Platform Housing Group Limited (202308458)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308458

Platform Housing Group Limited

29 May 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of damp, mould, and leaks.
2. Handling of repairs reported after the resident moved into the property.
3. Response to a concern raised regarding the fence boundary.
4. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2022 as part of a managed move by the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The landlord’s system has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident however no further details are included.
After the resident moved into the property, she raised issues with the condition of the property during phone calls or visits from the landlord which this Service has seen no record of. The landlord’s records however show the following:
1. On 9 and 11 November 2022, it responded to contact received from the resident regarding fencing around the property, asking her to provide photos and further details.
2. On 4 January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould and a roof leak.
On 18 January 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding repairs needed to the property. She said these concerned:
1. No safety check carried out to her log burner prior to her moving in.
2. An ongoing roof leak.
3. Damp and black mould in the property.
4. Birds were living in the loft.
5. A leak from the water pipe leading up to the water meter.
The resident explained that her son had a medical condition and living in these conditions would make it worse.
The landlord’s internal record dated 18 January 2023 indicate that it intended to handle the complaint under its early resolution stage. On 25 January 2023, it identified that due to the number of outstanding repairs, the complaint was not suitable for its early resolution stage.
On 27 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint issues as those outlined in her formal complaint. The resident replied on the same date telling the landlord that there was “a lot more to her complaint than had been stated”.
On 28 February 2023, the resident provided further details of her complaint. She stated regarding:
1. Damp and mould – mould had started to grow on freshly painted walls “straight away” after she moved in and had caused damage to her property. She said there was black mould behind the kitchen cupboards which smelt musty which needed rectifying. Poorly fitted windows were adding to the problem of damp and mould.
2. The roof leak – water from the roof was dripping down the walls and windowsills. She said this and poorly fitted windows were adding to the “major” problem of black and white mould. On reporting this to the landlord on 23 December 2023, she was given an emergency number to call which she did and was told to wait in for the next 24 hours however no one attended or contacted her. The resident said this happened 6 times in total on 10,11, 20 23 and 30 January 2023. The resident said this was unacceptable, as her son had a history of asthma, and she was concerned about the impact on his health.
3. Fencing – the fencing around the entire property was either missing, broken, or collapsed and she was told prior to moving in that she would “get help” with this due to the poor condition they were in.
In its email to the resident dated 2 March 2023 the landlord told her that it would provide a full response by 16 March 2023.
It subsequently called the resident regarding her complaint and on 5 April 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. Within its response it stated:
1. Regarding a safety check to log burner – it acknowledged that the resident was unable to use this when she moved in as no service had been completed. It said these works should have been conducted while her home was empty, between tenancies. The landlord stated that it was sorry for this oversight however the service inspection was now completed, and the burner was in full working order.
2. In relation to the ongoing leak in roof – it had identified that works to the roof were required including pointing around the window cills and house verge. It said that an operative attended on 2 February 2023 however found that scaffolding was needed for the work to be completed. The scaffolding was then erected however it apologised to the resident for her not having any communication about the repairs since. It explained this was due an error and told the resident the contractor would be in touch shortly with an appointment date.
3. In relation to black mould in the property – following her report it had applied mould treatment to the outhouse, bathroom, and utility room. The areas were repainted during two further appointments on 14 and 15 March 2023. It acknowledged that an external contractor advised of mould behind the kitchen cupboards and recommended taking the kitchen out, treating the areas of mould and allowing the area to dry before replacing the kitchen. The landlord told the resident it had made an appointment for an external contractor to complete a damp survey on 6 April 2023. It said it would contact her in relation to any works recommended in this damp report.
4. In relation to the facias and soffits damage – it acknowledged that during an inspection, its surveyor advised a job needed to be raised in relation to damage to the facias and soffits at the rear of the property. It said that an appointment for this work had been scheduled for 6 April 2023.
5. Regarding windows – during a visit to look at a blown glazed unit in her door, a contractor stated there were further glazed units that had blown and required replacement. It said it had raised this with its repairs team who would contact her shortly for an appointment to assess the windows.
6. Regarding evidence that the fence boundary between her and her neighbours’ property was incorrect and had been moved – it had raised this matter with its legal team. The landlord said its repair team would contact her shortly to arrange for a senior surveyor to inspect the boundary.
7. Works were completed by its plumbing contractor on 23 March 2023 however it acknowledged the resident was unhappy about the standard of these works as she said that the feed for the radiator in the back rooms was taken from the kitchen and the pipework was on show and unsightly. The landlord stated that it had passed her feedback to the team who authorised the works to be carried out.
