Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202324731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324731

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

29 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Reports of heating issues.
3. Concerns about the condition of the bathroom.
4. Concerns about the condition of the kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a joint tenancy with his wife. The evidence suggests they are assured tenants. It is unclear when their tenancy began. The family has 4 children who make up the rest of the household. Two of the children have disabilities. The property is a 3-bedroom house in a terrace with 4 similar homes. The landlord supplied information about the resident’s rent payments from 2022 onwards. It shows the weekly rent was £163.97 in 2022-23, £175.45 in 2023-24 and £188.96 in 2024-25. Based on the average annual increase, we estimated his weekly payments for the year 2021-22 to be £151.48. We then calculated his average monthly rent to be £679.88 for the period between 2021 and 2024.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in a reasonable state of repair. This includes the roof and walls. It is also obliged to keep any installations in reasonable repair and proper working order. This includes heating and sanitation equipment. The resident is responsible for minor repairs and maintenance, as well as decoration. The landlord’s applicable repairs policy shows it will take a proactive approach to repairs and maintenance to keep homes safe. It also shows the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 3 hours. It aims to complete general repairs within 10 working days. It has a 20 working day timescale for “repairs exclusions” (presumably non-standard repairs).
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy, effective October 2022, defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made” about the landlord’s service or actions. It shows the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. More time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed. It also shows, where a resident is left without heating, the landlord can supply temporary heaters and provide compensation for the costs of running them. The policy includes detailed guidance about the landlord’s approach to compensation and proportionate award levels. It shows the landlord can use a rent based calculation to compensate residents for a loss of amenity.

Summary of events

On 24 March 2021 the resident called the landlord about mould in the property. The landlord did not supply the call notes. In a follow up email, it asked the resident to complete its damp questionnaire and provide images of the mould. The email included a link to the landlord’s guidance around preventing and removing mould. On 7 April 2021 the resident returned his questionnaire by email. A number of images were attached. They appeared to show some black mould around a bathroom window and large patches of black mould around the property’s rear door. The key points from the resident’s questionnaire were:
1. There was mould in every room on the outside walls and doors.
2. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen. The bathroom had a fan but it was not working. A related repair order was raised on 24 March 2021.
3. There were no leaks and the property’s heating was working. The family used the heating whenever they wanted it.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord completed a desk-based review of the resident’s supporting information. This was 8 working days after his email was sent. Some COVID-19 restrictions were still in place at this time. The landlord noted the bathroom extractor fan was not working but the resident had already raised a corresponding repair. Its reviewer felt there was a condensation issue that was caused by the resident’s intermittent use of the heating system. The review notes said, given the levels of mould that were occurring, the resident should be given advice about mould prevention and asked to clean the affected areas.
From the landlord’s records, we were unable to confirm when it relayed its reviewer’s findings to the resident. The evidence suggests he was notified about them. This is based on call notes from January 2022. Separate repair records suggest the landlord attended to the bathroom fan on 20 April 2021. This was 17 working days after the repair was raised. The records did not include any information about the works that were completed. At this point, there was a gap in the evidence that lasted for several months. The resident’s subsequent comments to the landlord suggest he asked for a surveyor to inspect the mould during this period.
In an email to the landlord on 26 December 2021, the resident reported there was a lot of mould in the bathroom and the room was in a poor condition generally. He referenced cracked tiles and rust spots on the bath. There is no indication the landlord replied to his email. The evidence shows the property received a new roof and gutters around this time. It also shows some of the works were defective. The parties later agreed that these defects were a source of damp and mould issues around the property’s front and rear walls.
On 4 January 2022 the resident asked the landlord to send a surveyor to the property. He reported the living room and a bedroom were “still” damp. Call notes said he had previously asked for a surveyor in June 2021 but a visit had not taken place. The landlord’s related internal notes said it should provide the resident with advice around managing condensation. Due to the nature of the problem he reported and the rooms that were impacted, the evidence shows the resident was referring to a different issue at this point.
