Raven Housing Trust Limited (202213716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213716

Raven Housing Trust Limited

21 March 2024

(Edited on 4 February 2025 following a review)

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 of:
1. Issues with the bathroom extractor fan.
2. Problems with her shower.
3. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, owned and managed by the landlord. The resident has health problems and is also a full time carer for her father.
The provisions of the tenancy agreement set out the following:
1. Keep in good repair and proper working order any installations in the property provided by the landlord for:
  1. The supply of water;
  2. Sanitation.
2. Its general repair obligations include a duty to carry out repairs relating to water penetration, rising dampness and condensation dampness unless it is caused by a failure by the resident to properly ventilate and heat the property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will diagnose the cause of leaks, condensation, damp and mould and deliver effective solutions to address the root cause. It has a damp and mould procedure which sets out the steps it should take when damp and/or mould is reported. This includes determining whether investigation is required in adjacent properties. This report was published in September 2023, after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out 3 types of repairs. Emergency repairs which should be attended to within 24 hours. Routine repairs, which are not hazardous, should be completed within 28 days. Planned works, which are repairs or refurbishments that are not urgent, should be completed within 1 year or a longer planned cycle.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out guidance for landlords on identifying hazards in a home. This explains that mould is a threat to physical and mental health, which can lead to breathing difficulties and asthma, among other things.
The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. If the complaint is escalated, it will send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request. The policy also sets out an informal complaint policy, which the landlord has referred to as its “get on track complaint process”. This allows it to not raise a complaint formally, but only if it can be resolved with the resident’s agreement within 2 days. If this cannot be done, the complaint should be logged formally.

