Peabody Trust (202221669)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221669

Peabody Trust

13 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Damaged and stolen items.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 23 August 2010. The property is a 3– bedroom ground–floor flat. The resident made the landlord aware during the complaints process that her daughter has respiratory issues and allergies.
On 5 August 2021, the resident told the landlord in an email that she had reported damp issues since moving into the property. She said there was damp and water leaks from the outside wall into the bedroom, and bathroom repairs remained outstanding. The resident said the landlord had previously supplied a dehumidifier 3 years prior but this had not resolved the issue. She said the landlord had sealed vents due to a mice infestation and this had made the issue worse. The resident said the damp was affecting her daughter’s health. On 17 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged a conversation with the resident from that same day as an expression of dissatisfaction.
The landlord and its contractor attended the property on 23 August 2021 and agreed for works to start to the bathroom on 6 September 2021 and finish on 15 September 2021. A damp and mould survey was completed on 24 September 2021. The survey did not visually identify a cause of the damp issue and it instructed a further review by a damp specialist.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord escalated the resident’s concerns to a formal complaint at stage 1 due to being active for 60 days. On 4 November 2021, the landlord asked its contractor to proceed with works to resolve the faulty damp proof course on the flank wall and repointing. The contractors completed a pre survey of the works 10 January 2022 and recommended the resident was decanted during the works. On 8 April 2022, the resident was decanted for an initial period of 3 weeks. The landlord completed the works in November 2022 and the resident moved back into her property on 25 November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023. It said the following:
1. The complaint investigation covered repair reports from January 2021. It was unable to investigate or comment on historical concerns.
2. The resident had reported a repair on 9 June 2021 about water leaking behind the tiles in the bathroom and a wet patch on the living room wall.
3. It completed the bathroom works and had not found any damp coming from the bathroom into the living area. A damp specialist attended on 19 September 2021 and a further assessment was carried out on 24 September 2021 with a surveyor and a contractor.
4. It had completed damp injections and subsequent works.
5. It had initially advised the works would take 4 weeks and started the decant on 9 April 2022. It extended the decant because works were not completed during the scheduled timeframe.
6. The resident returned to her property on 25 November 2022 and there had been no heating as pipes had been tampered with during the intrusive works. It had repaired this on 5 December 2022.
7. On 29 November 2022 it had discussed with the resident her concerns about the works carried out. The resident had felt the damp was covered up and would return. At the time there were no signs of the damp returning. It had agreed with the resident that should this return within 6 months she could contact the complaints team directly about the matter.
8. The standard of service was below that which it expected to provide. It was sorry for this and for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
9. Its contractors had not managed/administered the repair in line with its repair policy. It had provided feedback of the resident’s experience to its contract managers.
10. The resident’s feedback had not gone unnoticed, including the lack of information/updates regarding the repair and the length of the delay.
11. It failed to check that the heating had been affected by the works carried out.
12. Everything that could possibly go wrong with the resident’s repair, had on this occasion.
13. In December 2022, the resident had brought to its attention that many items including perfumes and watches were missing/stolen during the times it had carried out works and the below items were damaged:
  1. Two blinds.
  2. A newly purchased corner sofa was covered in damp and mould spores and also damaged.
  3. A TV cable.
  4. Clothes were covered in paint and had been thrown away. A pair of boots were covered in paint.
  5. The cable on a spinning bike had been torn and damaged.
  6. The dishwasher dial had been pulled out and damaged.
14. It did not compensate for damage to personal belongings. The resident should claim through her home content insurance and it may refund an insurance excess as a goodwill gesture.
15. Its complaints procedure was unable to determine negligence as this can only be via its legal or insurance proceedings. If the resident felt that it was liable for the damage to personal belongings, she could submit an insurance liability claim that would be investigated by its insurance team, who also investigated personal injury claim losses. It provided the details to contact insurance team.
