PHA Homes (202305666)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305666

PHA Homes

14 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:
1. the impact of damp and mould on the resident’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. reports of damp and mould.
  2. reports of repairs.
  3. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  4. concerns that he has been discriminated against/treated less favourably.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has autism and mental health issues.
The landlord sets out its timescales for completing repairs online. It says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 3 weeks. The landlord’s ASB policy states that such behaviour includes excessive noise from a television or from dogs (such as barking). It outlines action it can take to tackle ASB, such as warning letters, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and referral to other agencies.
At the time of the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days. Stage 3 was a response from its chief executive, which it aimed to provide within 20 working days. The landlord has since adopted a 2 stage complaints process, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In April 2022, the landlord put in place controls for the resident communicating with it. This was due to the amount of communication he was sending. It told the resident he should send communication to its general mailbox or to a named individual. It also provided a number he could call. Around November 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had removed his consent for it to contact him by email or by telephone.
During November and December 2022, the resident reported a number of repair concerns to the landlord. These included concerns about his porch roof, paving slabs around his property and a front doorstep that he said was “rotten”.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord told the resident of repairs it had completed in response to his reports. It noted the resident had since raised a number of further repair concerns and it would attend to inspect these on 5 January 2023. On 15 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident outlining repairs it had raised following its attendance earlier that month.
At the end of January 2023, the resident reported issues with his neighbour’s dog barking. Around the same time, he requested compensation from the landlord for its handling of repairs. He said health issues had been aggravated by black mould at the property. The landlord responded on 1 February 2023. It said:
1. it had found no black mould during its inspection of the property, but that the resident had said he had cleaned this before the visit.
2. it had checked and topped up insulation levels at the property.
3. it had noted cracked paving slabs but had not found these to be a trip hazard.
4. there was some delay in arranging repairs due to the way in which the resident had requested it communicate with him.
5. it did not consider compensation was due.
Later in February 2023 the resident sent the landlord a number of emails about repair issues, including damp and mould, and windows not closing properly. He said that he had treated mould himself, but it came back “time and time again”. He said he considered there was an issue with the property. In response the landlord said it would attend again to inspect the resident’s concerns.
The landlord attended on 20 February 2023. It recorded some damp and mould issues in the hallway of the property that could be caused by a leak from the resident’s bath. It also noted:
1. movement on the front doorstep and that it needed to look at ways to keep water away from it.
2. mould in the bedroom, and that it would look at insulation.
3. windows closed but the handles did not engage fully, and the window seals were moulded gaskets that could not be replaced.
On 5 April 2023, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident. It said it had moved the complaint to stage 2 immediately due to the number of complaints he had made. It said:
1. following the resident’s repair reports in December 2022 it had inspected his property in January 2023.
2. all repairs identified during this visit were attended to and completed within its 3-week timeframe for routine repairs.
3. following its further inspection on 20 February 2023 it noted a leak to the bath should be checked and this work was completed within its urgent repairs timescale.
4. after it identified a bath leak, it had decided to bring forward the bathroom renewal.
5. when the bathroom was stripped out, mould was identified behind tiles, and this was fully removed and treated.
6. its contractor had attended on 20 March 2023 to complete various work, including to the front doorstep, replace gaskets and handles to all windows, top up loft insulation and overhaul the front door.