8. Contaminated soil in the rear garden – she believed that prior to her moving into the property a neighbour had a fire in their garage and rotavated the debris into her rear garden because her dog had had seizures. The landlord said its health and safety team would be in touch regarding her request for the soil in her back garden to be tested.
The landlord said to summarise, the resident had experienced long delays in repairs being rectified since moving into her property and there were ongoing issues. Therefore, it was offering her £400.00 in compensation.
On 16 April 2023, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident stated:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had sent decorators before the root cause of the mould had been addressed.
2. She had waited in all day for repair contractors on 14 occasions due to a lack of communication from the landlord.
3. 4 different companies had come out in relation to the roof issue, but nothing had been done.
4. The work carried out to the fascia board on 7 April 2023 was “a bodge job”.
5. The damp contractor had not listened to her and was rude to her and her autistic son. She said they had wanted to ‘inject’ the kitchen cupboards from outside but there was damp behind the cupboards.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and said it would be in touch within 5 working days. On 26 April 2023, it told her that it aimed to provide a full response by 26 May 2023.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it needed more time to complete a thorough response and therefore it had extended the complaint timescale by 10 working days until 26 June 2023.
On 8 June 2023, the resident contacted this Service and told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs reported when she moved into the property and that some issues were still outstanding.
On 5 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response.
1. Safety check to the log burner – The apology offered at stage 1 for the lack of any service carried out while the property was empty was a fair response.
2. Ongoing leak roof and facias and soffits – Due to poor workmanship by a contractor in relation to the soffits and fascia, it agreed during its inspection on 5 July 2023 that all facias and soffits should be replaced on the main roof with a vented soffit, eve tray and a bird stop system. It said that the lower roof needed to have the ridge tiles removed and replaced with a dry system and again a vented soffit installed which will allow the roof to breath. Furthermore, the level of roof insulation needed increasing to improve the thermal insulation of the utility areas. However, the landlord explained that due to nesting birds in the roof, it would re-contact her in September 2023 to carry out a pre-work survey and to order materials to commence the works in October 2023. It said it was sorry for the delays incurred however this repair was now “back on track”.
3. Black mould in property:
  1. The damp report recommended damp proofing works to her home as the issue she was experiencing related to rising damp. It said that due to the construction of the building, the damp proofing works instructed could be delivered externally along the side external wall of the kitchen, bathroom and under the stairs wall. While it had discussed the possibility of a full damp proof course for the whole property, as previous damp proof works were completed in 2017, the damp contractor had only recommended works to the above stated areas. The landlord said that the damp contractors would attend on 7 July 2023 to carry out these works. It acknowledged and apologised for the resident receiving mixed messages delivered by some contractors however said this response should provide clarity.
  2. To aid ventilation in the understairs cupboard, it had instructed vents were installed in the door to allow for airflow to circulate in this space to minimise any future build-up of condensation. This work was completed on 6 June 2023.
  3. In addition, all fans in her home were checked to ensure they were operating correctly, and all works had been completed.
4. Windows – when the original windows had been replaced the brickwork had not been made good after installation. This work has been instructed and was partially completed on 21 June 2023 with a follow up appointment to complete the balance of the works on 17 July 2023. It had inspected the glazed window units, but as it found only minor misting to a couple of the windows, they were not to the level where they required replacing. The landlord agreed however to revisit the glazing in October 2023 to reassess.
5. Fence boundaries:
  1. It had inspected the boundary with her neighbours’ home and its legal team had confirmed the boundary was in the wrong place (this was denoted in the plan provided). It explained the access strip outside of her fence line should only be 1 meter wide whereas the neighbour had been using this access to pass and repass with a motor vehicle. It told the resident it would progress this issue through its legal team, however the neighbour may be able to establish a right of way over this section of land. Whilst it said it understood she would like the original boundary reinstated; the land held within the current fence line of her home was the land let to her. Therefore, irrespective of its ownership of the land outside this fence line, this does not form part of her tenancy with it.
  2. A small section of her garden had a shared boundary with the adjacent farmer’s field and as discussed at its last visit, it would erect a 1.2-metre-high chain link fence along this boundary as per its responsibilities.
6. Dissatisfaction with works completed by plumbing contractor – it agreed that the pipework to the radiator in the utility area could have been routed differently. The landlord therefore said it would move pipework as it was open to future damage in its current position. The landlord said it called her on 4 July 2023 to arrange these works however the resident advised she would come back to it with a convenient time.
7. Contaminated soil in the rear garden – unfortunately the visit from its health and safety team had not progressed due to the availability of an approved contractor to carry out this work. The landlord told the resident it had instructed its health and safety team to collect a soil sample to be sent to an independent soil laboratory and they would contact her in the week commencing 3 July 2023 to arrange this.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £400 to £650 for the further delays with repairs and offered £250 in compensation for the delay in responding to her complaints.

