Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202301196)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301196

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

27 January 2025

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. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
2. The asbestos in the property.
3. The resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property.
4. The resident’s queries about eligibility for the right to acquire scheme (RTA).
5. The resident’s subject access request (SAR).
6. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint that there were delays in processing the resident’s SAR. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of redaction within the SAR and believes that some information is missing.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to refer this element of the complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office at ico.org.uk.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident informed this Service that the landlord has denied her request to purchase her home under various grounds on several occasions since 2003. The evidence also shows that in September 2023, during the review of her stage 3 complaint she reiterated her request and said that as a resolution to her complaint, she sought the right to acquire her property. Whilst the landlord provided her with an answer to her query, it did not have the opportunity to investigate its handling of her request to purchase her property as part of its complaint process. The Resident informed this Service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request to acquire her home.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about eligibility for the right to acquire scheme is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Any issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint, the resident can address directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 4 November 2002. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident reported having mental health, ADHD and that her and her daughter both have asthma. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of this in 2020. The resident said one of her children has autism. She informed this Service that she believed she had shared this information with the landlord in September 2023.
Between 2006 and 2019, the resident made 5 reports of damp and mould to the landlord. She reported issues in the kitchen, the bathroom and the cellar. During that time, the landlord inspected the property several times and carried out some remedial repairs.
The landlord completed an asbestos survey at the property on 14 March 2016. The survey detected some asbestos in the living room ceiling textured coating. On 17 February 2017, the landlord shared the outcome of the survey with the resident.
Between August 2020 and December 2020, the landlord inspected the kitchen and cellar and completed several repairs to the property. In December 2020, the landlord carried out an electrical safety inspection at the property. The electrician issued an installation certificate and advised the landlord to inspect the installation 5 years later.
On 2 July 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 July 2021 and booked an inspection for the 27 July 2021.
Between June 2022 and September 2022, the landlord inspected the bathroom for leaks, carried out repointing on the external wall, repaired a leak in the cellar, applied stain block to the ceiling below the bathroom, installed ACO drainage in the cellar and a humidistat wall fan in the bathroom. The landlord informed this Service that after inspecting and visiting the property several times, it did not identify issues with condensation or mould at the property. The resident informed the landlord that she was cleaning the mould as soon as it appeared.
On 7 September 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. On 15 September 2022, she confirmed it was as follows:
1. Damp and mould were present in the kitchen, the basement, the first floor hallway and the bathroom. She believed there was a leak in her bathroom and described a reoccurring issue with mould in her property.
2. She asked whether the landlord had carried out an asbestos survey and if it had, to explain its reasons for not sharing it with her.
3. The landlord conducted an electric safety check in her home the previous year and the engineer informed her that the property required “major electrical repairs”. She requested a copy of the survey and asked why the landlord had not addressed the issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 7 September 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022. It apologised for not keeping the resident updated on the progress of the repairs. It said it would inspect the property to assess the damp and mould and would complete any outstanding repairs, including any remedial work. It upheld her complaint.
On 8 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord completed a full inspection and said there were “no major issues” at the property. It confirmed that following the installation of the ACO drainage in the cellar, water pooling was no longer a problem. The landlord said it found no evidence of a leak in the bathroom but acknowledged that there was mould on the walls and agreed to install wall tiles up to the bathroom ceiling. It also agreed to treat the hallway ceiling with stain block and monitor the situation. The landlord noted that those repairs were completed but did not provide their completion dates. Additionally, on 27 November 2022, it logged a repair to install ventilation in the loft and cancelled the work in July 2023.The landlord did not explain why it had cancelled the works.
The landlord provided a detailed stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 27 March 2023 and reiterated its findings at stage 1. Its response was as follows:
1. It summarised the repairs it carried out at the property since 2019. It confirmed that following the work it completed in 2022, there was no evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen or the bathroom. It reiterated the findings of its inspection in November 2022, and the repairs it agreed to complete, including installing ventilation in the loft.
2. It completed an asbestos survey in 2016. It said it did not know why this was not shared at the time and confirmed that the asbestos in the resident’s property was very low risk.
3. It confirmed that the electrical safety check completed in December 2020 did not identify any remedial work.
4. It recognised that it took longer than expected to complete the repairs and offered the resident £150 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to her.
On 3 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 3. She believed that the landlord failed to consider some evidence and felt that it had discriminated against her family. Additionally, she explained that she could not discuss the next stage of her complaint with the landlord until it had processed her SAR. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the following day.
Between April 2023 and August 2023, the landlord made several attempts to discuss and organise the stage 3 review hearing with the resident. It invited the resident to the hearing on 8 August 2023, which the resident declined as she wanted to meet with the Chief Executive. The hearing took place on 12 September 2023, and the resident attended with her chosen representative.
