was aware there was damp and mould in the property and the unit was intended to help with this. The evidence demonstrates that despite this the landlord failed to adopt a proactive approach to ensuring that ventilation unit was left functioning again. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations in this Spotlight report.
Further, there is no evidence the surveyor attended the assess the property. This was a failure because the landlord continued to fail to action the assessment of the unit in a timely manner. The landlord should have ensured its surveyor assessed the unit within 28 calendar days in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Further, the landlord missed an opportunity to act on the resident’s request to mitigate the property conditions with dehumidifiers.
The resident re-reported the issue with her ventilation unit in her formal complaint on 14 November 2022. She said the unit was incorrectly fitted and the landlord needed to replace or repair it. She explained that she had concerns the issues with the unit continued despite reporting it to operatives on numerous occasions. She also reported her concerns about damp and mould in the property.
After the resident’s complaint, the landlord referred the issue to its contractor on 17 November 2022. It asked for the ventilation unit to be tested and recommissioned along with the pipework. However, the landlord said the work did not progress because the contract had ended with the contractor it had referred the works to.
The evidence indicates the contract had ended in May 2022 and the landlord referred works to a contractor it had not worked with for 6 months. It is unclear why the landlord was unaware that this contract had ended. However, that it was is indicative of a poor understanding of its working arrangements with contractors. This was a failure because it contributed to the delay in actioning the resident’s reports.
Further, the Ombudsman expects landlords to progress repairs through to completion without the intervention of residents. It was disappointing to note the landlord’s lack of action resulted from the resident’s formal complaint. This caused time and trouble for the resident as well as distress and inconvenience in pursuing the landlord to act. This is because she felt she needed to make a formal complaint to be listened to, which was unacceptable.
The landlord referred the same work to another contractor on 25 November 2022. The operative found the unit was previously isolated due to a leak and that the unit was making a loud noise. They also noted the live wires were not terminated correctly, and the earthing was left out of the metal face plate. The operative re-terminated the connections and turned on the unit. However, they noted the cause of the water ingress into the unit required further investigation.
The Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited the property and inspected the unit. In the event the landlord’s internal repairs team may not have had the relevant specialism to inspect the unit, it could likely have reasonably identified if there were any hazards and/or if the unit had been isolated safely. This is because there were numerous missed opportunities to act on the resident’s overall concerns about the unit between February 2021 and October 2022. Further, had the landlord acted on the resident’s reports it could have assessed the state of the unit at a much earlier opportunity.
The repair records show the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 12 January 2023. It noted there was moisture in the unit which was because of a lack of insulation near the ducting in the loft, where there was also possible water ingress from the roof tiles. Further, there was mouldy ducting in the loft space. It recommended:
1. more vents needed to be added to the unit to ensure the moisture did not continue to build up.
2. the loft area needed to be “sorted” before the full duct work was carried out to prevent a recurrence of the issue with the unit.
3. the unit was functional and did not need replacement as it was moisture free, but it needed cleaning and new filters.
4. the ducting through to the ground floor could be left to avoid further disruption to the resident as it was mould free.
5. the unit was very loud meaning the supply needed to be rebalanced when the unit was recommissioned.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord inspected the loft as part of its investigations into the balcony doors. It found the roof space was free from moisture but areas underneath the loft insulation were causing condensation. It said inadequate fall points from the roof had caused the condensation.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s investigation in January 2023 was not to identify the cause of the water ingress to the unit. There is also no evidence the landlord reviewed the roof tiles but rather the area above the wet patch on the resident’s kitchen ceiling. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to verify the landlord’s investigations sought to assess and address the contractor’s concerns. This was a failure by the landlord to demonstrate it acted appropriately on its contractor’s concerns regarding the water ingress to the unit.