The landlord said that “a couple” of repairs remained outstanding. It said it anticipated this work would be completed on 6 April 2023. It said the resident had confirmed there were no outstanding repairs once this final work was completed. The landlord noted the resident’s request for compensation. It said it had not found any failure in its repair obligations. However, it said that it would consider any evidence the resident had to support his claim, including medical evidence.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about neighbour nuisance. It noted he had sent it diary sheets between January and April 2023 in respect of his concerns about his neighbour. The landlord said it had previously told the resident in February 2022 that it would only act if there was new or substantially increased evidence of these issues. It said that from the resident’s reports, it did not consider that to be the case, but it would keep this under review.
In response to the landlord, the resident said he had reported mould issues for years and it had ignored him. He also raised concerns that it had discriminated against him. He sent emails to the landlord between 12 and 14 April 2023 reporting various repairs. These included:
1. that windows did not close properly.
2. a crack in the bathroom floor, which he said may be subsidence at the property.
Later in April 2023 the landlord noted it had received more than 70 repair reports from the resident between 21 and 24 April 2023. It asked that the resident provide access for an independent surveyor to complete a property condition report. An independent surveyor attended the property on 28 April 2023. In their subsequent report they noted some repair issues that needed attention, including:
1. window gaskets that needed to be checked to minimise draughts.
2. confirming window openings conformed with fire regulations.
3. a trip hazard at the top of the stairs.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 3 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. as a way of reassuring the resident, it had appointed an independent surveyor to inspect the property.
2. the surveyor had found a potential trip hazard due to a loose top stair, which the landlord would repair as an urgent issue.
3. the surveyor had also noted the resident’s concerns about a fire hazard due to gaps in plasterboard in the bathroom and kitchen, and as an upper floor window did not open more than 32cm. it had asked its fire safety expert, who did not consider the small section of missing plasterboard was a fire risk. It said the windows were not intended as a means of escape.
4. to provide further reassurance to the resident it would arrange for its fire risk assessor to visit the property.
The landlord noted the repairs the resident had raised during the surveyor’s inspection. It attached a table showing repairs it would complete, and those which it considered to be the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It proposed dates later in the month to complete all outstanding repairs that were its responsibility.
The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns about black mould, but the surveyor had found no evidence of damp and mould. It said that, although it had found no evidence it had failed to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it would consider compensation if there was evidence of a negative impact on his health.
The landlord responded to concerns the resident had raised that it had discriminated against him. It said it had found no evidence of this during its review of his complaint. However, it noted that there had been occasions when it had failed to contact the resident in line with his preferences and it apologised for this. It said that its team had tried hard to accommodate the resident’s wishes. However, the current arrangement, where the resident contacted it by email but it could not respond using the same method, did not help it to provide an effective service. It said it planned to review communication arrangements. It also said that it was looking for appropriate training to ensure its staff were better informed about neurodivergence and how to accommodate different needs.
On 22 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident offering to employ an independent complaints adviser to review further concerns he had raised about discrimination. The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination on 13 November 2023. It noted that its review had been supported by an independent complaints adviser. The landlord said it had reviewed the independent complaints adviser’s report. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint of discrimination. However, it said that it could not decide whether there was a legal case for discrimination, and that the resident should seek legal advice if he wished to pursue this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The impact of damp and mould on the resident’s health