On 13 January 2022 the resident repeated his request for a surveyor. Call notes said the landlord had previously reviewed the situation and given advice. They show the resident reported he had followed the landlord’s advice but the property still had a “significant mould issue”. In related internal notes, the landlord reiterated its previous view about the cause of the mould. It asked some questions about the resident’s lifestyle. The resident responded to them several days later. Having reviewed his response, the landlord made an internal note on its system. It said the resident should be told to manage the situation himself.
The parties exchanged emails on 4 April 2022. The resident supplied images of damp and patches of missing enamel in the bath. The landlord did not provide copies of the images. In response, the landlord asked him to complete its damp questionnaire. It also said he should address the missing enamel. This was on the basis that a simple and inexpensive repair was required. The resident replied he had previously completed the questionnaire and the landlord should have a copy on file. The next day, the resident re-sent his original questionnaire to the landlord as it was unable to locate a copy.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord raised a repair order to its contractor. The repair notes said mould washing was needed to the bathroom and around the back door. They also said an extractor fan in the bathroom needed to be overhauled. This was around 12 months after the landlord’s previous bathroom fan repair. From the landlord’s records, we were unable to establish when these works were completed. It is noted the parties discussed outstanding repairs in July 2022 and they did not mention the works listed in the repair order.
Records show the landlord raised some relevant repair orders on 26 October 2022. An initial order said “please assess mould clean window to bed room 2”. A second repair order said the landlord should replace a wash basin and some tiles in the bathroom and renew any defective plaster. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s corresponding report. The records show the repairs were completed on 9 and 14 November 2022 respectively. This was within 20 working days. The records did not include any comments from the operatives.
On 19 December 2022 the resident emailed some photos to the landlord. The landlord did not provide copies but we obtained them from the resident. They showed large damp patches in the corners of a decorated room. The landlord replied the same day. It apologised and said it had passed the matter to its contractor. The resident replied completing an internal repair would be “pointless” unless the root cause was addressed. He felt the problems related to the property’s new roof and guttering. He said there were damp issues all the way down the front and rear walls. Records show a separate repair order was raised to the landlord’s heating contractor on the same day. The notes said 2 radiators needed thermostatic valves and they were only warming “slightly”.
The resident updated the landlord on 3 January 2023. He said he had completed some internal decoration works in December 2022 but they had since been damaged. He also said the damage was getting worse every day. He reiterated that the problem related to the property’s roof and gutters. There were similar images attached to his email. The landlord’s heating contractor attended the property on the same day. The contractor’s repair notes said a replacement radiator and valves needed to be installed. This was on the basis that an existing radiator was not heating properly due to an internal blockage.
Records show the landlord called the resident the following day. Subsequently, it told a different contractor to arrange a damp survey. On 5 January 2023 an order was raised to the landlord’s heating contractor. Corresponding notes said the property’s heating was “stuck on full [power]” and the controls were not working. They also said the water was scalding hot and there were vulnerable children in the property. The notes show the resident cancelled the order later the same day. They said he reported that a repair was no longer required.
Another heating repair order was raised the following day. It said there was a total loss of heating and hot water in the property. It also said the issue had been ongoing since the previous day. Records show the heating contractor attended the property around 2 hours later. Corresponding notes said the engineer suspected a valve was sticking. They also said the engineer tested the system and left the boiler in working order.
On 11 January 2023 the resident called the landlord about mould in the property’s bathroom. Call notes show he reported that there was mould all around the property, but the mould in the bathroom was caused by a different issue. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor completed a damp and mould inspection on the following day. A system note on 18 January 2023 summarised its findings. The note said there was damp behind tiles in the bathroom. In addition, the front wall of the property was “being saturated” due to issues with the roof and pointing. On the following day, the landlord instructed its operatives to raise a corresponding repair order to the contractor.
Records show the following events also occurred on 19 January 2023. The landlord’s heating contractor cancelled a prescheduled appointment to install a replacement radiator. Its related notes referenced staff sickness. The resident contacted the landlord about the appointment. Call notes said the visit “kept getting pushed back” and the resident “has had no heating since December [2022]”.