Summary of events

On 1 March 2022 the resident called the landlord and told it there was orange dust coming from her bathroom extractor fan. The landlord logged this repair and passed it to a specialist contractor. On 14 March 2022 the landlord chased the contractor and was told there was a 4-5 week wait, and the landlord updated the resident with this. The landlord has not provided any information about if this visit took place, and the outcome of any inspection of the extractor fan.
The landlord’s records show that the specialist contractor had visited previously on 3 February 2022, where it had noted that the fan did not appear to be working at full capacity, which could cause cold air to blow in and make the room feel cold.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 to report a problem with the shower. The contact notes stated that the shower was faulty, however it did not explain what the fault was at this time. As the shower had been installed under a local authority grant and was still under warranty, the resident was advised to speak directly with the company that installed it.
On 12 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about the orange dust, as she said it was staining her belongings and she was concerned for her health. The landlord contacted the specialist contractor at this time and the contact notes state that it said it had left the fan working on its last visit, however no specific information about this visit has been provided by the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2022 to say that there was rain water coming down a pipe in to the storage room. She said the walls were damp which was making the bathroom cold. She was also concerned about living under a neighbour who would not communicate with her or the landlord.
An internal email of 28 July 2022 noted that the landlord was aware the resident had raised a complaint a few weeks before, but it had not been logged. The resident chased up the complaint on 1 August 2022 and 18 August 2022, when she said she was frustrated at having to chase this up. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 August 2022, but said that it was using its get on track process, and had not logged the complaint formally. It did not provide any timeframe for a resolution.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord called the resident to arrange a visit from a surveyor on 8 September 2022. The surveyor’s report made the following observations:
1. There was a slight discolouration to carpets between the bedroom and bathroom doors, but this was from wear and tear and there was no sign of orange staining. It said there was slight discolouration to the grouting in the bathroom, but that this was at normal levels for a wet room with no fitted windows, and just required regular cleaning.
2. The resident had reported that the extractor fan was letting in a draught. The surveyor only noted that a contractor had previously inspected this, and did not comment on whether the fan was working effectively.
3. Someone would be attending that day to inspect the shower.
4. The resident had reported cracks to the ceiling and wall in the lounge and bedroom, however no cracks had been identified by the surveyor and they had included photos with the report.
5. The report detailed what was found in each room, but did not note that the storage room, where the resident said there was a leak, was inspected.
On 27 September 2022 the resident asked that the complaint be logged formally, and the landlord confirmed the same day that it had logged this.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 11 October 2022, in which it stated the date the resident raised the complaint as 18 August 2022. It said that there was no orange staining visible to the carpet and there were no outstanding repairs. It said that a previous visit on 11 May 2022 noted that the extractor fan was working, however there is no record of this visit in the landlord’s repairs log, and no record of any service or repair carried out after it was identified in February 2022 that the fan was not working properly.
The response said that no subsidence was found and there were no cracks in the walls, only some paint marks. It said that it had found no evidence of rising damp, reported by the resident. The landlord apologised for the delay in raising the complaint and offered £50 compensation for this delay. On 8 November 2022 the resident let the landlord know she wanted to take the complaint to this Service, and so the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
The resident reported that her shower was not working on 13 November 2022. There was a burnt out switch, which was replaced by the landlord on 14 November 2022. The resident told the landlord on 14 November 2022 that there were still problems with the shower and she felt that her complaint had not been taken seriously.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord visited the property and raised corners of carpets in the living room, hallway and bedroom to carry out damp readings. It also checked the roof at this time, cleared outlets and gulleys and sealed around caps on vent pipes. The readings did not find any moisture however the landlord agreed to fit sensors to test further, which were fitted on 19 December 2022. On this date the resident reported a bulge in the ceiling. The landlord noted that there was no crack and said it was “probably” just a joint between concrete panels.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 to chase its stage 2 response, which it sent the next day. It said it was awaiting data from the sensors and would update her once this was retrieved. It said it did not know what was causing staining to the fan, so it agreed to renew the fan and the affected grouting. The renewal of the fan was booked for 3 January 2023 and the grouting for 23 December 2022. It had also booked an appointment for 4 January 2023 to check the vent pipe on the roof. It offered an additional £100 compensation for the overall complaint handling process and required return visits.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2023 again reporting water ingress into the stack pipe in the storage room. On 18 January 2023 the landlord offered the resident a further £100 compensation plus an additional £80 for her to have her carpet cleaned. It said that this was because it had agreed to replace the fan and grouting, although it could not determine the cause of the staining.
The landlord was not able to complete the appointments agreed in the stage 2 response as the resident was not available. The extractor fan was replaced on 26 January 2023, and the regrouting was completed on 27 February 2023. At the same time, a water test was done on the roof vent, with no sign of water coming into the property. The landlord said it would recheck when it was raining.
During February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord several times to complain about the bathroom being cold and requesting a larger radiator. On 23 February 2023 the landlord attended to complete a repair to a leak under the kitchen sink, located in the hot feed pipe to the tap. It also replaced the taps at this time.
On 27 February 2023 the resident raised a further complaint (complaint B) as she was unhappy with the investigation carried out on the roof. She had been told a dye would be used and said this was not used. On 7 March she told the landlord that rain water was coming into the property and sent it a video. She advised the landlord at this time that she was now a full time carer for her father. On 9 March 2023 the landlord discussed internally that it needed to urgently make contact with the leaseholder in the flat above to gain access to investigate. It also contacted the company that had renewed the roof as it believed it to still be under warranty, and it updated the resident.
The landlord’s internal email records of 14 March 2023 noted that there had been around 23 visits since June the previous year for various reasons and that contact should have been made with the leaseholder above to gain access.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to complaint B on 16 March 2023. It explained that dye was not used as it could have stained the carpet and walls if there was a leak. It offered £25 compensation for this miscommunication. It acknowledged that it still needed to look into the stack pipe issue and offered £50 compensation for the delay. It said that none of the issues with the property left it uninhabitable but if she was unhappy with the property she could register for a swap. It had ordered a new radiator for the bathroom but there was an issue with stock availability and it offered £25 compensation for this delay. It confirmed that the moisture sensors had not registered high humidity.
