Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202126742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126742

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

8 December 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows and door.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. the landlord’s response to a flash flood which caused damage to the resident’s property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She occupies a two-bedroom maisonette flat that is located on the basement and ground floor of a property. She lives in the property with her two children.
The resident’s tenancy agreement includes the obligations of both the landlord and the resident. The agreement states that the landlord must comply with statutory requirements in relation to repairs. The legal position is that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building including drains, gutters, and external pipes. The landlord must also keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitation, space heating and heating water.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are defined as where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or to the property. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours where possible. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days from the date of report.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth.
The landlord has a temporary and planned decants procedure which details the arrangements for decants. The procedure includes guidance as to the payment of rents and the circumstances in which residents should be moved to alternative accommodation temporarily. The procedure states that where a resident needs to be temporarily decanted because of planned works they are entitled to one offer of suitable alternative accommodation. Where a tenant refuses offers of suitable alternative accommodation and where rehousing by negotiation and voluntary agreement has not been possible, the landlord may exercise its legal right to seek possession or obtain an injunction. In the case of a permanent decant, the resident will be awarded the appropriate priority with the Local Authority’s allocation scheme and will have a set period in which to bid for a property. If they are unsuccessful, the landlord will make an offer of suitable accommodation.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Shortly after the resident moved into the property in 2020, she reported to her housing officer that the seal in her doubled glazed windows had been damaged. She also said that her living room windows were draughty as there were gaps in the frame. Contractors attended 6 weeks later in July 2020 and undertook remedial works but the resident later reported that the issue was not resolved. The resident raised this again with the landlord in March and April 2021.
On 29 August 2020 the resident reported that there were damp patches appearing on the walls in her home. Contractors attended to investigate a leak from the bathroom a week later. The resident informed the landlord in December 2020 that there were ongoing problems with damp in the property, with mould growth on a wall.
The resident chased the damp and mould repairs at least 5 times with the landlord between February and April 2021. She said that her children were eight years and eight months old respectively and she was concerned about the impact of the damp conditions on their health. On 14 April 2021 the landlord raised this with its repairs team.
On 10 March 2021 the resident informed the landlord that there was a gap between the back door and the door frame which was letting in draughts and causing the property to be cold. She chased this up with the landlord in April 2021.
A surveyor attended to inspect the property on 14 May 2021. They reported that the property was damp and that remedial works would need to be carried out to both the interior and exterior of the property. They also recommended that a CCTV survey of the drains be undertaken. The surveyor’s report was sent to the landlord on 2 June 2021, and it was also shared with the resident on that date.
On 17 June 2021 the resident was told that a survey of her drains had been raised with contractors who would be in contact with her to arrange an appointment. On 5 July 2021 when no works had been scheduled, the resident chased the landlord for an update.
On 12 July 2021, areas of London were impacted by intense storms which resulted in flash flooding. The public sewer system became overwhelmed and overflowed, affecting many homes and businesses. The resident’s property was one of many of the landlord’s properties that was affected. Contaminated water entered the resident’s home through her toilet and bath and under the rear door to the property. The contaminated water reached a depth of several inches in the lower ground floor, leaving the resident’s home uninhabitable.
The landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted to a hotel on 13 July 2021. As the extent of the works to the property to make good the flood damage became clear, the landlord then moved the resident to a temporary flat.
The repair records show that a CCTV survey of the resident’s drains was undertaken on 10 August 2021. Although the resident was staying in temporary accommodation, the landlord asked that she return to the flood damaged property and run two dehumidifiers every day for six hours. This was to dry out the property prior to the flood works commencing. An environmental clean took place on 30 August 2021.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 October 2021. She said that:
1. She had asked for repairs to her windows and door to be completed prior to the flood. She believed that the damage to the property would not have been as extensive had these works been undertaken. She had been told by neighbours that the property had flooded before, and she was upset that works had not been done following the last flood to prevent this from happening again.
2. The flood response was poorly co-ordinated. She had been asked to run dehumidifiers in the property for six hours a day. However, until the saturated plywood flooring was removed, she felt that running the dehumidifiers would be ineffective in drying the property. She was also unhappy with delays to, and the standard of, the environmental clean.
3. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication with her. She had asked for someone to visit her in temporary accommodation in order to address her concerns about the lack of hot water in the flat and a mice infestation. She did not receive a response to her request. She said that she had been told that she did not need to pay rent while she was in temporary accommodation. She was later informed that this was not correct, but by that time she had accrued a high level of rent arrears. She wanted to move but she had been told that she could not be accepted on the transfer list while she had arrears.