The landlord went on to complete some of the work detailed in paragraph 43 on 10 February 2023. However, the contractor was unable to complete the ducting because it required additional parts. This was because some of the previous ducting had discharged a large amount of water and needed replacement. These were the ducts leading to the suspected faulty roof tiles already noted by the contractor at the previous visit. It is unclear if the landlord could have reasonably identified this at its initial inspection in January 2023 and if this caused further delay to the resident.
The landlord made a further appointment to replace the ducts and rebalance the ventilation system. It completed this on 16 February 2023, which was 2 years after the resident’s initial concerns in February 2021. This exceeded the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy and was a significant and unreasonable delay in actioning the resident’s concerns about the ventilation unit.
The evidence indicates the resident went on to report the unit was leaking again, following the landlord’s repairs in February 2023. However, the repair records do not verify when the resident made this report. The landlord’s contractor attended on 11 March 2023 and found water leaking from the condenser pipe. It said this was likely to be rainwater and it made the unit safe. The landlord’s contractor raised concerns again about the water ingress from the roof tiles impacting the unit.
There is no evidence the landlord acted on the report by its contractor to investigate the water ingress further. It is unclear why not. However, based on the evidence available, the landlord missed a further opportunity to investigate the cause of the water ingress to mitigate the impact on the ventilation unit. This caused further time and trouble for the resident who continued to report concerns with the unit leaking.
The landlord confirmed that it had completed repairs to the ventilation unit on 27 July 2023. This was to complete the installation of the ceiling diffusers and unit filters. Both parties agree there have been no further issues reported regarding the ventilation unit.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord took 2 years and 5 months to make a lasting and effective fix to the ventilation unit and the associated repairs to the surrounding areas. This was a significant and unreasonable delay which caused time, trouble, and distress for the resident. This was attributable to the landlord’s poor record keeping, failure to action the resident’s reports and the findings of its contractors, as well as its consistent failure to monitor the outstanding repairs.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to be alert to consistent reports by residents and contractors about similar repair issues. This is so that it can identify any recurring themes and make lasting and effective repairs at the earliest opportunity. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s failure to retain copies of the resident’s reports was detrimental in this case. This is because it hindered its ability to identify a trend in the resident’s reports, monitor the repairs, and make a lasting and effective resolution.
Further, had the landlord acted on the findings of its contractor on 25 November 2022, it may have been able to resolve the issues sooner.
The Ombudsman considers there were cumulative failures in this case which amounted to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to demonstrate it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports in February 2021, November 2021, and October 2022.
2. the landlord unreasonably delayed in actioning repairs to the unit, or sourcing a replacement, between February 2021 and October 2021 (8 months) and November 2021 and October 2022 (12 months)
3. the landlord failed to consider how it could mitigate its delays in repairing/replacing the ventilation unit between November 2021 and December 2022.
4. the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted on the concerns of its contractors in November 2022, January 2023, and March 2023 regarding the suspected leak to the unit.
5. the landlord failed to identify the repeated reports about the ventilation unit at an earlier opportunity to help it prioritise and escalate its repair provision.
6. the landlord incorrectly referred works to a contractor that it had not worked with for 6 months.
7. the landlord missed opportunities to inspect the property given the resident’s ongoing concerns and that the ventilation unit had been out of use for a prolonged period.
8. the landlord failed to action the concerns of its contractor from 25 November 2022, January, and March 2023 regarding the cause of the leak affecting the ventilation unit. These were missed opportunities to investigate and identify the substantive cause of the issue and monitor the repairs through to completion.
9. the landlord took 2 years and 5 months to make a lasting and effective fix to the ventilation unit.
This caused a severe detriment to the resident who was living in damp and mouldy conditions for an excessive period because her ventilation unit was not working properly. In addition, she spent time and trouble making reports and chasing the repairs that were consistently not actioned.