16. It had discussed the damages to belongings with the surveyor in charge who had since interviewed the contractor. They would be carrying out a wider investigation into the matter and would provide a response once the investigation was completed.
17. In regard to outstanding repairs:
  1. It had completed a repair to 2 wall sockets in December 2022.
  2. It had raised a works order for the extractor in the kitchen not working.
  3. The resident had reported the vent in the living room and bedroom was blocked due to pest control issues. It could raise for this to be unblocked and a further investigation into the pest control. It asked the resident to let it know how she wanted to proceed.
18. It offered the resident compensation of £740 broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. £200 discretionary as goodwill.
  3. £40 for the loss of heating from 25 November to 5 December 2022.
  4. £100 for the use of dehumidifier (calculated at £2 per day).
The resident responded to the landlord by email on the same day. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered, in consideration of the impact to her daughter’s health from the damp and mould and having to move 5 times with little notice during the repairs. The resident provided the landlord with a list of items she had reported as stolen. This included a laptop, 30 perfumes, a power drill, a watch, headphones, and a handbag. The resident said the landlord should have communicated with her when it had been aware the work was going to take more than 5 weeks, and it should have been overseeing the work. The resident confirmed to this Service in June 2023 that the complaint had not been escalated. On 15 June 2023, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process by 13 July 2023.
The landlord provided its final response on 12 July 2023. It said the following:
1. It found the stage 1 response to be a reasonable response to the issues that the resident originally complained about.
2. The resident had advised that she thought the case should have been automatically escalated to stage two. However, this was not the process, and it was for the resident to request an escalation to the next stage.
3. The decant was not part of the original complaint, it was not able to formally consider or investigate the decant or any associated issues. It noted the overall inconvenience caused for context and in its offer of redress.
4. It could see the resident advised this Service on 8 June 2023 that damp was still in her home, of which it was unaware. It asked the resident to let it know if this was still the case and it would address this.
5. The primary issue that the resident had escalated the complaint to stage 2 was in relation to damaged/stolen items. It was very sorry to hear about what happened, however what it had advised at stage 1 was correct and it was not able to provide compensation for her damaged or stolen items.
6. Damaged items would generally be something that would be subject to an insurance claim.
7. Theft of items was a criminal matter and would be something the police would need to investigate. The resident had reported this to the Police accordingly.
8. Until October 2021 the case was part of an expression of dissatisfaction process, it had long since removed that process both from its complaints policy and its processes throughout the business.
9. It had received a high number of complaints at stage 1 and a correlating increase in stage 2 cases. It had responded to this by recently completing a large restructure that had increased the size of the stage 1 and stage 2 teams.
10. It had recently carried out training to all complaints staff. There were safeguards in place now to ensure the issues the resident had, such a delay in issuing a response, did not happen again. It had a new complaint monitoring IT suite, which transparently showed due, and overdue responses and there was a daily check on response dates.
11. It was sorry that the resident’s experience fell short of its expectations. It was currently undergoing significant changes as a result of the recently completed merger. It had that year completely changed its approach and the way it addressed damp, mould and condensation.
12. The oversight and accountability of the contractor in this case had not been at the level it would have hoped to see. It acknowledged that the oversight, monitoring and accountability of contractors needed to be improved. It was putting into place measures to resolve these issues, such as better contractor management.
13. It planned to have a locality focus, so contract managers monitored works in progress closely to help ensure they were completed on time and that any issues with a contractor were picked up sooner. It was also in the process of re-tendering its repairs contractors with the focus on customer convenience.
14. Its complaint procedure was unable to determine negligence. It provided the contact details for its insurance team for claims of damage to belongings and personal injury claims.
15. Following its stage 1 response it had offered an additional amount of compensation. This brought the total offer at stage 1 to £1500.
16. It offered the resident a total amount of £2850 compensation. This included the £1500 offered previously. The further £1350 was broken down as:
  1. £500 for complaint handling.