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. The resident said black mould at the property had a negative impact on his health. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how he can make such a claim. For this reason, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how he can contact its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on his health and well-being when considering his complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

Damp and mould

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of reports of mould since 2017. However, we have seen no evidence these issues were raised with the landlord as a complaint at this time. While the resident’s concerns about longstanding issues with mould are acknowledged, the Ombudsman expects that residents make timely complaints when evidence is still available. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about mould since December 2022. This is when the landlord noted he had reported black mould at the property.

ASB

Our previous investigation (202110314) considered the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. This was determined in June 2024 and considered the landlord’s handling of the matter up to its stage 3 complaint response of February 2022. As such our investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB since February 2022 up to its further stage 3 complaint response in May 2023.

The resident’s concerns that he has been discriminated against/treated less favourably

The resident raised concerns that the landlord discriminated against him. Section 114(1) of the Equality Act 2010 states that a county court has jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. As such, the Ombudsman cannot make a decision on whether discrimination has occurred. However, we have considered whether the landlord treated the resident fairly and responded to the complaint appropriately.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord does not have a specific damp and mould policy. But, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, it should ensure that its responses to reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord noted in its letter to the resident in February 2023 that he had raised concerns about black mould on 6 December 2022. However, we have not seen this contact from the resident within records it provided. Nor was this report raised in repair records we have seen. That was a record keeping failing. We acknowledge the landlord was receiving a number of emails from the resident. But it was still reasonable for it to maintain appropriate records, particularly around the repair reports it received. Because of the absence of these records it is not clear what the resident reported about black mould at this time. As a result, the landlord cannot adequately demonstrate that it was responding appropriately to the reports it received, in line with its duties and its target repairs timescales.
The landlord later detailed its attendance at the property on 5 January 2023. This was nearly a month after the resident’s repair reports. When it wrote to the resident in February 2023 the landlord said that there had been some delay in its response to repairs due to the way in which the resident had requested communications. We acknowledge that it was communicating with the resident by post only at this time, at his request. This may have added to the time taken to arrange repair appointments. But it is unclear from records why the landlord was unable to arrange to attend sooner, given its 3-week target response time for routine repairs. Its delay attending was a failing. Appropriate records of what had been reported about mould would have assisted the landlord in assessing the urgency of the issues, and how to appropriately respond to these.
We have seen no contemporaneous record of the landlord’s attendance of 5 January 2023. It should reasonably have made an accurate record of what had been found and agreed during that visit. That it did not was a further record keeping failing. While it set out in its letter to the resident of 15 January 2023 the repairs it had raised, it did not record what it had discussed with him about the black mould he had reported. In subsequent letters to the resident on 1 and 10 February 2023 the landlord said it had not found black mould in January 2023 as the resident had said he had cleaned this before the visit. It noted further work it had completed to the property, such as the additional insulation, work to a radiator and to extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It considered this work should resolve issues. But accurate records from the time of the inspection in January 2023 would have helped the landlord to demonstrate it was taking appropriate action in respect of the mould the resident had reported.
The landlord attended the resident’s property again after he raised further concerns about mould. That was appropriate. When it attended on 20 February 2023 it recorded that it had found the resident’s entrance hall to be “very mouldy” and that this could be due to a possible water leak from the bathroom. The resident subsequently expressed his belief that this leak may have been ongoing for some time. It is not possible for us to know from the evidence we have seen whether this leak was present when the landlord first attended in January 2023. But it is clear it was not identified at this time, and there is no evidence this was due to any failing by the landlord.
The steps the landlord took following its attendance on 20 February 2023 were timely and appropriate. It completed work to clean and treat mould on 27 February 2023. It also checked for a bath leak on 1 March 2023, which resulted in it deciding to complete a full bathroom replacement. That work was completed by the end of March 2023.
The resident raised concerns on 23 March 2023 about mould discovered during the bathroom replacement work. But as set out by the landlord in its complaint response of 5 April 2023, there is no evidence this mould had been reported or was visible prior to the bathroom replacement work. The landlord said that following discovery of the mould behind tiles it took steps to remove it, and this is not disputed by the resident. Given this, there was no failing by the landlord in its handling of mould in this area.
The landlord took appropriate steps to treat damp and mould issues identified after its attendance on 20 February 2023. However, we have found a delay in its initial response to the resident’s report of mould in December 2022. We have also found some record keeping failings around this report, and the landlord’s attendance on 5 January 2023. In the absence of these records, it cannot demonstrate that its response to the resident’s report adequately reflected the urgency of the issue. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
The resident raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on his health. As noted earlier, it is not for us to make findings or draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. We note that the landlord offered to assess any evidence the resident had in respect of this. It also offered to arrange for a third party to review this evidence. That was reasonable and appropriate. As outlined before, the resident could also submit a personal injury claim to the landlord’s insurer. We have recommended that it provide him with its insurer’s details should he wish to pursue this.