The repairs to the resident’s balcony doors

The resident reported that there was water ingress through the seals of her bedroom balcony doors. The repair records do not reflect when the resident made this report. From the evidence that is available, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was aware of this in November 2021, at the time it raised an order to assess the issue.
For ease of reference, the section relating to the repairs to the resident’s balcony doors is split into 2 sections:
1. the repair of the balcony door seals and sill.
2. the investigation of the associated water ingress.

The repair of the balcony door seals and the sill

The resident reported concerns with the seals of the balcony doors in or around November 2021. The landlord asked its contractor to assess this on 5 November 2021. The landlord’s repair records did not contain any evidence that demonstrates:
1. its contractor attended to assess the resident’s report.
2. any findings made by the contractor.
3. the details of any remedial works required.
4. that it responded to the repair in line with its repairs policy within 28 calendar days.
It is unclear whether the resident raised further concerns about this issue between November 2021 and October 2022. This is because the landlord said it did not maintain adequate records of the resident’s reports of repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was put on notice and there was no onus on the resident to chase it. However, it would have been reasonable for the resident to try and mitigate the inconvenience caused by ensuring the landlord was still aware the problem was outstanding. Regardless, we have been unable to verify whether the landlord actioned or monitored the status of the repairs for a prolonged period. This was inappropriate.
On 13 October 2022, the resident reported that her bedroom balcony doors were dripping water because they had been poorly fitted. She said this was creating excessive moisture and mould at the property. The landlord referred the resident’s reports to its surveyor on 15 November 2022. There is no evidence the surveyor attended the property to assess the resident’s concerns.
The landlord failed to respond in line with its repairs policy because it did not action the resident’s reports. In addition, the landlord missed an opportunity to monitor and action the required investigations to the balcony doors. This was an avoidable delay which caused the resident further time and trouble reporting the same concerns about her balcony doors.
The resident raised further concerns about this issue in her complaint on 14 November 2022. She said the bedroom balcony door leaking daily. She explained she was concerned that the associated mould issues were impacting her health conditions. She asked the landlord to repair or replace the doors to resolve the issue.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 30 November 2022 that it had raised this issue with another team. This was because it agreed with the resident that the outstanding repair may have contributed to the damp at the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord was dealing with a separate report about the resident’s locks to her front door in December 2022. As a result of its stage 1 investigation, the landlord found the contractor had combined works for the front door locks and the balcony doors. However, when the contractor attended on 30 January 2023 to address the resident’s concerns with the locks, the operative was not aware of the work regarding the balcony doors.
The landlord is responsible for the contractor’s failure in January 2023 to address the change in the scope of work that included the balcony doors. This is because the contractor was acting on its behalf. It is also responsible for its failure to include the sill works in the order to the contractor in February 2023. It is clear from the evidence that the landlord and its contractor failed to address the full scope of works required for the balcony door seals and sill board during January and February 2023.
The landlord attended on 11 May 2023 to scrape back and rub down the back doors and to revarnish and replace the rubber gasket around the glass. This was 18 months after the resident made the landlord aware of the issue in November 2021. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to conduct this repair at an earlier opportunity. However, this was an unacceptable delay which exceeded the 28 calendar days in its repairs policy for routine repairs.
The landlord was unable to source the correct seals for the balcony doors. As such, it rebooked an appointment to do this on 22 June 2023 and 21 September 2023. Both appointments were cancelled due to the availability of the seals.
When landlords experience delays in completing a repair, the Ombudsman expects them to communicate the reason for delays and provide updates to residents. The records provided to this Service show that the seals required a specialist part. We therefore acknowledge that the availability of them was beyond the landlord’s control. However, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an update on its progress concerning the seals or the reasons for its delays between February 2023 and December 2023. This was a failure to demonstrate it had communicated its progress to the resident or managed the resident’s expectations around the cancellation of the appointments in June and September. As a result, this impacted the resident because she was uncertain about what the landlord was doing to progress the repair.
The landlord went on to commission a private contractor to survey the resident’s property on 18 December 2023. It said it did this because of the time it had taken to unsuccessfully source the correct parts. As above, the seals required specialist parts, which were later sourced by the contractor from a particular joinery. The landlord provided evidence that it replaced the seals on 5 February 2024. It also completed a post inspection survey of the balcony door repairs and the loft area on 22 February 2024. It found the moisture levels in the loft were at normal levels and the repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord took reasonable action in December 2023 to progress the required repairs. However, while it was regrettable that the parts were difficult for the landlord to source, the landlord took 2 years and 3 months from the resident’s initial report (November 2021) to replace the balcony door seals (February 2024). It is also unclear why the landlord did not consider commissioning the private contractor sooner in the circumstances.
Overall, this was maladministration which was attributable to the landlord’s failure to:
1. demonstrate it had responded reasonably to the resident’s reports between November 2021 and October 2022.
2. monitor the works for the seals were completed during the scheduled appointment in January 2023.
3. accurately raise orders to include the balcony sill in February 2023.
4. demonstrate it actioned the repairs to the seals between June 2023 and December 2023.
5. demonstrate it had provided the resident with an update on its progress with the repairs between June 2023 and December 2023.
As a result, there were avoidable delays that could have been mitigated by the landlord. As the doors were contributing to the damp and mould in the property this was also causing the resident considerable distress, some of which could reasonably have been avoided.