  2. An additional £850 for delays, time, trouble and inconvenience, factoring in the partial lack of use of the property during this time. Calculated As £50 per month from August 2021 until January 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the amount of compensation offered. This Service accepted the complaint for investigation in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The resident raised during the complaint process that she had experienced issues with damp, mould and leaks since she moved into the property. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2021 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to further issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the further reports of mould, concerns about underlying issues with the building, and anti social behaviour (ASB) outside of the property. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in August 2021 which were addressed in the landlord’s final response in July 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon the health of her daughter. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about damages to furniture and personal items, and reports that items had been stolen during the repairs. It is not within this Service’s remit to determine if the landlord is responsible for the theft or damage of personal items. Theft is a matter for the police. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this Service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This Service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it had acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The tenancy agreement says if the landlord needs to carry out repairs or other works to the property and it cannot reasonably do that while the resident is living there, the resident will need to move out temporarily.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated emergency repairs are attend within four hours and made safe within 24 hours. It says routine repairs are all repairs that are not an emergency or out of hours repair. It aims to deliver routine repairs within an average of ten working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature. Where this is the case, it will inform residents of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process.
The landlord’s decant policy at the time of the resident’s complaint says the following:
1. It will keep the time spent carrying out works to a minimum. It will keep residents informed on the progress of the works to their home.
2. A resident may leave their belongings in the decanted property, although this is at their own risk. Where external storage is needed, it will arrange and pay for the removal and storage of a resident’s possessions via one of its approved contractors and arrange for their return.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says compensation payments are considered when a resident has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on its part, or if it failed to carry out a service within our published guidelines. There are situations when it may not consider offering a remedy or paying compensation. This includes:
1. Where the fault is caused by a third party or is something for which it is not responsible.
2. Personal injury claims relating to physical or mental health. These will be directed to its insurance team to assess.
The compensation policy says the landlord can pay up to a maximum of £650 for time trouble and inconvenience, and up to £300 for poor complaint handling. For repairs it will only pay compensation if it failed to complete the repair within its published guidelines. For no heating after the first 24 hours, it will pay £3 per day between 1 October and 30 April.
This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
On 13 August 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there were issue with damp at the property and the outside wall to the bedroom was wet. The landlord completed the repairs to the damp on 25 November 2022. This was a timeframe of over 15 months. The timeframe here was excessive. It was evident that the works to resolve the damp and mould took considerably longer than planned. The resident was initially decanted on 9 April 2022 for a period of 3 weeks. The decant was extended a number of times, with the resident moving location to 5 different temporary accommodations, until moving back into her property on 25 November 2022.
It was evident the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the cause of the damp and mould following the resident’s complaint in August 2021. The landlord attended the property with a contractor on 23 August 2021. Works were completed to the bathroom on 15 September 2021 and the landlord had placed a dehumidifier in the bedroom to dry out the wall and ceiling to continue with damp repairs. A further surveyor visit was completed on 24 September 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence showed it was unable to determine the cause of the damp from this visit. It appropriately arranged a further specialist survey which took place on 16 October 2021, which identified the work needed. From the evidence provided, the source of the damp and mould was not immediately clear and it was appropriate for the landlord to have investigated a number of possible causes in order to ensure the correct treatment.
The landlord instructed its contractor to complete works to resolve the damp and mould on 1 November 2021. The contractor advised that a pre works visit was required. This did not take place until 10 January 2022. However, the landlord’s records noted that the delay was due to the contractor being unable to contact the resident. The resident also rearranged a pre works visit booked for 21 December 2021, which further contributed to the delay.
The works did not start until after the resident was decanted on 9 April 2022. The landlord had not provided reasons for the delay in starting works. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged hat the decant was initially planned for 4 weeks, but had taken longer due to works not being completed in the scheduled time.