In an internal note on 24 January 2023, the landlord detailed more of its contractor’s findings from the recent damp survey. It said defective pointing, guttering issues, a non-working or ineffective extractor fan and mould had been identified. It said the works should be completed as soon as possible. Records show the landlord raised a number of repair orders and updated the resident on the following day. On 26 January 2023, the heating contractor installed the replacement radiator. Its records said the radiator was tested and it was working well. Its notes did not reference any replacement radiator valves. This suggests the contractor overlooked some of the landlord’s prior instructions.
On the next day, the resident asked the landlord why the old radiator had been left in the property’s front garden. Records show the landlord called its heating contractor and the radiator was removed on the same day. The resident subsequently reported a further issue. The repair notes said the newly installed radiator was not working so there was no heating. Records show the heating contractor attended the property again on 29 January 2023. The engineer’s notes said they had balanced the system and the new radiator was getting hotter. They also said the property’s heating and hot water were working. However, they said that the system may need power-flushing if the heating problem persisted.
The landlord’s repair records indicate it attended the property on 30 January and 7 February 2023 to complete mould washing works. Again, the records did not detail the operative’s findings or the specific tasks that were completed. In contrast, the landlord’s contact records show the resident reported a failed appointment on 7 February 2023. The notes said he “called to complain about an operative not turning up”. The evidence suggests these comments related to the mould washing. There is no indication the landlord raised a complaint at this point.
The resident reported another problem during the same phone call. The notes show he reported that the heating contractor advised the system needed power flushing but no-one had updated him since then. The notes also said the landlord had spoken to the contractor and the works had been scheduled. The contractor raised a repair order on the same day. Its notes said “child’s bedroom radiator not working, assess for work to be carried out”. They did not say that the system needed power flushing. The records point to a number of miscommunications from the landlord and its contractor at this stage.
The heating contractor attended the property on 10 February 2023. Corresponding notes detailed its findings. They said a power flush was required and a radiator valve needed to be replaced. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. Records show he was expecting the system to be power flushed during the contractor’s visit. Call notes said he was “very upset” with the contractor and the property’s living room had lacked heating since mid-December 2022. They also said the resident was worried about his children because the room was “freezing cold” at times. The notes referenced delays, rescheduled visits, repeat appointments and unnecessary repairs.
On 14 February 2023 the heating contractor attended the property again. Repair notes show the visit was intended to confirm whether the system needed power flushing. The resident did not allow the contractor to access the property.
In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said it completed a mould wash on 21 February 2023. In contrast, call notes from 22 February 2023 show the resident contacted the landlord about a mould wash that was meant to take place but did not happen. The notes said he wanted a surveyor to assess the mould as soon as possible. They also said the landlord’s general contractor felt a damp survey should not take place until its roofing contractor had visited the property. From the landlord’s records, we were unable to establish whether a mould wash took place at this point.
On 10 March 2023 the heating contractor attended the property again. Its notes said insufficient evidence was gathered during its previous visit to justify a power flush. They also said the resident was abusive during the visit. The resident complained to the landlord on the same day. He said the contractor had visited the property several times and the radiators needed to be drained. He also said it never brought the right equipment to complete this task. Call notes show he told the landlord that the contractor should not return to the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2023. It said it would issue a full response within 10 working days. It asked the resident how he wanted his complaint to be resolved. The resident replied around a week later. He wanted the landlord to send a different contractor to repair the heating. He said there was a single defective radiator when the problem began in mid-December 2022. However, due to the contractor’s inadequate repairs, 5 out of the property’s 7 radiators were currently defective. He felt the contractor dislodged sludge in the system by banging on the radiators. Other key points mentioned in the complaint were:
1. There were 6 people in the household and 2 of them were disabled.
2. The family lacked heating during a period of especially cold temperatures. They had bought extra blankets to stay warm.
3. There were mould issues “down the front and back” of the property due to the landlord’s defective roofing works. The landlord had not updated the resident about the situation and it took around 2 years to repair the gutters.