The investigation of the associated water ingress

On 4 January 2023, a surveyor attended to inspect the loft area. They noted there was no moisture in the loft space but when the loft insulation had been pulled back condensation had formed. This was causing condensation to the ceiling beneath. In addition, the balcony area was leaking due to “the area” having an incorrect fall to the discharge point. The repair records noted this issue was treated as a construction defect formerly.
The landlord inspected the property 1 year and 3 months after the resident’s initial concerns in November 2021. This was an unreasonable delay in actioning the investigations into the water ingress affecting the balcony doors. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have identified the need to carry out further inspections at an earlier stage to identify the cause of the water ingress.
The landlord referred its findings to its specialist latent defect surveyor, who was due to attend on 8 February 2023. We have not been provided with a record of this attendance, or the surveyor’s findings.
However, the surveyor wrote to the construction company responsible for the development of the estate on 6 February 2023. They reported water penetration from the balcony to the kitchen bay window. The surveyor said they had reviewed the property history and found the original developer had been aware of this issue in 2019. At the time, the developer had made remedial works which worked for a short period, but the issue had now returned.
The landlord said:
1. the balcony surface had an incorrect fall and leans towards the front façade.
2. the discharge outlet was at the rear of the property.
3. there was standing water on the balcony at all times around 20mm deep.
4. the leak was likely a failure of the coping capping and railings to the front wall of the balcony because of the internal staining located in the front corner of the kitchen area and on the ground floor below the balcony.
5. it wanted the construction company to acknowledge its report, advise on plans to assess the issue and remediate externally and internally under latent defect liability.
The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to explore the possibility of latent defect liability given the circumstances of the water ingress and its findings during January 2023.
The construction company responded and said:
1. the leak investigated previously was found to be due to the balcony seals which were out of warranty. It said the landlord had agreed to replace these.
2. it had also repaired the flooring membrane even though this was not covered under the warranty.
3. the standing water on the roofing system was expected and not itself a defect.
4. the capping was carried out during remedial but did not cure the issue which was found the be with the membrane.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2023 as part of its stage 2 response. It said the property fell within the new build warranty and that it had contacted the construction company to progress the remedial action. It also said this may take time to complete but it had a commitment from its latent defect surveyor an action plan was in place. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably to update the resident on the action it was taking to resolve her concerns relating to the leak to the balcony doors.
The landlord provided communications that it had with the construction company responsible for erecting the property. This was dated 21 March 2023. Based on the evidence we have been provided with, it is unclear what the landlord had initially asked the construction company. However, in response, the construction company said:
1. there were issues with the roof that it had dealt with through remedial work in 2019 and there had been no reports of issues since this time.
2. standing water on the roof was normal because it was a flat roof, and this would not itself be a defect.
3. if standing water was the cause of water ingress, the leak would be present all the time because it would drain through the roof.
The landlord said it disagreed with this because it said correcting the falls would be a long term solution. However, it agreed to monitor and report any further leaks to the company.
On 1 April 2023, the resident reported rainfall had caused further leakage to her kitchen ceiling and that this was a definite fault. The landlord appropriately passed this on to the construction company who confirmed it would conduct a leak detection test on 13 April 2023.
The findings of the leak detection test were:
1. the leak was not from the membrane of the balcony but from the handrail junction to the capping. The operative sealed the handrail junction while on site.
2. the resident would need to monitor and report any further water ingress and report back to the landlord.
3. landlord would make good the kitchen ceiling either by further repairs or through external works by the construction company once the water ingress from the balcony had been resolved.
As the landlord was keen to progress the works to the kitchen ceiling, it sought confirmation from the resident in May and June as to whether the leak was resolved. The resident confirmed on 20 June 2023 that it was. This was reasonable because the landlord was trying to progress the action plan to resolve the remedial works to the kitchen ceiling and/or externally through the construction company.
The landlord said it would raise repairs to have the wall and ceiling areas affected by the damp and mould treated and decorated. This was appropriate. However, we have no further evidence about these works, and it is therefore unclear when they were completed.
The landlord later raised an order to install roof vents in the loft to assist with the damp and mould by increasing the airflow to the loft space. This was on 13 October 2023. The repair records state that this was raised “some time back” but it had “vanished off the system”. This suggests the repair records were not stored securely, and this caused a delay in actioning the work. The work was then completed on 1 December 2023.
Given the construction company had addressed the water ingress in April 2023, it is unclear why the landlord waited a further 8 months to install the roof vents. The Ombudsman considers this an unreasonable delay by the landlord to take action to mitigate the damp and mould in the resident’s loft space.
Overall, this investigation identified there had been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the resident’s complaint. There was:
1. an unreasonable delay in carrying out investigations to the roof space between November 2021 and January 2023 (1 year and 3 months).
2. an unreasonable delay in carrying out ventilation works to the loft space. (8 months)