Post the landlord’s final response

The landlord’s more recent internal communications dated between 1 and 5 February 2024 refer to the resident’s disrepair claim. This Service made enquiries with the parties regarding the status of any legal proceedings who both confirmed these had not commenced, as such any disrepair claim does not affect our investigation.
On 21 May 2024, the resident told us the roof repairs, damp and mould issues and missing fencing remained outstanding as well as the resolution to the fence boundary issue. She also said the landlord had not discussed the results of the soil test.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints brought to our attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
In her communications to the landlord and this Service, the resident referred to antisocial behaviour experienced at her previous property from the neighbour and the impact of this. However, as the landlord provided its final response to this complaint on 22 February 2022, in accordance with para 42(b), this complaint is outside of jurisdiction and therefore will not be considered here.

Scope of this investigation

The resident explained the ongoing issues regarding the condition of the property had an impact on her mental health and her son’s physical health.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and her family and the actions of the landlord. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, the resident may wish to seek legal advice about bringing a personal injury claim. This element will not be investigated however consideration has been given to if the landlord considered any vulnerabilities when dealing with the issues raised.

Landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould, and leaks

Damp and mould

Damp and mould is listed as one the hazards identified under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and living with damp and mould has potential to impact on residents’ health. Therefore, in line with recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (spotlight report), published in October 2021, it is expected that landlords respond to such reports in a prompt manner by investigating the issue thoroughly to correctly diagnose the cause to address any damp and mould.
In this case the resident told the landlord that her son had a history of asthma as such this Service would expect to see evidence the landlord took her personal circumstances into account by prioritising her damp and mould reports.
Following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 4 January 2023 the landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on 11 January 2023. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy (repairs policy) does not include timescale for non-emergency repairs however on balance, the time taken to arrange this inspection was reasonable although this did not go ahead. Although its record notes this was due to resident being unavailable, this Service is mindful that throughout the timeframe considered the resident raised concerns regarding the landlord failing to turn up for appointments on multiple occasions including the inspection booked for 11 January 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out any process for notifying residents regarding repair appointments or any cancellations. Records of its communications with the resident regarding repairs appointments during the timeframe considered are lacking and show no clear system in place. It is evident that the landlord’s lack of clear process and at times poor communication around repair appointments led to the resident waiting in for appointments that were missed. This is a failing in the service provided by the landlord.
Following the (rescheduled) inspection on 24 January 2023 the landlord applied mould treatments to affected areas including to the outhouse, bathroom, and utility room on 24 February 2023 and on 13 March 2023, and then repainted these areas on 14 and 15 March 2023. While anti-mould treatments can stop mould growth, as mentioned above, unless the underlying causes of the damp and mould are also identified and addressed, the risk of further mould growth is ongoing. The landlord did take steps to further investigate the underlying cause as it instructed an independent damp contractor to further investigate the issue after a concern was raised by one of the landlord’s external contractors regarding damp behind the kitchen cupboards. This was appropriate however as this appointment took place on 6 April 2022 which was 3 months after the resident’s first damp and mould report, this indicates there was a significant delay by the landlord in taking appropriate steps to diagnose the root cause.
The damp contractor identified rising damp within the property and recommended a damp proof course along the side external wall of the kitchen, bathroom and under the stairs wall. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that as damp-proof works to the lounge had previously been provided in 2017, only damp proofing in the area recommended was needed. This approach was reasonable. The landlord also checked and fixed extractor fans throughout the property as well as installing vents in the upstairs cupboard to aid circulation. The landlord’s records indicate this work was completed on 6 June 2023. Such action was also appropriate.
While in its final response the landlord advised the resident that an appointment had been made for the damp contractor to attend on 7 July 2023 to complete the damp proof work, it is clear from its records that this was not completed at this time or at any stage since. In the landlord’s internal communications seen by this Service, it referred to the works being halted as the resident had “questioned them”. Regardless of whether the resident fully agreed with the scope of the damp proof work proposed, there is no evidence to suggest the resident declined the work offered or refused access.
Given that rising damp had been identified we would expect the landlord to take urgent steps to ensure this was fully addressed by completing the necessary damp proofing works. However, it is evident that the landlord did not make any efforts do so until around 7 months later after the resident engaged a solicitor in relation to a disrepair claim. This shows an unwillingness to manage the situation and a lack of urgency in the landlord’s approach to addressing the damp and mould issue at the property. It’s ongoing failure to complete the necessary work for more than a year is a serious failing by the landlord that would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household.
It is noted that information provided by the landlord shows it has self-assessed against the recommendations in the above-mentioned spotlight report. However, it is clear the landlord does not have any overall framework or policy in place to address damp and mould. Had it done so, the resident’s complaint regarding damp and mould may have been avoided.
Therefore, orders have been made below for the landlord to complete the damp proof works and for it to provide a timeline to this Service for publication of a damp and mould policy or framework.