Handling of reports of repairs

The resident reported various repairs to the landlord in November 2022. These included reports relating to the external doorstep, which the resident said was rotten, and the roof and paving slabs he considered were a trip hazard. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2022 detailing work it had raised to address issues he had reported. It noted at this time that it had completed work to the roof and to lift and level paving slabs. But it did not record any action to address the resident’s report about his external doorstep. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report until the resident sent a further email in February 2023. The landlord then inspected the resident’s concerns about the doorstep on 20 February 2023. But that was 3 months after his initial repair report, and it later noted that work to the front step was completed on 20 March 2023. The landlord received a number of repair reports from the resident during this time, many of which he sent in separate emails. While we acknowledge that keeping track of a large number of repair reports may have been challenging, it was appropriate for it to have in place adequate systems and processes to accurately record repairs raised. Maintaining records could have helped it avoid delays due to such oversights. Its delay in acting on the resident’s report about the external doorstep was a failing.
After its inspection in January 2023, the landlord noted its contractor would attend on 1 February 2023 to overhaul windows and look at window gaskets. While the resident confirmed in subsequent correspondence that a contractor had attended, the landlord’s repair records do not detail this. The landlord should reasonably have ensured it was maintaining accurate records of the steps it was taking to resolve repair issues, and work completed. That it did not was a further record keeping failing.
The resident told the landlord that the contractor said window seals could not be replaced. It then acted appropriately by arranging to inspect this issue, and the resident’s other concerns about the windows. It did so on 20 February 2023. Following this it told the resident on 14 March 2023 that its contractor would attend to overhaul window gaskets and handles on 21 March 2023. Given that it had said its contractor had attended the previous month to overhaul windows throughout the property, it is unclear why further work was still needed. As noted previously, clear records of the work it had completed earlier would have assisted it in demonstrating that it was acting appropriately to resolve issues. In light of record keeping failings we have identified, we have ordered that the landlord review processes and training to staff in respect of this.
The landlord said in its complaint response in April 2023 that it completed further work to windows on 20 March 2023. It also noted other work it completed at this time such as topping up loft insulation and stain blocking in the lounge. But, again, this work is not clearly detailed in its repair records. While it is clear the resident raised subsequent concerns about his windows, he did not dispute that earlier work had been completed. He said on 12 April 2023 that maintenance had been completed to the windows and some handles replaced. However, he raised his ongoing concerns that some windows did not close properly or were draughty and that handles were mismatched.
In response to the large number of repair issues the resident raised during April 2023 the landlord engaged an independent surveyor to complete a property condition report. That was a reasonable and appropriate step given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction and the number of repairs he continued to report. Arranging this independent survey was a practical way forward towards resolving outstanding concerns. It also demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s repair concerns seriously and that it was trying to address these. We note that the resident subsequently raised questions about the surveyor’s qualifications and past personal relationship with the landlord’s chief executive. The landlord provided the resident with a reasonable response to these concerns.
The surveyor’s property condition report completed on 28 April 2023, noted that most of the issues identified were minor and decorative in nature. However, it also noted some issues with windows that required force to open/close. Prior to the survey the resident raised concern about possible subsidence, and the surveyor stated that they had found no signs of structural movement at the property. In its complaint response of May 2023, the landlord provided a clear explanation of the work it would now complete to resolve outstanding issues identified. It also explained that some of the work identified by the surveyor was not its responsibility to repair. This included where the work fell to the resident in line with the tenancy agreement, such as decorative issues or some of the flooring. The landlord clearly set out repairs it would undertake. That was reasonable and appropriate.
The landlord outlined a clear plan for resolving outstanding repair issues, including a trip hazard the surveyor had identified at the top of the stairs. It also said it would arrange a fire risk assessment to reassure the resident about some fire safety concerns he had raised. It provided dates later in May 2023 for when it could complete work and set out how long it would take. That was reasonable.
The resident subsequently told the landlord of his unavailability for this work on the dates provided. He also expressed concerns to the landlord that by communicating with its staff/contractors, he may be in breach of his tenancy agreement. It appears these concerns related to restrictions the landlord had earlier placed on the communications he sent to its staff. While it was understandable that the resident wanted clarification about this, the landlord explained that allowing access for repairs would not be in breach of his tenancy. It wrote to the resident on 20 June 2023 assuring him that communicating with it about access and allowing access for work would not put his tenancy at risk.
In its letter to the resident in June 2023 the landlord also set out adjustments it could make, such as if he preferred for a trusted person to provide access, or if he wanted to authorise someone to make arrangements on his behalf. It noted that the resident had said he was neurodivergent, and it said it was keen to be better informed about this so it could understand his needs. It said that it would be happy to meet with him. It also offered to arrange a professional mediator, or use a third party from an organisation with experience in neurodivergence. As outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, where landlords feel there are barriers to effective service delivery, they should consider what needs to be put in place to assist the resident. The evidence we have seen shows the landlord explored ways it could accommodate the resident’s needs. Its actions were reasonable. Subsequent records and correspondence we have seen show that the landlord was able to agree access with the resident to complete some of the repairs. It also maintained appropriate communication about steps to resolve the outstanding repair concerns. In July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out repairs that remained outstanding at the property. We note it has reiterated its offer to arrange mediation or advocacy to improve its relationship with the resident and assist it working together more effectively. That was also reasonable.
The landlord acted on repair concerns raised by the resident since November 2022. It has taken practical and proactive steps, such as arranging for an independent surveyor to complete a property condition report. It also provided reassurance to the resident about concerns he raised since April 2023 about providing access to resolve remaining repair concerns. It has looked at ways it can adjust its service to accommodate his needs. However, we have identified some failings in its handling of repairs. It delayed for more than 3 months in raising repairs to the external doorstep. That caused the resident frustration as he had to chase this repair. The landlord also made poor record of work completed to resolve window concerns. Overall, we have found service failure in its handling of repairs.