On 17 March 2023 the resident acknowledged the landlord’s stage 1 response, but said she was suffering with stress and had not yet read the email. On 21 March 2023 contact notes show that she remained unhappy with the outcome and the landlord said she would receive a formal response, however it later closed the complaint, saying that she had not escalated it.
The landlord visited the property on 23 March 2023 and the resident had moved items out of the storage room to allow access. It noted that the wall was stained but currently dry. It said that the cracking to walls was normal thermal cracking which would be covered under the next round of decorating. There was no mention of it looking at the reported bulge in the ceiling. It knocked on the door of the flat above to try to get access but there was no answer. It said it would arrange access above and look at the stack pipe and ceiling for water ingress.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord attempted to contact the leaseholder in the flat above and left voicemails on both numbers it held on file. It said that it would hand deliver two copies of a letter – one in a letterheaded envelope and one in a plain envelope in case they were ignoring contact from the landlord, in the hope this would prompt them to contact the landlord.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord had still not been able to make contact with the leaseholder above. It said it had read the terms of the lease and realised it had the jurisdiction to force entry and carry out any necessary works. The next day it updated the resident that it would be attending and forcing entry on 29 June 2023.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord visited the property. It found no issues with the roof so it suspected moisture may have been trapped in an unventilated airing cupboard. It forced entry to the flat above and found issues with the cold water storage valve, which was not shutting off.
On 6 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord asking to raise another complaint (complaint C). She said that the overflow from the flat above was constantly running and soaking the path outside her house. She also said that the shower head was on the wrong wall and there was only one hand rail, making it hard for her to shower due to slipped discs in her back. The resident asserts she told the landlord she may have cancer, with an operation due on 25 September 2023. She said water was also backing up from the shower drain which was making the shower slippery. The landlord’s records show that a work order was raised the same day for these issues with the shower.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 July 2023, again confirming that she wanted a complaint raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 July 2023. The next day the resident confirmed that the stack pipe leak was also ongoing and that the issues complained about were having an impact on her mental and physical health.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to complaint C on 4 August 2023. It did not provide any response about the stack pipe leak. It said the resident had complained about a lack of call backs but said that its records showed it had made call backs where requested. It said that it could not find any reports of problems with the shower, and that if it was not working she should report this. It did not acknowledge what she had said about the single hand rail and issue with the shower head not being on the correct wall. It confirmed that a new radiator was fitted in the bathroom on 20 March 2023.
The resident responded on 5 and 7 August 2023 to say that she was unhappy as she did not feel there had been a proper investigation. She said she had been showering at her Dad’s house as the location of the shower head meant “she had to hold on for dear life”. She said the pipes were banging and dirty water was still coming up from the waste pipe. She asked to be put on the transfer list for a property closer to her Dad and requested that the complaint be escalated to stage 2.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged her escalation request. It sent its stage 2 response to complaint C on 5 September 2023. It had visited the property on 31 August 2023 to look at the external leak. It said that it would contact the property above to try to fix this, but if it could not, it would arrange for pipe alterations to divert the water. It said it would be fixing the problem with the shower waste pipe and would need to gain access to the flat above to investigate further in relation to the stack pipe leak. It said it would service the extractor fan and would look into a home move for her. It offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It also offered £100 compensation for an uncompleted radiator repair, which is not related to the issues investigated here.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 and 15 September 2023 to say that there was black mould growing in the bathroom, and said she thought it was unacceptable to live in the property as it was dangerous. On 20 September 2023 she told the landlord it was raining and water was leaking from the stack pipe and in the bathroom.
The landlord completed a mould wash on 21 September 2023 and it also forced access to the flat above and found that the cistern was overrunning, and the floor was wet. These issues were fixed by the landlord, however the pipe in the resident’s storage room was not leaking at this time. The landlord booked in the boxing of the stack pipe for 24 October 2023.
On 4 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again about the location of the shower head and the leak on the stack pipe. On 9 October 2023 the landlord agreed to fit an additional hand rail in the shower, and said it would schedule boxing/insulation around the stack pipe.
On 19 October 2023 the resident let this Service know that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. On 8 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to let her know that she had been approved for a management move and had been added to the waiting list.
On 24 October 2023, the landlord states it noticed the leaking stack and on 9 November 2023 the landlord visited the property and found that damp readings were high. On 15 November 2023 it replaced the stack pipe that was deemed to be leaking beneath the floor and on 22 November 2023 follow up moisture readings showed that the moisture levels had gone down by 80%.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to propose changes to the shower that would raise the tray and allow a gravity waste pipe to be fitted to resolve the waste pipe issue with the shower. The resident confirmed she was happy with this proposal. An appointment was booked for 8 January 2024. During a call with this Service prior to investigation, the resident said that the landlord had also relocated the shower head to a different wall at this time. She also told this Service that her kitchen had flooded around the end of February/beginning of March 2024, and that this was due to an issue with the waste pipe, which she felt was related to the previous kitchen sink repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this Service appreciates the resident feels the flood from her kitchen sink was related to other drainage problems that have contributed to the damp and mould problems, no evidence has been provided that this is the case. The kitchen flood happened some months after problems with the shower waste pipe was repaired, and around a year after a previous problem with the kitchen sink. The resident has told this Service that the recent issue related to the waste pipe, as it was dirty water that flooded the kitchen, however the landlord’s records show the previous issue with the kitchen sink was with the hot water feed pipe. If the resident wants to pursue this issue, she would need to first raise it with the landlord and exhaust its internal complaints process.