It was evident there was a lack of oversight by the landlord. It failed to communicate effectively with its contractor about the works both prior to the works starting and during the works. The landlord’s internal records showed the contractor told the landlord in an email on 13 January 2021 that furniture and belongings would need to be removed from each room before it started the works. On 3 March 2022, the landlord told the contractor it was not able to move the furniture or put items into storage and these needed to be moved on a room-by-room basis and covered when works were underway. The delay in response here further delayed the start of the works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 June 2022 in relation to extending the decant. It said the works had not been completed due to the contractor needing access to a certain area and no further room to store anything. There was no evidence of the landlord discussing the removal of furniture and personal belongings with the resident prior to the decant. There was also no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with support or options for storing her belongings. It was evident this lack of planning impacted on the delays to the contractor completing the work. The landlord failed to consider fully if external storage was required and act in line with its decant policy.
While it took a long time to resolve the problem, the Ombudsman does acknowledge that certain problems can be complex and take time to diagnose, with an element of trial and error involved. From the evidence provided to the Service it was not clear why the works took a further 6 months than initially expected and the landlord did not explain this in its final response or in any correspondence to the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged the delays in both its complaint responses.
For complex repairs that may require additional time to be completed, this Service expects the landlord to keep in communication with the resident and update them on the progress of the repairs. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it kept the resident updated at regular intervals, or on the expected timescales for the completion of the works. This was evident by the short notice provided to the resident of the extension of the decant. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not managed the resident’s repair in line with its repairs policy.
The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case the resident had informed the landlord in her complaint in August 2021 and throughout the complaints process that her daughter’s health was being affected by the damp and mould in regard to her breathing and allergies. The landlord’s internal correspondence demonstrated that it was aware of this. However, there was no evidence of the landlord assessing the risk to the household or taking this information into consideration in the timeliness of the work starting, or that it had considered a decant earlier.
As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. The landlord did not confirm to this Service if it had any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her household. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded to ensure it records are accurate and up to date.
On returning to her property on 25 November 2022, the resident reported that the heating was not working, electrical wiring was exposed and a socket broken. The landlord’s records showed it repaired the heating on 5 December 2022. The landlord made safe the electrical wiring and socket on 27 November 2022 and completed a repair to this on 1 December 2022. The repairs to the electrical wiring and socket were completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
However, it was evident the landlord had not picked up this repair which had happened during the decant, prior to the resident moving back into her property. It had not inspected the works to ensure the property was in a good condition and the repairs were to a standard. As such the resident had to take the time and trouble to report this. She also experienced the distress and inconvenience of being without heating during the winter. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it failed to check the heating was affected by the works caried out. For the period the resident was without heating, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £40 This was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident stated that she moved 5 times during the decant. The landlord acknowledged this in an email to the resident on 11 January 2023. It said the repair had been extended and it should have given enough notice to the team managing the decant to extend the temporary accommodation. It said this had been recognised within the increased stage 1 compensation offer of £1500 (made in April 2023). It was evident the landlord’s poor oversight of the repair contributed to its management of the resident’s decant. This resulted in the resident experiencing the inconvenience of having to move a number of times into different accommodation. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience during the 7-month period. This resident advised this Service that this had been particularly disruptive for her daughter who was completing school exams during this time. Had the landlord retained an adequate oversight of the progress of the repair work, it could have avoided the need to move the resident and her family so frequently.
Following the end of the complaints process, the resident advised that damp had reappeared in her daughter’s bedroom. She also confirmed to this Service that repairs mentioned in the stage 1 response to the ventilation system had not been resolved. As such a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this to arrange an inspection of the damp and ventilation system and raise any repairs identified.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through a total offer of compensation of £2350.
The compensation offered to the resident was at the higher end of its compensation range to reflect the impact on the resident. The landlord has demonstrated here an attempt to put things right for the resident. It also demonstrated in its final complaint response that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint. It stated it had taken action to improve its service to residents through the implementation of a new damp and mould policy and had made changes to the way it managed contractor performance. The implementation of its damp, mould and condensation policy in February 2023 should now improve the landlord’s service delivery when addressing cases of damp and mould.