Leaks

During the same timeframe the resident reported a leak from the pipe to the water meter running behind the kitchen. It is evident this was quickly resolved when the water company repaired this pipe. It is not known how long the pipe had been leaking however, it is reasonable to conclude this issue contributed to the damp and mould particularly behind the kitchen cupboards that the resident reported to the landlord. As there is no evidence to establish the landlord has resolved the damp in this area, an additional order has been included below.
The resident also reported a roof leak (when it rained) that she described as dripping water from the roof that ran down the walls. The repair records provided by the landlord indicate the resident first reported this leak on 5 January 2023; however, in her formal complaint the resident said she reported this issue to the landlord’s out of hours service on 23 December 2022, and was told someone would attend within 24 hours but no one did. The landlord has not disputed this or explained the lack of attendance at this time. Therefore, on balance it is accepted that the landlord failed to attend within the timescale given on this occasion. This shows it failed to act in accordance with its policy when handling this report. Furthermore, the lack of any record of the resident’s report of 23 December 2022 is indicative of poor knowledge and information management. This issue is addressed further below.
The landlord’s records show an inspection of the roof was scheduled for 20 January 2023; however, it missed this appointment but attended the property on 24 January 2023. While no leak was found by the landlord, during this appointment it identified various works were needed including pointing around the window cills and house verge and repairs to the fascia and soffits. Although this work was scheduled for 2 February 2023, as scaffolding was required and had not been organised, the work could not be completed during this appointment. It is noted that 2 months later at the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response, the scaffolding had been erected although the resident had not heard again from landlord in relation to the roof repairs.
As such, it is clear the landlord’s mismanagement of the roof repairs caused an unreasonable delay in progressing these in the months that followed her initial report. The landlord apologised for this delay in its response and explained this was due to a mix-up involving it incorrectly appointing 2 contractors. It also assured the resident that a contactor would be in contact with her to arrange the roof works and that the repair to the fascia and soffits would take place on 6 April 2023. While this went some way to putting right its failings, it did not provide the resident with a date for the roof works which would have been appropriate in the circumstances to manage her expectations. Its failure to do so would have caused additional distress and inconvenience.
Although the repair to the fascia and soffits went ahead as advised, during a further inspection that the landlord said was carried out on 5 July 2023, it deemed that the fascia and soffits on the main roof needed replacing due to “poor workmanship”. It explained in its final response that a vented soffit which would allow the roof to breath, an eve tray and a bird stop system was required. It also told the resident that further roof repairs were identified during this inspection including replacement of tiles on the lower roof with a dry system and additional ventilation. Again, records evidencing this inspection, or the findings have not been provided which is further evidence of inadequate knowledge and information management by the landlord.
It also told the resident that works to the roof could not take place at that time because birds were nesting, but it agreed to re-contact the resident in September 2023 to carry out a pre-work survey and order materials in order to commence the roof works in October 2023. It is accepted that legally, landlords are unable to disturb an active bird’s nest therefore, its response was reasonable. However, apart from installing insulation to the lower roof in July 2023, it is evident that the landlord did not contact the resident later in the year to complete the roof works, as promised. This work to the roof has not yet been completed by the landlord.