On 15 September 2023, the landlord organised a survey of the property by a RICS qualified independent surveyor. The survey included a full stock condition survey to establish when each component in the property would require replacing. It also included a Housing Health and Safety Rating System Survey (HHSRS) to provide a view on the safety and a Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure (RD-SAP) survey to rate the energy efficiency of the property.
On 20 September 2023, the landlord agreed an extension with the resident to issue its stage 3 complaint response. It then provided its response on 26 September 2023. It acknowledged that the delays in processing the resident’s SAR contributed to the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 3 complaint. Its response was as follows:
1. It reviewed and reiterated its findings at the stage 2 of the resident’s complaint.
2. It shared the outcome of the survey conducted in September 2023 and confirmed that the property was in good state of repairs and free of hazards. The RD-SAP survey identified that the property complied with the energy performance standards for rented homes. It confirmed that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom did not need replacing for a further 5 years.
3. In September 2023, it conducted an in depths survey of the property. Whilst it did not find evidence of mould and assessed the property as in good condition, it identified some overgrowth which could affect the performance of the gutters and downspouts. It also identified some pointing repairs. It said that it would address those to prevent future issues of damp and mould.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint in relation to the conditions of the property and the presence of damp and mould. However, it offered the resident £500 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It said its offer reflected the delay with the complaint process, the delay in processing her SAR, the length of time to complete the repairs and to establish the definitive position in respect of damp and mould.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord carried out the repairs to the outside of the property. It repaired the gutters, the apex wall, filled holes in the wall and inspected the roof. The resident requested to delay the internal repairs due to a family bereavement. The landlord’s records show that it completed the following repairs on 13 November 2023:
1. Filled the holes in the living room ceiling.
2. Cleaned the bathroom tiles, apply fungicidal barrier to the walls, ceiling and floor in the bathroom. It also applied emulsion to the walls and ceilings.
3. Applied stain block and emulsion to the wall and chimney breast in rear bedroom.
The resident informed this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said that as a resolution she wanted the landlord to carry out the necessary works to treat the damp and mould, to investigate and respond to the concerns about the electrical safety certificate and the asbestos survey. The landlord noted no further report of damp and mould after it completed the repairs in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould and asbestos at the property has caused the resident some distress, especially because of the vulnerabilities of her family. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on the health of her family. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The resident said the landlord had discriminated against her and her family. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to make an assessment of an individual’s motives. Furthermore, allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
Additionally, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has reported issues with damp and mould in her home since 2006. The evidence shows that between 2006 and 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and carried out some damp remedial work at the property. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
In this case, no evidence was seen that, prior to September 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould in her home. Additionally, the evidence shows that following the repairs at her property in 2020, the resident made no further report of damp and mould until the report she made in July 2021. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from July 2021 onwards.
It is also important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents with certain health conditions and vulnerabilities. In this case, the resident reported that herself and her daughter have asthma and because of this, the presence of damp and mould caused her significant distress and concerns for the impact on their health.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
The resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom in July 2021. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
In this case, the evidence shows that in July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident approximately 3 weeks after she made the report and inspected the bathroom a week later. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord said there was a shortage of inspectors to inspect the property. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it discussed the delay in organising an inspection with the resident or assessed the urgency of the situation. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its lack of urgency caused some distress to the resident, who was unsure if the landlord had acted on her report. In such cases, we would expect landlords to promptly contact a resident following reports of damp and mould, assess the severity of the issue and consider the vulnerabilities of the household. Acting with urgency and assessing the risks would have also reassured the landlord that its handling of the issue was in keeping with its obligations under the HHSRS.
Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord knew 2 members of the household had asthma. However, it did not show that it considered the household’s vulnerability or reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repair. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with the resident. This would have reassured the resident that it took her concerns seriously and was sensitive to her needs.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that from December 2022 onwards, the landlord showed that it was considering and sensitive to the household’s vulnerabilities. For example, it agreed to wait for information on the outstanding repairs at the property until the resident could access support to help her gathering the information. It also agreed to communicate with the resident only in writing and agreed for the resident to use a representative to discuss her complaint. This was positive from the landlord, it shows that from December 2022, it considered the resident’s needs and adjusted its approaches accordingly.