Issues with the bathroom extractor fan

The landlord was not able to ascertain the cause of the orange staining within the resident’s property. Its records from the time the resident initially raised the problem in March 2022, and the following months when the landlord supposedly had the fan serviced, are not clear. The landlord did, however, replace the extractor fan with a new one in January 2023, and offered the resident compensation of £280, including £80 for her to have her carpets cleaned.
The Ombudsman considers that at that time, this amount was fair to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during the period of 10 months where the orange staining continued after she had reported it. The redress allowed for her to arrange for the carpet to be cleaned, and the landlord renewed the stained bathroom grout. However, since the extractor fan was replaced, the resident has reported that the bathroom is cold.
The landlord did fit a new, larger radiator at the resident’s request on 20 March 2023. However, the resident has continued to report to the landlord that the bathroom is cold, and also reported damp and mould overgrowth in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor took apart the extractor fan on 21 September 2023, but found that the damp and mould issues were attributed to the overflow from the leasehold airing cupboard in the flat above.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of issues with the bathroom extractor fan. It did take steps to fix the original issue with the orange dust by replacing the extractor fan, and it installed a new radiator at the resident’s request. However, it has not provided evidence that it inspected the extractor fan to ensure it was working properly and was not letting in rainwater and/or a draught. The landlord offered compensation of £25 for the delay in installing the new radiator in its stage 1 response to complaint B on 16 March 2023, however this is not enough to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £50 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the continued issues with the extractor fan. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £355.