4. She had been informed that she may be offered a permanent decant. She was unhappy because she had been told that if one was not identified before the works to her property were completed, she would be expected to move back into the property.
On 15 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response:
1. It acknowledged that the works to the resident’s windows had not been completed within target response times. £50 in compensation was awarded for this service failure.
2. Works to address the damp had been due to commence on 16 July 2021, but the works were delayed and then they were superseded by the flood works.
3. There had been a previous flood in the property in 2018 and works had been raised following this.
4. It apologised for the issue that the resident raised regarding the use of dehumidifiers in the property. It also apologised for its unsatisfactory communication and gave assurances about contact timescales going forward. It said that it hoped that, as the works had since commenced, the property would be returned in a good condition.
5. It confirmed that the resident would be expected to move back into the property if no permanent decant had been identified by the time the works had been completed. As the resident had accrued arrears, these would need to be cleared before she could join the transfer list for accommodation.
6. It did not accept that it advised the resident that rent would not need to be paid while she was living in temporary accommodation.
On 21 October 2021, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
During October and November 2021, the resident visited the property on several occasions and reported to the landlord that contractors had damaged her paddling pool and her artificial grass. She also said that the contractors had damaged some of her personal belongings she left in the property. She reported that the wall in the small bedroom and the hallway wall were wet and that she was concerned about this because the contractors had already completed the plastering and painting. She also raised some issues with the outside wall where the pointing was crumbling and loose following the flood.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her request to escalate her complaint. It estimated that it would respond by 1 December 2021.
The resident was offered a permanent decant to a two-bedroom property, but she refused this offer as she felt that it was unsuitable. The property was much smaller than her home and was accessible only by a flight of stairs. She said that she would struggle to manage the stairs with a young baby and a pram. It is unclear from the records provided when this offer was made.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her that its complaint response would be delayed and that it would be an additional three weeks before it would be in a position to respond.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property with the contractor. Their report was provided to the landlord on 14 December 2021. It concluded that the works undertaken were of a good standard and moisture readings taken on the day of the inspection indicated that the drying out process had been successful. The report also stated that:
1. The installation of floor coverings was outstanding at the time of the inspection, however the contractor said that the works would be completed on 17 December 2021.
2. The contractors would replace the resident’s paddling pool and clean the artificial grass that had been soiled.
3. There were some additional works that would need to be undertaken to the exterior of the property including repointing and the reconstruction of a wall.
Once the works were finished, the resident moved back in on 23 December 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 January 2022:
1. It acknowledged that there had been delays to repairs pre-dating the flood. It agreed that the contractors would undertake repairs to the resident’s windows. It had also raised works to investigate the damp and mould, including a CCTV survey of the drains. Other works had been completed. These findings would be passed back to the relevant team so that action could be taken to prevent such service failures going forward. An amount of £200 was offered in compensation for the delays with an additional £250 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
2. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about officers not returning her calls in a timely manner. However, it did accept that there was poor communication regarding the flood works and £150 was offered in compensation for this. It also accepted that its communication regarding the resident’s rent liability was poor and an additional £100 in compensation was offered to reflect the service failure. This would be fed back to the flood team and the landlord agreed to approve the resident’s application to join the transfer list before she had cleared her arrears.
3. The landlord accepted that its complaint response was delayed beyond its target response timescales and offered £100 in compensation.
4. The landlord provided limited details about previous floods at the property, on the basis that the records were incomplete. It also confirmed that a future coordinated programme of work to mitigate flood damage going forward was likely.
5. The total amount in compensation offered was £850 and the resident was informed that, if she accepted the compensation, this would be set off against any arrears she had accrued.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord’s records show that there was a recall for the contractors to inspect isolated damp staining, minor defects, and reconstruction of an external wall.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord informed the resident that she had been approved to join the transfer list for a two-bed property. She was awarded band D with a registration date of 12 July 2021. It advised her that it would not consider her for a three-bed property until her child reached the age of 10 years, but that it would re-review any medical priority on submission of further evidence.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property again. Moisture readings were taken which indicated that there were now high levels of moisture in the wall of the smallest bedroom. The window in the landing showed surface moisture to the wall and mould growth. The trickle vent appeared to be defective.
The surveyor proposed that works be undertaken to dry the affected wall. The trickle vents in the landing window were to be replaced and a mould wash applied to the wall. The resident was encouraged to keep the humidistat extractor fan in the kitchen on to help control moisture levels.
The resident referred the matter to this Service for investigation on 7 March 2022.