In June 2022, the landlord noted that it carried out an inspection to assess the damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord informed this Service it found no evidence of leak or damp and mould at the property during its inspection. However, it did not show that it shared the outcome with the resident or noted the outcome of its inspection on its repair log. This was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. This also raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed several repairs to address the damp and mould at the property between June 2022 and September 2022. Its repair policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 25 days of receiving a report. The evidence shows that the landlord completed some of those repairs within its published time frame. For example, in August 2022, it repaired in the leak from a water pipe in the cellar within 20 days of the resident reporting the problem. It also attended to replace the bathroom fan within 20 days of logging the repair. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its policy.
The evidence shows that the landlord used contractors to complete some of the repairs. Whilst the landlord noted and inspected the repairs completed by its contractors, it did not record the completion date for those repairs. For example, in June 2022, it noted that its contractor attended to carry out some damp repairs to the cellar. Then again in November 2022, to apply stain block in the hallway and install tiles in the bathroom. It did not note the details of neither repairs nor their completion date.
Overall, the lack of data, made it difficult to conclude whether the landlord completed those repairs in keeping with its repair policy time frame. Additionally, it failed to note some of the repairs details, which made it difficult to determine what repairs were carried out. This raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and its ability to provide a detailed account of the property repairs history.
The evidence seen raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential and expected from landlords. In this case, the landlord noted that it carried out inspections of the property in 2021 and 2022 to assess leaks, damp and mould but it did not record the outcome. It also failed to adequately log the details of the repairs, their completion dates and the reasons for cancelling some work. Landlords are expected to keep accurate and easily accessible records. This assists them to deliver efficient and effective services. Good record keeping also provides an audit trail of the repair history of a property. In this case, the landlord’s failings in keeping accurate records made it difficult to determine whether the landlord acted in keeping with its policies and obligations.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in September 2022 and raised issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord said in its stage 1 response to her complaint that it would attend the property to assess the problem. While this was reasonable from the landlord, it did not inspect the property for another 2 months or explain the delay in completing the inspection. Its actions were not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to ensure that landlords’ responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord failed to act with a sense of urgency and show to the resident that it took the issue seriously. This caused distress to the resident, especially as herself and her daughter have asthma.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord found no major issues of damp and mould when it inspected the property in November 2022. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the landlord’s findings, it did not show that it considered that the resident said she had cleaned the mould as soon as it appeared. The landlord did not demonstrate that it monitored and measured the humidity in the property or considered whether a specialist surveyor was required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out further investigative work especially as the resident reported a re-occurring issue with damp and mould. This would have enabled the landlord to understand whether there was an underlying issue causing the problem. This would have also reassured the resident that the landlord had fully investigated her concerns and was committed to finding the root cause of the problem.
In November 2022, the landlord agreed to instal ventilation in the loft and reiterated its offer in its stage 2 response in March 2023. However, it did not explain in its complaint response why it had not installed the ventilation in the loft 4 months after telling the resident that it would. Additionally, its repair log shows that the installation was cancelled on 18 July 2023, without noting the reason for the cancellation. The Ombudsman acknowledges that no evidence was seen that between November 2022 and July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord enquiring about the installation of the ventilation in her loft. The Ombudsman cannot determine if there was a service failure from the landlord because it is unclear whether the resident or the landlord cancelled the installation. Nevertheless, this highlights further concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in September 2023, the landlord organised a survey by a qualified surveyor and conducted an in depth survey of the property. The evidence shows that it shared its findings with the resident and completed the identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Those were positive steps from the landlord and would have reassured the resident that it fully investigated her concerns. The landlord’s actions were in keeping with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to use an independent and suitably qualified surveyor when suitable, share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with residents and act on surveys recommendations in a timely manner. Its actions would have also reassured the resident that it had taken steps to prevent the issues from re-occurring.
In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that the present of damp and mould in a property does not automatically amount to a service failure by a landlord. However, when a resident reports damp and mould, we expect a landlord to act promptly to assess the issue and complete any remedial repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord acted on the resident’s reports, it inspected the property several times and completed remedial repairs. We also recognise that in September 2023, the landlord carried out a specialist survey, an inspection of the property and acted on the surveyor’s recommendations. These were reasonable steps from the landlord.
However, and from the landlord’s own admission, it took a long time to complete the repairs and organise a specialist survey. Additionally, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the outcome of some of its inspections. The landlord did not show that prior to December 2022, it considered the household vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs. This caused significant distress to the resident who was concerned for her family’s health.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord apologised to the resident for its failing and offer to pay £500 compensation to her to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of its compensation offer, which would have been helpful. It said that its offer of compensation reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident across several complaints, some of which were not considered as part of this investigation. In this case, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.