While the landlord maintained throughout there was no leak, the resident told us dampness in the loft on the walls remained a problem. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s ongoing failure to complete the necessary roof repairs are compounding the damp and mould problem at the property. This failure, in addition to the lack of damp proofing works demonstrates a failure by the landlord to appropriately tackle the root cause of the damp and mould problem or follow through with the actions it agreed in its final response. This is inappropriate.
This Service is mindful that despite our requests, the landlord has not provided records of its phone calls or meetings with the resident after she moved into the property when it is clear issues she later raised as a formal complaint were discussed at that stage. There are also missing records of phone calls the landlord refers to in its complaint responses. As a result, this has hindered our ability to assess its handling of events that led to the formal complaint as well contact during the complaints process. The landlord is required to keep records of its contact with residents which includes verbal communications. Its failure to do so is evidence of inadequate knowledge and information management. An order to address this has been included below.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for some of the failures identified above during its complaints process, and offered compensation of £650 for “long delays” although this was not only in relation to its handling of damp, mould and leaks but also repairs. Whilst this was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle to try to ‘put things right’, considering all of the circumstances of the resident’s case, including its ongoing failure to deliver some of the repairs promised, its inadequate knowledge and information management and poor communication, this amount does not reflect the extent of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. On balance, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 in compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused whilst handling reports of damp, mould, and leaks. This amount is in line with our Remedies guidance for maladministration at the higher end.

Landlord’s handling of repairs reported after the resident moved into the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy state emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours however no timescale is given for non-emergency repairs however its policy states resident will be offered a mutually convenient appointment.
On moving into the property, the resident raised various repairs that she said were needed to bring it up to a reasonable standard, as detailed below:

Wood burner

In her formal complaint the resident said that on moving into the property she found the wood burner was unusable as no safety check had been carried out by the landlord and that this still had not been completed. It is unclear from the available records, when the resident first raised this issue however following her complaint the landlord arranged for the burner to be serviced which was completed by the date of its stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2023 although the exact date is unclear.
The landlord has acknowledged the safety check should have been completed during the void period. Its failure to do so is evidence of it not acting in accordance with its obligation to ensure the safety and servicing of heating installations including open fires. However, by acknowledging this error and apologising to the resident, this indicates a willingness to learn lessons to avoid similar happening again as such this went some way to putting right this issue. Nonetheless, an appropriate order has been included below.