The redress offered

On 22 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and said it had awarded £956.41 during the complaints process. The compensation was broken down as follows:
1. £160 at stage 1:
  1. £100 for the handling of the repair.
  2. £60 for the time and trouble for the delay in addressing the issue.
2. £796.41 at stage 2:
  1. £26.71 to reimburse the running costs of the dehumidifier.
  2. £20 for two missed appointments by operatives.
  3. £100 for delays associated with complaint handling.
  4. £200 for the consistent delays related to the handling of repairs.
  5. £350 for the time and trouble to the resident in chasing the relevant repairs.
The landlord said it would be awarding a further £225 to recognise the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home between February and June 2023. This was broken down as:
1. £100 for its service failures.
2. £125 for the resident’s time and trouble.
It was unclear if the landlord had offered this to the resident at the time of writing this report. However, the total compensation awarded during the time of the resident’s complaint was £1,181.41. Given the length of time the repairs had been ongoing for both the ventilation unit and the balcony doors, and the culmination of significant failings identified during this report in paragraphs 54, 71 and 89, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer did not fully address the serious detriment to the resident.
With consideration to the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £1,500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to address the repairs to the ventilation unit and the balcony doors. This is broken down as follows:
1. £950 for the time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures relating to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s ventilation unit and associated damp and mould.
2. £550 for the time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s balcony doors and associated damp and mould.

The resident’s reports of damage to her possessions from damp and mould

When the resident made her formal complaint on 14 November 2022, she explained there had been damage to her chest of drawers and curtains because of the damp and mould. The landlord said the damaged items would exceed its compensation tariff and that it was likely to refer the resident to its insurers. It said it would tell the resident whether it would refer her before it issued its formal response. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which was a failing.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 30 November 2022. The landlord apologised and said this information should have been included in its formal complaint response. It offered to contact its insurer on the resident’s behalf if she provided a full list of the affected items. The resident said she had already provided a breakdown of the items to the landlord on 17 November 2022. It is noted that the claim with the insurer has since been concluded.
The Ombudsman considers it a failure that the landlord did not refer the matter to its insurer or provide the correct details to the resident during the stage 1 response. Further, it was concerning to note the landlord seemed to be unaware of the information the resident had already provided.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was sorry it did not provide details to the resident about how to make a public liability claim for damages to her possessions. It accepted this had delayed the resident in making a claim. It offered her £100 to recognise this under its failures in its complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord addressed its failure and delay in referring the resident to its insurer for her damaged possessions. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation to recognise the impact of this. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable redress because the landlord acknowledged its failures and tried to put things right.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident made a complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 November 2022. This was 12 working days later. Although this was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was significantly inconvenienced as a result. However, the landlord is reminded it should be taking steps to ensure it is responding to complaints in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. This was 41 working days later, and 21 working days outside of the timeframes as set out in the Code and the landlord’s policy. It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord’s response was delayed. There is also no evidence that it updated the resident or agreed to a revised timescale with her. This was inappropriate and a further departure from the Code.
The landlord recognised at both stages of its complaints procedure that it had delayed issuing the resident’s formal responses. It apologised for this and offered the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman considers this a proportionate compensation award based on the evidence available. However, the landlord failed to communicate its delays to the resident and agree to a revised timescale. This departure from the Code was a service failure overall. The landlord should remind relevant staff members about the importance of updating residents and agreeing to new timeframes for responses, as necessary.
The Ombudsman also considers the landlord’s final response a good example of compliance with the elements in section 6.10 of the Code. This was because it dealt with several issues and sought to address all the elements of the resident’s complaint in an easily understood format. It was also a good example of a complaint response setting out:
1. the decision on the complaint.
2. the reasons for its decisions.
3. the details of the remedy it offered to put things right.
4. the details of outstanding actions.

This was evidence of good practice and compliance with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s ventilation unit and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s balcony doors and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions due to damp and mould.
In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. arrange for the CEO to call the resident to apologise for the failures found in paragraphs 54, 71, 89 and 102 of this report. It must follow this up with a written apology.
2. pay the resident £2,681.41 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £950 for the time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures relating to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s ventilation unit and associated damp and mould.
  2. £550 for the time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s balcony doors and associated damp and mould.
  3. £1,181.41 which was the landlord’s offer of compensation during the complaint’s procedure, if it has not already done so.
3. provide complaint handling refresher training to relevant staff members to highlight the importance of communicating delays to residents and agreeing on new timescales for responses accordingly.
4. provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders within 28 days of this determination.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case. This must consider:
1. how the delays in responding to the repairs required to the ventilation unit and the balcony doors occurred in this case and its practices regarding how it records, actions and monitors information relating to recurring repairs.
2. its processes relating to the escalation of repairs that are identified as those that have not been actioned.

This is to ensure that this information is recorded, investigated, and responded to in a reasonable time. In doing so the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (published on our website).

any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.

The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review. The landlord must provide this report within 56 days of the date of this determination.