Handling of reports of ASB

In its stage 2 complaint response of 5 April 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had sent it reports that included dog barking, loud music and door slamming. However, the records we have seen from this time include only reports about the neighbour’s dog barking. The landlord’s complaint response refers to a report of 29 January 2023 that is not included in the documents that we have seen. That is a record keeping failing by the landlord. It is clearly important for it to keep records of the reports it received from the resident so that it could appropriately assess and decide on action depending on the frequency and level of the incidents raised.
The landlord said it had previously told the resident that it would only be able to act if there was substantially increased or more severe instances reported. It said it did not consider this was the case based on diary sheets the resident had returned. The landlord may have considered that the resident’s reports did not warrant formal action against his neighbour. But there is no evidence it did anything in response to reports it received from him between January and April 2023. It would have been reasonable for it to consider whether it was appropriate to speak to the neighbour during this time, particularly about the resident’s repeated reports of dog barking. It should at least have explained to the resident at an earlier stage why it was not taking this, or any other action. Communicating with the resident would also have reassured him that his reports were being considered by the landlord. Not taking this action amounted to service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It was positive that the landlord offered mediation in April 2023, and then again subsequently. That was reasonable and appropriate given the resident’s reports. We have seen no evidence that the resident has taken up this offer. While there is no obligation on the resident to participate in mediation, the landlord has taken proportionate action that is in accordance with its policy by making the offer.

Handling of the resident’s concerns that he had been discriminated against/treated less favourably

The resident sent a number of emails to the landlord between April and October 2023 in which he raised concerns that he had been discriminated against/treated less favourably by it. In April 2023, the resident expressed his concerns that it had not made an attempt to communicate with him in a way that was suitable. In another email on 29 July 2023 the resident raised concerns that it had directed him to report emergency repairs by telephone. He said it had ignored his communication preferences by contacting him by email and telephone. He also raised concerns that the landlord had discriminated against him when responding to his repair and ASB reports.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination in its complaint response of May 2023. It said it had reviewed what it had done and did not consider the resident’s complaint was warranted. Subsequently, after the resident continued to raise concerns about discrimination, the landlord offered to arrange for an independent complaints adviser to review these. That approach was reasonable, particularly as the resident had raised concerns about named staff members.
The landlord sought the resident’s consent to share information with the independent complaints adviser. Later, after it did not receive a response from the resident on this point it wrote to him outlining its decision to share redacted copies of information with the independent complaints adviser. It said that the complaint of discrimination would be considered by its board members, supported by the independent complaints adviser. It also explained that it could arrange for him to submit a statement or evidence. The landlord’s subsequent complaint response was detailed and thorough. Amongst other things, this acknowledged an oversight when the landlord had communicated with the resident by email, for which it had previously apologised. That was appropriate. The landlord implemented recommendations made by the independent complaints adviser. These included that it complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report. That was in respect of improving record keeping around vulnerabilities. It was positive that the landlord looked at ways it could learn and improve. We have recommended that it also review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.
As outlined earlier, it is not for the Ombudsman to make findings or a decision on whether discrimination had occurred. The landlord appropriately directed the resident to seek legal advice about pursuing this matter, should he wish to do so. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about how the landlord was meeting his communication needs. As set out earlier, it is appropriate for landlords to take reasonable steps to accommodate specific needs. But we have seen evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to maintain appropriate communication with him. It also took reasonable and appropriate action to review and respond to his concerns that he had been discriminated against/treated less favourably. Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these concerns.