Plumbing and heating

The landlord appropriately engaged a plumbing contractor to assess reports of issues with various taps and the upstairs toilet. They provided a quote on 10 February 2023 to replace the taps and shower and to install 2 radiators in the back room that was found to be required. The landlord approved this, and the work was completed on 23 March 2023. On balance, the timeframe taken to address this issue was reasonable.
The resident however was unhappy with the quality of the pipework to the radiator in the utility area. In response, the landlord inspected the work and agreed this could have been routed differently and agreed to raise works to rectify this. Again, this action was reasonable. Evidence provided by the landlord indicates this work was completed on 14 July 2023 as such its handling of this repair was reasonable.

Soil in the rear garden

In her complaint the resident explained her dogs had seizures after she moved into the property, and she believed that the soil in the rear garden was contaminated due to the neighbour previously having fires and rotavated the debris into her garden. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its health and safety team would be in touch with her however it is evident that the landlord did not progress this over the next 3 months. While in its final response the landlord explained this was due to no availability of an approved contractor to carry out this work, its failure to contact the resident as promised shows poor communication.
It agreed however to obtain a testing kit and told her this would be sent off for testing by an independent soil laboratory and the results then discussed with her. It is evident that a sample was taken, the results of which the landlord told this Service showed “one minor contamination” that would not raise any cause for concern. The landlord has shared this report with us and while on balance we accept its interpretation of the report, the resident told us the landlord had not discussed the findings with her. As the landlord promised to do so in its final response, its failure to demonstrate that it followed through with its promise is evidence of a failing by the landlord.

Condition of fencing

In her formal complaint, the resident said the fencing boundaries of the property were either “missing, broken or collapsed” and that the landlord promised her help with this at the start of her tenancy. This service has not seen any evidence of what the resident was told at the outset however under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the boundary walls and fences.
In its final response, the landlord confirmed it agreed to erect a 1.2-metre-high chain link fence along the side boundary shared with the adjacent farmer’s field. This is in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement however it is unclear from its records if the landlord inspected all fence boundaries to the property to assess for repairs.
The landlord’s records show it raised work to replace the side boundary fence on 31 May 2023 with a target date of 30 July 2023. However, the landlord has not yet installed a fence along this boundary indicating it failed to adhere to what it promised. It told us in April 2024 that it had tried to carry out this work on several occasions but that the resident required a higher fence and a gate that opened onto the field which it was unable to provide. This service has not seen records showing any failed attempts.
As such its handling of this issue was unreasonable. In the circumstances, an appropriate order is included below for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange to install the promised replacement fencing to the side of the property and to inspect all other fence boundaries to assess if any further repairs or replacement of boundary fences are needed.

Windows

In her formal complaint the resident raised a concern about poorly fitted windows at the property which she said was contributing to the damp and mould issue.
The landlord’s records show it inspected the windows and carried out pointing work around the windows and cills and house verge. This was appropriate. However, when a contractor suggested that some window units may need replacing due to then being “blown”, the landlord inspected the windows and told the resident that as “misting” to some of the windows was minor, they did not need replacing. As the landlord explained why it disagreed with the contractor and agreed to revisit the issue 3 months later in October 2023 to assess if they have degraded to the point where replacement would be required, this was reasonable. The landlord however told us in April 2024 that it had not revisited to check if any of the sealed window units had failed.
Its failure to reassess the windows in October 2023 as promised is further evidence of it failing to do what it agreed in its final response, as such overall its response to the resident’s concern raised about the windows, was inadequate.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the landlord engage an independent glazing company to assess the condition of the windows with a view to carrying out any work recommended.

Conclusion

The landlord took steps to investigate the repairs raised by the resident however it did not provide all repairs within a reasonable timeframe and in several instances, it has not provided the actions promised in its final response. Therefore, overall, its handling of repairs fell short of what could reasonably be expected.
The landlord offered £650 in compensation in recognition of the long delays in the repairs being rectified however, because of the additional delay in addressing some issues due to the landlord failing to follow through with promises made in its final response, the redress provided has not resolved this complaint.