4. The bathroom was “completely full of mould”. There were holes and rust in the bath.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was 8 working days after its formal acknowledgement email. The response included the landlord’s timeline of events. It only addressed the resident’s initial complaint from 10 March 2023. The landlord accepted its service should have been better. It offered the resident £100 as a “goodwill gesture”. It said its heating contractor wanted to complete the repairs. In addition, it said it would speak to the contractor to try and improve its appointment scheduling processes. This was to ensure its engineers knew why they were attending. Its limited response shows the landlord overlooked the resident’s email about his preferred complaint outcome.
The resident replied the same day. He said the landlord’s timeline and understanding of events was “completely wrong”. He reiterated he would not allow the heating contractor to return. He offered to arrange the repairs himself and invoice the landlord. He also said his complaint had not been resolved. On the following day, the landlord progressed the complaint in its system and called the resident. This was to gather information about his preferred outcome. Call notes show it offered to arrange the repairs with its heating contractor. The resident reiterated that the landlord should source an alternative contractor. This was the fourth time he had reiterated his position on the contractor.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord issued a formal stage 2 acknowledgement. It said the landlord would issue a full response within 20 working days. On 20 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for its response. Several days later, he declined a gas safety check that was due to be completed by the heating contractor. The evidence shows the landlord changed its heating contractor in early June 2023. Soon afterwards, it visited the property to discuss the resident’s complaint. Subsequently, it instructed its new contractor to undertake a full inspection of the property’s heating system.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 July 2023. This was around 15 weeks after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord acknowledged the delay. The response addressed the property’s heating, mould and damage to the property’s decoration linked to defective external repairs, the condition of the bathroom and “kitchen disrepair”. The landlord accepted there had been unreasonable delays, damage to the resident’s property, miscommunication and complaint handling issues. It offered him a total of £470 in compensation. Other key points were:
1. The landlord would replace a missing radiator, power flush the heating system and leave it balanced and fit for purpose. It was confident its heating service would improve under its new contractor.
2. It acknowledged that 2 recently decorated bedrooms had been damaged. Its compensation award reflected this recognition.
3. It would renew the bath for safety reasons and make good after the works. The property would receive a full replacement bathroom in the future as part of a cyclical improvement programme. The programme would “take account of wall tiles and [ensure] mechanical ventilation [was] in place”.
4. The property’s kitchen was generally fit for purpose. However, a repair order had been raised to refit a panel and replace a base unit under the sink. The kitchen would also be renewed during a future cyclical works programme (the response did not say when these programmes would occur).
5. The landlord would complete the identified works within a reasonable timescale. Its compensation comprised £70 for the delayed stage 2 response, £150 for decoration materials, and £250 for the various heating issues.
On 15 July 2023 the resident supplied his bank details to the landlord. This was so it could arrange the compensation. Subsequently, he chased the landlord on 8 August 2023. He said he had not been contacted in relation to the bath or kitchen repairs and his compensation was still outstanding.
In internal correspondence on 15 September 2023, the landlord said the heating works it agreed at stage 2 were outstanding. It also said the resident was assured its service would improve under the new heating contractor. However, he had taken time off work on 3 occasions but the corresponding appointments were cancelled at short notice. The landlord said it would raise the new contractor’s performance during an internal meeting. In addition, it would arrange a £400 compensation payment for the resident. It also said:
1. The property’s bathroom was not due to be renewed until 2037. The property’s kitchen was due for replacement in 2024.
2. An urgent plumbing job should be raised to replace the bath. The existing bath was rusty and it presented a health and safety risk due to “jagged edges on the lip”. The landlord noted there were young children in the property.
3. Although the kitchen was due to be replaced, the landlord felt it should complete the kitchen repairs as promised.
In an internal note by the landlord on 29 September 2023, a compliance manager said the resident was “chasing [the landlord] daily” about the outstanding bath replacement. They also said his son had cut himself on a “jagged rusty edge”. Several days later, the landlord’s new heating contractor told the landlord it had completed all of the necessary repairs on 29 September 2023. The contractor’s records suggest “a full power flush” was completed around this time. This was around 9 months after the initial heating repair order was raised.