In summary, the landlord took appropriate action in arranging surveys to identify the cause of the damp and mould following the resident’s reports in August 2021. However, there were unreasonable delays in the landlord completing the work to resolve the damp and mould. The works raised in 2021 were not progressed quickly enough given the resident’s reports about the impacts of the damp on her daughter’s health. The landlord took almost 7 months to decant the resident and start the works. It then took a further 7 months to complete this. The landlord did not demonstrate it retained an adequate oversight or planning of the repair. This resulted in the resident being moved 5 times during the period she was decanted. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. The landlord acknowledged its failures in the delay to the works and subsequent need to continue extending the resident’s decant. It also demonstrated that it had taken learning from the complaint and attempted to out things right for the resident through its offer of compensation.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. It was also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for instances where there has been significant failures which had a detrimental impact on a resident. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the £2350 offered by the landlord was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damaged and stolen items.

The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord expects residents to have contents insurance in place for their furniture, decorations or any other personal possessions. However, where it is alleged that it is at fault for any damage to furniture, decoration or personal belongings it should take appropriate steps to investigate and establish whether it has caused or exacerbated any damage through its actions or inactions before referring the issue to insurers. Where it is proven damage has been caused directly through it or its contractors’ actions, it will provide appropriate redress and take the necessary steps to put this right.
The landlord’s complaints policy says there are some things that it will not deal with through its complaints procedure. This includes insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal belongings and property.
The landlord’s records showed the resident reported to the landlord on 26 November 2022 that on returning to her property personal items were missing and furnishings and clothing had been damaged. The resident provided details and photos of the items to the landlord on 10 December 2022, and advised she would report the missing items to the police as a theft. The landlord’s records noted it appropriately raised the damage and stolen items with its contractor in December 2022.
The landlord advised at stage 1 that it was investigating the resident’s claims of damage to her items during the repairs with its contractor and would provide her with a response once this was completed. There was no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with a response on the outcome of its investigations at stage 2 or prior to this. It was noted that no further evidence of the outcome of this investigation has been provided to this Service.
In its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023, the landlord advised the resident to claim on her home contents insurance for the damages to her belongings from mould. However, it was evident that the resident told the landlord the damage had occurred as a result of the works to the property while she had been decanted. As such the landlord should have investigated this before referring to its insurers in line with its compensation policy.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess whether the landlord or its contractor was liable for the stolen items from the resident’s property as this would be a matter for the police to determine. The landlord did not explicitly set out its position on the items the resident had reported as stolen until its final response. It said that the theft of items was a criminal matter and that would be something the Police would need to investigate. The landlord missed the opportunity to address this appropriately prior to this. As a result, the resident continued to follow up with the landlord on the matter.
Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord said it was considering reimbursing the resident for the damaged items. In an email on 1 September 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was consulting with its insurance team to assess this informally rather than a formal insurance claim. It is noted that the landlord confirmed it was not accepting liability or confirming that the resident would not need to pursue an insurance claim. It requested costs from the resident for the damaged items which the resident provided on 5 September 2023.
The landlord asked the resident for an update on the police investigation on 28 October 2023. It said it wanted to check before advising further on any further offer regarding discussions of redress. The resident provided the landlord with an update on this on 1 November 2023. While the actions taken showed the landlord attempting to resolve the issue of the damaged items for the resident, the landlord had not followed its policy here and referred the matter to its insurer. There was also no evidence provided to demonstrate it had provided the resident with a response to this.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint responses confirmed it was not able to determine negligence and its insurance process was the correct way for the resident to submit a claim. However, it did not offer the resident appropriate support in making a claim to its insurer or consider referring this to its insurer itself.