Landlord’s response to a concern regarding the fence boundary

Following her move into the property the resident put up fence at the rear of the property along the boundary between the property and her neighbour’s neighbour. Subsequently she found out by checking land registry records that the boundary line was incorrect and raised this with the landlord as part of her formal complaint, requesting that it move the fencing to the correct boundary line.
Following her formal complaint, the landlord agreed to inspect the boundary which it did. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that following legal advice it agreed that the boundary was in the wrong place as the access strip outside of her fence line should only be 1 meter wide whereas the neighbour had been using a larger area to pass and repass with a motor vehicle. It explained however that while it intended to progress this through its legal team, as the property was let to her with the land within the current fence line, its ownership of any land outside this fence line did not as it did not form part of her tenancy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to consult its legal team in order advise the resident of the correct position in regard to her enquiry concerning the accuracy of the boundary line in question. This Service appreciates that the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response and would like it to reinstate the original boundary line, so this land is included in the curtilage of her garden. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it clearly set out its position and on balance it is accepted that any steps taken to reinstate the original boundary would be up to the landlord as it is not obliged to do so under the terms of the tenancy.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated an early resolution (ER) stage whereby the landlord will contact the resident within 4 working days to resolve the issues. Its complaints procedure states if the issue cannot be resolved early the complaint will be acknowledged as a formal complaint within 5 working days of receipt. The landlord found that the resident’s complaint was unsuitable to consider under its ER stage due to the number of outstanding issues which was appropriate. However, it did not acknowledge it as a formal complaint until 7 working days later on 27 January 2023 indicating a minor delay.
While under its complaints process the landlord was required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 days, the landlord did not provide its response until 48 working days later on 5 April 2023. It is acknowledged that the delay until 28 February 2023 was because the resident told it that she wanted to add to her complaint and therefore the landlord is not responsible for this part of the delay. However, the landlord did not provide its response until 26 working days later on 5 April 2023, missing the deadline of 16 March 2023 it gave to the resident. The landlord did not explicitly acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its stage 1 response.
Although under stage 2 of its complaints procedure the landlord is required to provide a response within 20 working days, it took 54 working days for the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 5 July 2023 after the resident’s escalation request of 16 April 2023, missing the 2 deadlines it had given to the resident of 26 May 2023 and 26 June 2023. This is evidence of it failing to follow the timescales in its complaints process.
The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear that it expects landlords to address all points raised however it is evident that the landlord did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint in its responses. This included her concern raised about numerous missed appointments by the landlord which she reiterated in her stage 2 complaint, the leak in pipework leading to the meter and the behaviour of the damp contractor. Its failure to respond to or investigate these issues or assess if redress was appropriate is evidence of the landlord failing to properly or fully deal with the complaint and constitutes maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
While the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and offered £250 in compensation for this failing, as it did not respond to all the resident’s complaints, the redress provided was not sufficient to resolve all the failings identified indicating there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the reports of damp, mould, and leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling repairs reported after the resident moved into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the concern raised about the fence boundary.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this review.
2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £1,500 made up of:
  1. £1000 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble while handling the damp, mould, and leak reports.
  2. £350 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble while handling the reports of repairs needed.
  3. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble whilst handling the associated complaint.
3. Consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against these findings.
4. Provide a timeline to this Service for publication of a damp and mould policy or framework.
5. Complete the damp proofing and roof works promised in its final response. The landlord should also assess the kitchen wall at the property for damp and mould and take appropriate action to address any found.
6. Write to the resident to explain the findings of the soil sample taken and consider her request to share the report with her.
7. Review why the safety check to the log burner was not completed during its voids process and tell the Service what changes it will make in order to avoid this happening again.
8. Take steps to ensure it has all of the resident’s and her household vulnerabilities recorded on its system.
9. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Contact the resident to arrange to install the promised replacement fencing to the side of the property and inspect all other fence boundaries to assess if any further repairs or replacements are needed.
2. Arrange for an independent glazing company to assess the condition of the windows at the property and commit to following any recommendations made.