Post complaint

On 31 March 2022 the drain survey was provided to the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this report, however the landlord’s records show that the inspection revealed no blockage. On 7 April 2022 contractors attended to remove the skirting boards in the affected areas in the property to see if this would assist with drying out the wall. On 22 April 2022 the landlord’s surveyor undertook a further inspection of the property.
On 4 May 2022 the resident contacted the surveyor to ask for an update and to raise, again, the issue with her living room windows. She also said that the exterior wall of the property was wet in a localised area which suggested that there was another leak in the property.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property again and noted that the remedial works required were as follows:
1. The extractor fan in bathroom should be replaced with humidistat-controlled device.
2. Trickle vents were to be installed in the staircase window.
3. There should be an endoscope survey of the waste pipe to the bath to eliminate ‘other’ leakages. There were to be repairs to the ‘wet room’ waste outlet.
4. Plastering or dry lining of the bedroom partition.
Works were due to start during the week of 30 May 2022 and were estimated to take 2 weeks.
On 4 July 2022, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. She said that works had been scheduled to dry out the walls but, on further investigation, the flooring was wet and needed to be dried out. She had been given dehumidifiers for this purpose. She said she had been sleeping with her children in the one bedroom since the 22 May 2022, as her daughter’s bedroom was damp, and the noise of industrial dehumidifiers had kept them awake for several nights. She asked to be moved into long-term temporary accommodation until she was rehoused permanently. She also requested that the temporary accommodation be located close to her daughter’s school.
The landlord responded on 5 July 2022 and said that the surveyor would contact her the following day to arrange a further inspection.
On 9 July 2022 the landlord met with the resident to discuss her complaint. The landlord proposed a move to a property in a neighbouring local authority, but this was declined by the resident as it was too far from her daughter’s school.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint:
1. It said that the surveyor had attended on 8 July 2022 with the contractor. They had reported as follows:
  1. Plaster had been removed from the affected walls; however wet patches were still evident to the brickwork.
  2. It was unclear what the source of the damp was, however, the landlord believed that it was either a pipe leak from the bathroom, trapped moisture between the concrete screed and insulation or a combination of both.
  3. The new floor to the bedroom and hallway was laid before the property had dried sufficiently.
  4. The source of the wet patches was via the concrete floor; either from trapped moisture migrating to the walls or a defective wastewater pipework from the bathroom.
  5. The floors to the bedroom and hallway needed to be taken up (including insulation).
  6. The contractors would temporarily cover exposed brickwork for the duration of the school summer holiday.
2. The resident had asked that the floors be taken up in September 2022, so that her children could enjoy the garden for the remainder of the school summer holidays. She had asked for a temporary decant from early September 2022.
On 16 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire whether there were any void properties in the area she could move to. She also reported that she had not heard from the landlord since September 2022, and she has had mould growth the top of her stairs. She said that she had to regularly clean mould from the walls of her daughter’s bedroom and her own bedroom, where she slept with her two-year-old son. She had attended the hospital three times in October 2022 because her son was having respiratory problems and he was given steroids to help his breathing. She was worried that this was caused by the damp and mould.
On 11 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that surveyors had attended her property that day to look at the windows in the upstairs property and the mould in the communal area, but not in her flat. They had said that works to change the windows in the upstairs property and to repair the leaking roof would start in May 2023, but that the resident’s windows would not be changed. The resident queried this as she had previously complained that her window frames were cracked.
On 14 January 2023, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the mould in her living room. She said that despite regularly cleaned mould off the walls and ventilating the property, the damp problem persisted. She asked for a surveyor to visit again and for the landlord to update her as to what would happen next.
On 1 February 2023, the landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident to propose a further inspection of the property in February 2023. It is unclear from the information provided what the outcome of this inspection was.
In April 2023, the landlord agreed to temporarily decant the resident to another property in the area. The resident said she was prepared to take the property as a temporary move, even though the rooms was smaller than her current property and she had concerns about security at the property. However, the offer was later withdrawn by the landlord. The resident said that this was because a decision had been made to dispose of the property and therefore the resident would need to be permanently rehoused. Conversely, the landlord has advised this Service that the resident had refused this offer.
The resident reported to this Service in September 2023 that the damp and mould was still evident in her property and had not been resolved. She had purchased her own dehumidifier in an attempt to dry out the property which she said she runs on a daily basis.
In September, the landlord informed this Service that works had been undertaken to investigate the damp including:
1. Drainage arrangements to the bathroom had been investigated and no issue had been found.
2. The plaster work on the affected bedroom wall had been hacked off and the bedroom partitioned.
3. The resident had asked that she be decanted before further work could ensue.
4. A further permanent decant had been offered to the resident but she had refused this. The landlord had been trying to find another property for the resident.
The resident has disputed that she had informed the landlord that she did not want works to go ahead while she was in occupation. She said that she would agree to a temporary decant if works could not proceed while she was living in the property. She reported that the walls where the plaster had been hacked off have not been replastered, with the brick visible. The partition wall has not been finished. The flooring had not been taken up. Trickle vents had not been installed to her landing window. Damp patches and mould growth continued to appear on her walls.
The landlord advised in October 2023 that it has no record of recent issues with the window being raised, however it had since spoken to the resident who has said that there are ongoing problems with her windows. The landlord has confirmed that these works would be raised once the resident provided photos of the affected windows.
The resident has since confirmed that she was made an offer of a permanent decant in November 2023 which she has accepted.