The asbestos in the property.

It is accepted that the presence of asbestos in properties built in the late 20th century is not unusual, as it was commonly used in construction during that period. In this case, in September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that one of its contractor had told her that there was asbestos in her property. It has been well documented and publicised that asbestos can cause a serious risk to health. It is therefore understandable that the resident was worried whether the asbestos in her home presented a risk to her family.
The HHSRS says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to consider hazards within its properties that may require management or remedy. This includes identifying and managing potential risks from asbestos.
In this case, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the events relating to landlord’s handling of the asbestos in the resident property occurred more than 12 months prior to her raising a formal complaint to the landlord. However, the landlord responded to this element of the resident’s complaint in its complaint responses, which in this case was reasonable. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider these matters.
The evidence shows that in March 2016, the landlord carried out an asbestos survey at the property and took samples for testing to determine whether asbestos was present and required addressing. The survey identified some very low risk asbestos in the living room ceiling, which required no action. The landlord acted appropriately in keeping with its obligations and the requirements from the HHSRS.
The evidence shows that the landlord shared the findings of the asbestos survey with the resident in February 2017. It explained that the surveyor identified some very low risk asbestos in the texture coating of the living room ceiling. It advised that the asbestos should not be disturbed and only an authorised and qualified professional should carry out work to the area. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint that it did not know why it had not shared the outcome of the survey earlier. The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been good practice for the landlord to share this information earlier. However, the delay in sharing the outcome of the asbestos survey did not amount to a service failure by the landlord, this is because it met its obligations under the HHSRS.
Additionally, the resident informed this Service that her own electrician made holes in her living room ceilings while installing a chandelier, which she believes disturbed the asbestos in that area. In September 2023, she told the landlord that it failed to fill the holes in her living room ceiling as promised in November 2022. No evidence was seen that the resident reported the issue or contacted the landlord about the outstanding repair prior to September 2023. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, we cannot conclude there was a service failure by the landlord without evidence. However, the evidence shows that in September 2023, the landlord promptly got a quote and agreed a date that suited the resident to complete the repair. This was reasonable from the landlord, it demonstrated that once it knew about the problem, it acted promptly to resolve the matter.
In summary, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord completed an asbestos survey of the property in keeping with its obligations. We acknowledge that while it would have been good practice for the landlord to share the outcome of the survey with the resident earlier, however this did not amount to a service failure. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the asbestos in her property.

The resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property.

Landlords have a legal obligation to repair and maintain the properties they rent, this includes keeping in good repair and working order, the installation for the supply of electricity. Landlords are required to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested by a person who is qualified and competent, at an interval of at least every 5 years.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in September 2022 because it failed to act on the recommendations made by a qualified surveyor for electrical repairs in her property. The Ombudsman understands that this concerned the resident, especially as she had experienced some issues with tripping electric and faulty sockets.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed the electrical safety checks in her property in December 2020. The surveyor issued an installation certificate and advised the landlord to inspect the installation in 5 years. No evidence was seen that the surveyor identified any issues with the electrical installations in the property or recommended any electrical repairs. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, landlords are entitled to trust the judgement of experts and specialists.
The evidence shows that during the complaint process, the landlord investigated the issue and reassured the resident that the property was safe. It also shared the electrical safety certificate with the resident. In September 2023, the resident confirmed that following repairs to some sockets and the replacement of an electric cable in the basement, the electric was working fine.
In this case, there is no evidence that any electrical work was recommended during the safety inspection. Additionally, the electrical safety check certificate was issued in 2020, which was 2 years prior to the resident raising the issue. Therefore, this evidenced that the landlord met its obligations to check the complete electrical safety checks every 5 years.
After considering the facts of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property.

The associated complaint.