Problems with the shower

When the resident first reported a problem with the landlord, it is not clear from the evidence provided what the problem was, and if it was related to the problems the resident reported later. However, at that time the shower was within warranty, and as it was not installed by the landlord, the landlord advised the resident to speak to the company that installed it, which was not unreasonable. The information provided by the landlord does not show whether she spoke to that company at that time, however she did not contact the landlord again about the shower problem at that time.
The resident next reported a problem with the shower on 13 November 2022, where it was found by the landlord that a switch had burnt out. This was repaired by the landlord on 14 November 2022, within its repair policy timeframe, so the landlord acted reasonably at this time.
The first evidence of the resident reporting having difficulties with the location of the shower head was on 6 July 2023. She made it clear to the landlord that she had health issues, including slipped discs in her back, which were making it difficult for her to use the shower in its current position. In its stage 1 response of 4 August 2023 it said that it did not have any reports of any problems with the shower and that she should raise these. It did not acknowledge what she had said about the location of the shower head. The resident had clearly raised the issues with the shower with the landlord on 6 July 2023, so it was inappropriate for it to not respond to these issues and ask her to raise them again.
The resident made it clear in her response of 7 August 2023 that she was finding the shower so difficult to use that she was showering elsewhere. At this time she also made the landlord aware of the problem with the waste pipe. In its stage 2 response of 31 August 2023, the landlord said it would be fixing the problem with the waste pipe, but again did not comment on the problems the resident was having with using the shower. It was not until 4 October 2023 that the landlord acknowledged this issue and said it would fit an additional hand rail in the shower.
The landlord did not propose a solution to the waste pipe issue until 19 December 2023, which was then completed on 8 January 2024. At this time the landlord also relocated the shower head, as the resident had originally requested. This was 6 months after she first reported having difficulties showering, and 5 months after she reported the waste pipe issue. These issues were not fixed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with her shower. The resident had to raise the difficulties she was having with showering, including reference to her mobility issues, several times before the landlord acknowledged this, and it took too long to take action in relation to both issues. The problem with the waste pipe was at the very least unpleasant, but could also have represented a health hazard. It could also have contributed to the damp and mould problems investigated below.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing works to the shower.