Assessment and findings

It may assist to clarify that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to carry out a technical assessment of repair issues and determine what works should be carried out. Rather, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows and door

Windows

The resident raised a service request in relation to gaps around her windows in or around June 2020. Repairs were undertaken but did not resolve the problem. The resident raised these repairs again in March 2021. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that an explanation for these delays had been communicated to the resident. Instead, the resident was put to time and trouble in following this up and ultimately having to raise a complaint for this matter to be addressed.
Although the resident was informed in the landlord’s complaint responses that these repairs would be included with the flood works, this did not happen. In November 2023 the resident confirmed that these repairs remain outstanding. No window repairs have been raised by the landlord since this was reported in March 2021. The landlord had queried in correspondence with this Service whether these repairs had ever been reported by the resident.
The resident has reported that because of cracks in her window frame, her windows are draughty. The resident has a young family and must heat her home on a limited income. The delays in completing these works have had a prolonged detrimental impact on the resident.
The landlord’s response to these repairs has been inadequate. Despite assurances that these works would be undertaken in both its stage one and two responses, to date this has not happened.

Door

The resident first reported to the landlord that there were gaps around her door on 10 March 2021. Over a four month period between the door being raised as a service request by the resident and the flood, the resident received no communication from the landlord about the door being inspected or works raised to repair or replace the door.
After the flood, the door was included as part of the schedule of works and it was replaced in mid-December 2021. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the door was unsatisfactory. While the resident had speculated that had the door been replaced the flood damage would not have been as significant, it would be impossible to establish whether this was correct. Notwithstanding this, the door was included as part of the resident’s complaint and should have been addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses.
There were delays in raising works regarding the door and the repairs to the resident’s windows remain outstanding despite the landlord giving assurances that these works would be undertaken. This Service therefore makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord has offered £200 for delays and £250 for distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s view the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. In particular, the time and trouble the resident was put to in having to chase the landlord for updates and the distress and the uncertainty she experienced because of the lack of progress. The Ombudsman therefore orders that the landlord pay the resident £700 in compensation to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The resident first reported damp and mould in August 2020. The landlord’s records show that works were undertaken but were unsuccessful in resolving the problem. The resident reported damp and mould again in December 2020. A surveyor’s appointment was unreasonably delayed until April 2021 and the investigative works raised were also delayed and then superseded by the flood repairs.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Landlords need to be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate with residents about actions. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 days of the repair being reported. There was a period of 7 months between the repairs being raised again in December 2020 and the flood in July 2021 when works were not undertaken. It is evident that there was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the issue. This is of particular concern to this Service given the existence of a potential category one hazard (HHSRS) in the property and as there were vulnerable young children in occupation.
Notwithstanding the initial delay, the flood repairs presented the landlord with an opportunity to undertake a thorough investigation of the damp while the resident was temporarily decanted from the property. Although there were some investigations as to the cause of the damp, the problem remained unresolved.
When the resident reported further mould growth in January 2022, after she had moved back into the property, further works raised also failed to resolve the problem. It took several further inspections over the period of five months, for the landlord to conclude that the cause of the damp may either be a leak from the bathroom, moisture from the flooring or a combination of the two. The landlord’s narrow and short-term focus, with repeated visits, led to the issues remaining unresolved for an extensive period. There is no evidence that it attempted to thoroughly explore the issues with the resident, evaluate the situation, bring specialist contractors together or to approach the issue in a solution-focussed manner. This resulted in a prolonged impact on the resident and her family, leading to unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
Since May 2022, the landlord has not raised further works. It had notified the resident of its intention to remove the flooring in July 2022 and she had asked that the works commence in September to avoid the disruption to her children over the summer break. However, despite the resident following this up between November 2022 and February 2023 this was never actioned.
The resident was offered a temporary decant in April 2023. There has been conflicting information provided by the landlord and resident as to whether this accommodation was withdrawn or refused. In the circumstances, however, the reasons the accommodation was not utilised are immaterial. The landlord had an obligation to undertake repairs on reasonable notice. Where it was not possible for works to be undertaken with the resident in occupation, the landlord should have arranged for alternative suitable temporary accommodation.
In or around April 2023, a decision was taken by the landlord to dispose of the property. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states that “landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered”. It adds that “Landlords should be especially mindful of how they respond to reports of damp and mould in stock that may be nearing the end of its life ….Crucially, landlords should remember that their asset is someone’s home, and they should not receive a lesser service than residents living in other areas.” The resident had asked to be temporarily decanted while waiting for an offer of permanent accommodation and the landlord had confirmed in correspondence in April 2023 that they had agreed to do this. No temporary accommodation has ever been provided, however, with the outcome that the resident has had no option but to remain living with her young children in damp conditions.