The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets the requirements for landlord’s to operate effective complaint handling. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 3 stage complaint policy, which was compliant with the Code in effect at the time of the complaint.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not compliant with the new Code, which became statutory on 1 April 2024. We recognise that prior to April 2024, we said that a 2 stage complaint procedure was ideal but acknowledged that some landlords had a 3 stage process. However, the Code (2024) states a complaint process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this makes the complaint process unduly long and can delay access to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord reviewed its policy in March 2024, and is now fully compliant with the Code. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint against the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code in effect at the time of the complaint.
In keeping with the Code, the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, a stage 2 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 3 complaint within 20 working days. In the event it needs more time to respond, it will inform the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 7 September 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. Whilst it responded to the resident’s complaint 1 day outside its published timeframe, this does not amount to a service failure by the landlord. No evidence was seen that this impacted on the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the presence of asbestos in her property. The landlord responded to this element of her complaint in its stage 2 response and shared the findings of the survey with her. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, it failed to explain and acknowledge that it had not responded to this element of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. In keeping with the Code, the landlord should have responded to each element of the resident’s complaint, which is essential to achieve any form of resolution to complaints. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to identify and acknowledge its failings at stage 1 in its stage 2 and stage 3 responses. By not doing so it failed to demonstrate that it had learned from the failings at the stage 1 of the process. Its failings caused frustration to the resident, who was left without an answer to her complaint for 6 months. This was unfair from the landlord, especially as the resident was concerned about the risks to her family and had to raise the issue again.
The evidence does not show when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, however, the landlord acknowledged her request on 8 November 2022. The landlord responded 86 days outside its published time frame. It did not show that it informed the resident of the delay or agree a new date to issue its response. This was unreasonable from the landlord and as a result of its failings to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe, her complaint remained unanswered for over 4 months. It would have been appropriate and in keeping with the Code for the landlord to explain the delay, apologise and agree a new timeframe for responding with the resident. This would have showed openness and may have been beneficial to the landlord resident relationship.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 on 3 April 2023, which the landlord acknowledged 2 days later. The evidence shows that because of the landlord’s failings in processing the resident’s SAR, there were significant delays in responding to her stage 3 complaint. In June 2023, the resident received her SAR and asked the landlord for some time to go through the information before proceeding to the next stage of the complaint process. The Ombudsman recognises this might have further delayed the landlord’s response to her complaint, however in the circumstances the resident’s request was understandable. The evidence seen shows that the landlord rightly allowed her to review the information sent to her prior to organising the stage 3 review hearing.
The evidence shows that following the stage 3 review hearing, the landlord agreed to respond to the resident’s stage 3 complaint on 26 September 2023. Whilst it was positive from the landlord to agree a date to respond to the resident’s complaint and manage her expectations, it issued its 112 days outside its published timeframe. This was over 6 months after the resident escalated her complaint to stage 3. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord attempted to organise the stage 3 review hearing in August 2023, and there was a delay of approximately 6 weeks until the resident agreed to a date. However, the overall delays were due to its failings in promptly processing the resident’s SAR. This was unreasonable, the resident’s complaint remained unanswered for a long time, which also delayed her accessing this Service.
Good complaint handling is essential to rebuild trust with residents. In this case, the Ombudsman recognises that in keeping with its complaint policy the landlord organised a hearing to review the resident’s complaint with her and the relevant people. We also acknowledge that the landlord agreed to meet face to face and for the resident to bring a representative. Whilst those were reasonable actions from the landlord, the evidence shows that it failed to respond to her complaints in keeping with its policy and the Code. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its published timeframe, it failed to respond to all the elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It did not demonstrate that it learned from its failings or considered measures to improve its services, which was not in accordance with the Code.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We recognise that the landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and offered compensation to the resident in its stage 3 response to her complaint. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, The landlord did not provide a breakdown of its compensation offer. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which are published on our website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property .
As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42.a.of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about eligibility for the right to acquire scheme is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord is ordered to pay £650 in compensation directly to the resident (inclusive of any part of the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation that was for the damp and mould and the complaint handling issues). If the landlord has already paid compensation to the resident, this should be deducted from this amount. The compensation ordered is equivalent to:
  1. £400 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £250 to reflect the impact of its failings in relations to its complaint handling and the inconvenience this caused the resident.
3. Confirm to the resident that based on the outcome of the survey it completed in September 2023, the installation of ventilation in the loft is not required. The landlord is to share the survey report with the resident.
4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assess against the spotlight report on KIM (spotlight-on-knowledge-and-information-management) and consider the recommendations made in the report.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to confirm what compensation it awarded to her for the SAR delay.