Damp and mould

On 22 July 2022 the resident told the landlord rain water was coming down into the storage room and as a result the walls were damp and this was making the bathroom cold. The landlord did arrange for an inspection on 8 September 2022 but it was not detailed in this report that it was a full damp and mould survey, and it appears to have been a visit to look at all the different issues the resident had raised. Despite the resident having raised the damp issue as coming from the storage room, the report does not state that this room was inspected. It said in its stage 1 response of 11 October 2022 that it had found no evidence of damp, but it had failed to inspect the room that the resident had reported damp in.
The resident again reported leaking in the storage room on 14 January 2023. Whilst the landlord did carry out a test to the roof in February 2023, it said it would test again when it was raining, and there is no evidence it proactively arranged to do this. It acknowledged on 9 March 2023 that it needed to gain access to the flat above, but it did not attempt to contact the leaseholder above until 6 April 2023. It was not until 19 June 2023 that the landlord realised it could force access under the terms of the lease, which was 3 months after it had first acknowledged it needed to inspect the flat. When it did force access, it found an issue with a valve, which could have been found much sooner.
Despite a large number of repairs appointments by the landlord, the issue with the stack pipe in the storage room was not resolved until October 2023, 15 months after the resident first reported it. This Service issued its spotlight on damp and mould in September 2021, which directed all landlords to self-assess against this. The landlord did not issue its self-assessment until December 2023 and its damp and mould policy and procedure documents were not issued until September 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord did not have a robust damp and mould policy in place when the resident reported the issues, which contributed to it not having acted in a proactive manner in this case.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord did not arrange a full damp and mould inspection. It also did not communicate clearly with the resident about the plan to access the flat upstairs, nor did it monitor the situation, given multiple reports of the same issue. Its failure to identify the cause of the leak early on led to black mould growth in the bathroom, meaning the landlord failed to meet its obligations under the HHSRS, as well as not resolving this issue in line with the timeframe in its repairs policy.
The landlord offered compensation of £75 at stage 1 of complaint B and £200 at stage 2 of complaint C in relation to the stack pipe and the distress and inconvenience caused by this. The Ombudsman does not consider these amounts enough to recognise the impact on the resident of the time taken to resolve this issue. The landlord failed to resolve the leak until 2 months after it completed its internal complaints process, and more than a year after the issue was reported. It also failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when dealing with these issues.
An order has been made to pay the resident further compensation of £400, bringing the total compensation for the damp and mould issues to £675. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a full damp and mould survey, which must include inspecting the extractor fan in the bathroom and ensuring the property is warm enough. It must then put together a schedule of required works to resolve any outstanding issues.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.
The landlord failed to log complaint A when it was raised by the resident, and whilst it noted that it had been raised earlier in its internal communications, in its stage 1 response it said that the resident had raised the complaint much later than she actually had. It further delayed the logging of a formal complaint by initially using its “get on track process”. This was inappropriate as by the time it tried to use this process, it had already been more than a month since the resident had raised the complaint, and so it was not suitable for this informal process.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that the complaint should be responded to within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. However, the landlord did not send its stage 1 response until 63 working days after the resident raised it, which is an unreasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also slightly delayed, sent 27 working days after escalation, outside the 20 working day timeframe set out in the policy. This was sent after the resident had needed to chase a response from the landlord. This response failed to fully consider the impact of the issues on the resident, and it was not until a month later that it acknowledged the orange staining to her carpet and offered further compensation to pay for her to have this cleaned. This should have been considered before it exhausted its internal complaints process.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to complaint B again did not state the correct date the resident logged it, and this incorrect date is likely what led to it taking 3 days too long to respond to the complaint. By not accurately logging when a complaint has been received, the landlord has put itself in a position where it has made it more difficult to establish what its deadlines should be.
The landlord noted that the resident remained unhappy with its response, and said it would send her a formal response, but did not follow through with this. It later said that she had not requested escalation and closed the complaint. When she contacted the landlord again on 6 July 2023 about the same issues, it should have reopened the complaint and issued a stage 2 response, however instead it logged a new complaint – complaint C.
It did not write to the resident to acknowledge the new complaint until 11 working days after it was raised, which was already outside the timeframe it should have responded in. Its stage 1 was then sent 21 working days after the complaint was raised. The stage 2 response was sent 21 working days after the escalation request, which was only 1 day late.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It did not log complaints when they were raised, leading to delays in its responses. It should not have closed complaint B without sending a stage 2 response, as this would have allowed the resident to bring the complaint to this Service at that time. And, when complaint C was raised, the landlord should have instead reopened complaint B and sent a stage 2 response for that complaint. These delays protracted the complaints process and delayed the resident in being able to refer her complaint to this service.
The landlord offered £50 compensation during complaint A specifically for delays in its complaint handling. It did not offer any compensation for its complaint handling failures during complaints B and C. It has failed to adequately recognise its complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaints. It did not respond to any of the 3 complaints within a reasonable timeframe, and by raising the third complaint, it protracted the complaints process by more than 5 months.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £250.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint logging procedures to ensure that its staff understand how to recognise a complaint and log them correctly when they are first raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the bathroom extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with her shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord initially took reasonable steps to resolve the issue with the extractor fan and compensated the resident, it failed to consider the further issues she raised about the extractor fan.
The landlord did eventually resolve the issues with the resident’s shower, however this was not until 3 months after it had concluded its internal complaints process. It did not act in line with its repairs policy in handling the repairs.
The landlord failed to carry out a full damp and mould survey, and so did not meet its obligations under the HHSRS as the damp issues were not resolved in a reasonable timeframe, allowing mould to form.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaints in a way that was customer and resolution focused. In failing to escalate complaint B and setting up a third complaint when it should have reopened complaint B, it allowed the complaints process, and likely the substantive issues, to be protracted unnecessarily.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,430, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints processes, broken down as follows:
1. £355 for the landlord’s handling of issues with the bathroom extractor fan.
2. £150 for the landlord’s handling of issues with the shower.
3. £675 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the impact these issues had on her.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.
The landlord to, with 8 weeks of this report:
1. Carry out a full damp and mould survey to check for any outstanding damp and mould issues. This should include inspecting the bathroom fan. A schedule of repairs should be compiled if there are outstanding issues. A copy of the report, and the schedule of repairs if required, should be shared with the resident and this Service.
2. Carry out an inspection of the radiators and heating system to sure it is heating the property adequately. A copy of the report, and the schedule of repairs if required, should be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint about her stained furniture and to respond within 4 weeks with its response and an explanation of its decision.