Of particular concern to this Service is the lack of consideration the landlord had given to the resident’s reports of her child’s respiratory problems. The evidence provided to this Service establishes that the resident informed the landlord in November 2022 that her child has required hospital treatment for breathing difficulties. She had also informed the landlord that her daughter has recently been referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS) because of anxiety which she believed was linked to their housing issues. The landlord’s recent Damp and Mould Policy dated March 2023, states that “where a risk to the health and safety of the household is identified, works will be arranged immediately”. There is no evidence that, on receipt of this information, the landlord had assessed the risk to the health and safety of the household and no works had been raised following this disclosure.
There were significant failings throughout this case which have left the resident living with damp and mould for a prolonged period. The resident’s concerns about the standard of the flood repairs were dismissed and works that the landlord had agreed to undertake as part of its complaint responses were not completed. Overall, the landlord repeatedly failed in its management and oversight of the investigation to identify the source of the problem. This was despite the resident consistently raising concerns the damp conditions were having a serious adverse effect on the health of both of her children. The landlord’s cumulative failings are serious, having caused significant distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Its overall response, including the outstanding repair issues and the length of time that the resident has been experiencing these issues, warrants a finding of severe maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore orders that the landlord pay the resident £1800 in compensation. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration where there has been a serious long-term impact on the resident.
The landlord’s response to a flash flood which caused damage to the resident’s property.
The flash flooding was an extreme and unexpected event that caused extensive damage to many properties in the affected areas. The landlord would have had to divert considerable resources to co-ordinating its response to the flood, to meet to the immediate needs of its impacted residents including finding temporary accommodation for their households. The level of planning involved in undertaking repairs on such a large scale would have meant that the repairs were likely to take longer to co-ordinate. Delays to flood repairs were therefore foreseeable given the number of homes affected. The Ombudsman recognises the challenges that the landlord had to meet in responding to this emergency.
Notwithstanding this, there were significant failings in the landlord’s response to the flood. The works to the resident’s home were not completed to a satisfactory standard. The resident’s concerns, that the property had not dried out sufficiently, were dismissed. These concerns were later revealed to be warranted with the landlord confirming in February 2022 that the walls were showing high moisture readings and in May 2022 that the new flooring had been laid before the underfloor had dried out properly. The resident was moved back into the property without due care being taken to establish that the property was dry. Further distress was caused to the resident by the contractors damaging the resident’s possessions.
The landlord’s communication during this time fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. This was a very upsetting time for the resident. She had lost many possessions in the flood, and she had to vacate her home at short notice with her two young children, not knowing when she would be able to return. She needed advice and guidance about what to do about her rent, who would cover the costs of drying out the property and when the property would be cleaned, cleared and ready for her to move back into.
The landlord did not keep the resident sufficiently updated or informed during this time. It was a reasonable expectation that the landlord would provide the resident with regular updates so that she could be confident that her queries were being followed up and that matters were in hand. Effective and regular communication would have gone some way to alleviating some of her stress, uncertainty and worry during this difficult time.
The landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident about paying rent on her permanent property. As correspondence about rents and arrears were suspended by the landlord at the time, the resident was not aware that she continued to accrue arrears. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s enquiry about a visit when in temporary accommodation when she had sought to report problems with power cuts and a mice infestation.
In her complaint, the resident asked for information about previous floods at the property. The landlord was only able to provide limited information from its records in its response. It is a concern to this Service that the landlord did not keep adequate records about the property’s repairs history. Record-keeping is a core function of a repairs service as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that a landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the property, its structure and its fittings. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight report on Damp and Mould’ highlights that accurate record-keeping “would allow the landlord to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to both so that they can consider the most appropriate response.”
In its stage 2 response, the landlord conceded that its communication had been poor and offered £250 in compensation. As a point of learning, it confirmed that this would be fed back to the team responding to the flood. It also agreed that the resident would be reimbursed for some damaged items.
In the Ombudsman’s view the total offer of £250 in compensation does not reflect the detriment to the resident. The resident was left to navigate a very difficult situation with inadequate support from the landlord. Its communication was lacking which led to misunderstandings. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property were dismissed and when it was later established that these concerns were legitimate, no further redress or apology was offered, despite the resident making a new complaint. Due care was not taken to establish that the property was dry and safe to move back into in December 2021. As such, an award of £800 in compensation is warranted to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident and where the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer

The resident had initially asked to be included on the landlord’s internal transfer list. The landlord’s lettings policy states that a resident would be eligible to join the transfer list if they had no outstanding debts to the landlord, including rent. However, it confirms that “in exceptional cases, we consider requests to transfer where a tenant does not fulfil the criteria”. The landlord’s decision not to allow the resident to apply for a transfer was within its policy. However, it appropriately exercised its discretion to review this decision in February 2022 and consequently the resident’s transfer application was processed with an effective date of 12 July 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy by rejecting the resident’s application for a three-bedroom property until her daughter reached the age of 10.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage one complaint was issued within the target timescales in its complaints policy. Its stage two complaint response was delayed by 38 days. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy by informing the resident in advance that the response would be delayed. It acknowledged the delays in its stage two response and offered an apology and an amount in compensation to address the service failure.
The complaint response at stage two addressed the points raised and offered redress where a service failure was identified. When the resident raised other points in relation to the complaint after the stage two response, these queries were responded to. The landlord identified learning outcomes and agreed to feed back to the relevant sections to identify where there were failings in service delivery.
However, aspects of the complaint were left unresolved as the issue with the damp remained outstanding. Consequently, the resident raised a second complaint in July 2022. In its response, the landlord agreed that the resident would be temporarily decanted, and works would then proceed to remove the flooring. Where landlords make recommendations in response to a complaint, they must be acted on in a timely manner and the complaint should not be closed as resolved when there are outstanding open repairs. It is not acceptable for residents to have to raise multiple complaints to progress a repair. Landlords should ensure that a resident is given a single point of contact that that person is empowered to progress the matter when things stall.
The landlord had offered £100 in compensation to the resident for complaint handling failures. While this compensation may have been adequate up to the date of its stage two complaint response, its failure to follow up repairs to completion or make a further offer of financial redress to the resident when she raised a second complaint on this issue, constitutes maladministration. As such compensation of £300 should be paid to the resident to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Review of policy and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs, damp and mould, record-keeping and complaint handling as set out below:

a. 202214808 – we found severe maladministration for the landlord’s response to leaks. We found maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling and its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b. 202108980 – we found maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of leaks.

c. 202108723 – we found severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property and its record-keeping.

d. 202125245 – we found maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs and the complaint.

The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation, where similar issues have been identified. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about this matter. The scope of the review has been set out below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows and door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to a flash flood which caused damage to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application for a housing transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

Works were subject to extensive delays. Repairs to the windows were not undertaken despite assurances given by the landlord in its complaint responses. There was a significant delay in the landlord replacing the resident’s door. The landlord’s failure to resolve the damp issue meant that the resident had to live in unacceptable and deteriorating conditions with her young family for three and a half years.
The flood repairs were not completed to an acceptable standard with the walls plastered and painted and the flooring laid before the property had dried out. The landlord’s communication with the resident was ineffective which added to her frustration and anxiety.
The complaint process was closed despite the damp problem continuing. The resident was put to time and trouble in raising a new complaint in July 2022. While the landlord identified next steps to take in its response to this new complaint, these steps were never carried out and no apology or financial redress was offered to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Apologises to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology is to be made by the chief executive and the resident is to be given the choice as to whether the apology is given verbally or in writing.
2. Pays the resident the amount of £3734 comprising:
  1. £700 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to her windows and door.
  2. £1800 in compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the damp and mould in the property.
  3. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the flash flooding.
  4. £300 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  5. £134 to reimburse the resident for the cost of the dehumidifier she purchased.
  6. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation award of £850.
3. Confirms with this Service that payment has been made. This amount must not be set off against any rent arrears or tenancy debt on the resident’s account.
Within two weeks of the report the landlord is to provide an update to the resident in relation to the permanent decant offer.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the learning from this case and improvements it needs to put in place as a result. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, her household and their vulnerabilities. This includes a review of the handling of her decant.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by issues related to damp and mould from March 2021 to the present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with the complaints procedure;
3. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last six months with regards to repairs, damp and mould, complaint handling and record keeping. Where findings of severe maladministration and maladministration have been made, the findings should be incorporated into the review, along with the relevant case number.
4. To review and update its damp and mould policy (March 2023) by cross referencing it against the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
5. The landlord has carried out a self-assessment against the recommendations included within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management following a recommendation in case reference 202120755. The landlord is to provide a progress update on the proposed systems and procedures outlined in the self-assessment report.
6. Reviewing its staff training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. Respond to request for repairs appropriately and progress works orders in an efficient and timely manner, updating residents where required and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
  2. Respond to formal complaints appropriately and keep complaints about outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses must provide completion timescales, and should not require new complaints to be opened for the same outstanding issue. It should ensure all relevant officers respond in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code;
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review;
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in future;
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord must embed the recommendations made in the report into its practices and have them inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord must provide a copy of the final report to its board and the member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The board should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord must also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after it has finalised the report, to ensure changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 2, 4 and 12 weeks to confirm it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reimburse the resident for quantifiable financial loss regarding the cost of running the dehumidifier in the property, upon receipt of evidence. If the resident is unable to provide this evidence, the landlord should offer her payment of a nominal sum.