Complaint handling

Complaint about handling of damp and mould, repairs and ASB reports

At the time of the resident’s initial complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. When it provided its complaint response to the resident in April 2023 it said that it had immediately raised the complaint at stage 2 of its process. It said this was due to the number of complaints the resident had made and the amount of work it had recently completed to the property. But that was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The reasons it provided did not justify missing a stage in its complaints process. Nor is there evidence it attempted to explain or agree this in advance with the resident. That was a complaint handling failing.
The landlord noted in its complaint response that it was responding to issues raised by the resident in a number of emails he had sent on 22 March 2023. But records the landlord provided do not contain any of these emails. That was a further record keeping failing. Without maintaining adequate records of the concerns raised it cannot adequately demonstrate that its complaint response appropriately addressed these.
It is also unclear why the landlord delayed until April 2023 before providing a complaint response. The resident had raised dissatisfaction on 30 January 2023 about its response to his repair reports and reports of mould at the property. He requested compensation. The landlord’s complaints policy from this time outlined that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service. In line with this, and the Code, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s communication of 30 January 2023 as a complaint. While it responded to this on 1 February 2023, it did not attempt to clarify if the resident wanted to raise the matter as a complaint. It should reasonably have done so. That was a further complaint handling failing. While the landlord provided a detailed stage 2 and stage 3 complaint response, we have found some failings in its handling of the resident’s reports that it did not identify or acknowledge. In addition, while the landlord told the resident that it would respond to his concerns about its handling of ASB reports in its stage 3 response of May 2023, it failed to do so. It should have ensured it final response covered all issues the resident remained dissatisfied with. That it did not was a further complaint handling failing which would have left the resident frustrated.

Handling of the resident’s complaint about discrimination/that he had been treated less favourably

By the time of its consideration of the resident’s complaint of discrimination, the landlord was using a 2 stage complaints process. While we have found that it provided a thorough and reasonable response to the resident, it is unclear why it did not do so using a 2 stage process. While it referred to the resident’s concerns about discrimination in a stage 1 complaint response of September 2023, it did not address these concerns at that time. Instead, it set out how it planned to respond to these. Nor did it explain in its response of November 2023 why it had not provided a full stage 1 response. We acknowledge the landlord went to considerable effort by involving an independent complaints adviser. But in line with the Code and its own complaints policy, it should have provided a full response at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process. This clearly confused the resident, who questioned in an email he sent the landlord later in November 2023 why it had escalated another matter to stage 2 without providing a stage 1 response. It was a further complaint handling failing.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It delayed raising the resident’s complaint about damp, mould and repairs. Its failings also meant he was not given the opportunity to have his concerns fully considered at all stages of its complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and mould on his health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that he had been discriminated against/treated less favourably.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
6. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £425, made up of:
  1. £75 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
  2. £125 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of his reports of repairs.
  3. £75 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of his reports of ASB.
  4. £150 for the impact of the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of providing a full complaint response at each stage of the complaint process.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review record keeping processes and training. This review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and with the aim of ensuring failings identified in this report are not repeated.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. provide the resident with its insurer’s details should he wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
2. review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.