The landlord also had not provided the outcome of its investigation into the damaged items, which it would have been reasonable to have done so under its complaints process. As a result, the resident continued to follow up with the landlord on the matter, including after the end of the complaints process without resolution. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damaged and stolen items. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 to account for its failures here. In addition, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to assist her to pursue a claim with its insurers for damage to her personal belongings.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint’s policy effective from December 2020 says when an expression of dissatisfaction is received, it will first look to resolve the matter locally through an initial stage called an ‘Expression of Dissatisfaction’. If this approach has not reached the desired resolution, or it is deemed inappropriate, it can be registered and dealt with as a formal complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy effective from October 2022 says it has a 2-stage process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. A stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of a request being received. This time limit will only be extended if more time is needed to complete the review fully. This will be communicated to and agreed with the resident. The policy says there are some things that it will not deal with through its complaints procedure. This includes personal injury claims such as the claim that the landlord has caused a negative effect to someone’s health.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The resident raised her complaint on 13 August 2021. On 14 October 2021, the landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord provide its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023. This was a timeframe of 356 working days from the resident first raising her complaint. The landlord considering the complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction under its complaint policy at the time accounted for part of the delay here. It is noted the landlord’s complaint policy is now in line with the Code. The landlord took over 16 months to provide a response from the point of logging the complaint at stage 1. This was an excessive delay.
It was evident the resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response in her email to the landlord on 10 January 2023. The landlord stated on 9 June 2023 it had not escalated the complaint because the resident agreed to keep in touch to try and agree, and had not requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity here to escalate the complaint earlier.
While the resident did not explicitly request for her complaint to be escalated, it was clear she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and the redress offered. Furthermore, the landlord advised it had raised her response to the stage 1 decision with another department. Therefore, it was reasonable for the resident to have understood that her complaint was being reviewed at a further stage in January 2023.
It was also evident that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident on her complaint after this date. It offered the resident further compensation in a text message on 11 April 2023. It is noted that the resident replied and said she was going to take the matter to the small claims court. As a result, the landlord took no further action on the complaint, and the resident was left without a final response on the matter.
The landlord failed to escalate the complaint appropriately. This resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident and delayed her access to this Service given that a stage 1 response was not sufficient for her to bring her complaint for investigation. It was noted that following contact from this Service on 15 June 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint and confirmed this to the resident on 19 June 2023 and responded within 20 working days.
The resident remained unhappy that the landlord had not addressed her reports about the impact of the damp and mould on the health of her daughter. While it did not explicitly address this point in its complaint responses, the landlord advised at both stages that its insurance team investigated personal injury claim losses. This information was in line with its compensation and complaints policy. The landlord should have been clearer in its complaint responses to confirm to the resident it could not address a claim regarding the impact on her daughter’s health within its complaints process.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling. It offered the resident £500 compensation for this. It also demonstrated that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint, describing the processes it had since put into place in order to ensure such a delay did not happen again. The compensation offered here was in excess of the amounts in the landlord’s compensation policy. However, this did not go far enough to account for the extent of the failures identified here and the overall timeframe of the complaint.
Overall, there was a significant delay in the landlord responding to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and missed the opportunity to resolve the matter sooner for the resident. The delays at both stages resulted in a protracted complaints process and delayed the resident’s access to this Service. The landlord also failed to adequately address the residents concerns about her daughter’s health. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling in its final response and demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint. It attempted to put this right through an offer of compensation in excess of its compensation policy. However this was not proportionate to the failings identified. A finding of severe maladministration may have been determined had the landlord not gone a significant way towards putting the issue right through its offer of compensation. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. A further amount of compensation of £150 is ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about Damaged and stolen items.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is in addition to the landlord’s offer during its complaints process. The compensation is broken down as follows:
£250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damaged and stolen items.
£150 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is to contact the resident to assist her to pursue a claim with its insurers for damage to her personal belongings.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

The landlord is to pay the resident the £2850 compensation it offered the resident through its complaints process, if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation is to be paid.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the further damp reported by the resident, and the ventilation system, and raise any repairs identified.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.