In October 2023 the resident chased the landlord 3 times. His initial email said the landlord’s contractor cancelled an appointment to replace the property’s bath because the necessary parts were not in stock. The resident also said the bath was a standard size, the matter was a safety issue, and his compensation was still outstanding. He subsequently reported that another appointment was cancelled, the landlord did not respond to his previous email, and it had not called with an update as promised. He said his son had injured himself twice on the bath. In a subsequent email, he said the landlord had not replied to his previous communications and he had opened a case with the Ombudsman.
In late January 2024, the resident reported the kitchen repairs that the landlord promised in its stage 2 response were still outstanding. On 2 February 2024, the landlord told him that the kitchen was due to be renewed during a cyclical works programme in the financial year 2024/25. Subsequently, the resident chased the repairs again in March and April 2024. At this point, he told the landlord it had not fulfilled a previous commitment to update him.
There was a failed repair appointment in mid-May 2024. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows the works could not be completed because a contractor arrived with a replacement kitchen unit that was the wrong size. A subsequent contact record said the resident was “really upset” because “a contractor [had] attended and just left”. The above suggests there were 2 failed visits around this time. From the landlord’s records and correspondence, we were unable to establish when it replaced the kitchen unit.
On 25 November 2024 we called the resident to discuss his complaint. He told us there was an ongoing mould issue related to overcrowding and the design of the property. He described the problem as “slight to moderate” and said it impacted several areas. He also said there was previously a “severe damp and mould problem” linked to a defective guttering repair. He also told us the problem impacted 2 bedrooms but the living room was the most affected area. His other key points were:
1. The main damp issue was resolved when the landlord completed external repairs around October 2023. The impacted rooms were still damaged. This was partly because the landlord’s compensation did not cover the cost of decorating materials.
2. The resident had stopped reporting the ongoing mould because the landlord kept repeating the same treatment actions. Among other measures, he cleaned the affected areas himself every 2 weeks or so.
3. The landlord replaced the bath around November 2023. It eventually replaced the kitchen base unit, but an agreed repair to an end panel was still outstanding.
4. The resident wanted the landlord to improve its performance. He said it was often unresponsive and there were problems with its contractors. He also said it was running out of time to complete a kitchen upgrade within its promised timescale.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any injuries, damage to health or loss of earnings.

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

The timeline points to significant problems with the landlord’s damp and mould handling. The evidence suggests the resident reported damp and mould issues around 7 times between March 2021 and October 2022. It is acknowledged the landlord completed some limited repairs during this period. The evidence suggests it attended the bathroom fan twice and completed some mould treatment works. Its relevant policy says the landlord will take a proactive approach to repair and maintenance to keep homes safe. In contrast, the evidence shows the landlord’s approach during this period was reactive and dismissive.
The resident’s initial report in March 2021 related to mould. At this point, the landlord took steps to repair a fan and provided guidance around mould prevention and lifestyle changes. Around 9 months later the resident contacted the landlord about damp. His report shows the problem related to different areas of the property. At this point, the landlord reiterated its previous guidance and questioned the resident’s lifestyle. This response was contrary to its policy approach, and was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. The evidence indicates the landlord told the resident to manage the situation himself. Landlords should not automatically blame residents for damp, mould or condensation issues.
Damp and mould are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is a risk-based approach. It confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. Inspections are used to assess, monitor and control hazards. Inspections should specify any required repairs. Reinspection is recommended to ensure any potential hazards are avoided or minimised. Usually, improvement works are the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent.
The evidence suggests the landlord did not adopt a comprehensive approach to the resident’s reports until around December 2022. At this point, he supplied it with pictures which appeared to show an extensive damp problem in at least 1 room. Significant damage should not have been necessary to prompt the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation. Given the persistence of the resident’s damp and mould reports, it should have been monitoring the situation proactively from a risk perspective in line with its repair policy and the HHSRS. This should have reasonably included exploring a range of options to mitigate the problem. It is often unreasonable for a landlord to keep repeating the same repair actions or treatment works. There is no indication the landlord took any of the positive steps mentioned above. Its approach was inappropriate.
Internal notes from January 2023 show the landlord subsequently identified defective pointing, guttering issues, a non-working or ineffective extractor fan and mould. It is noted that the landlord had attended to the fan a number of times before this point. There is evidence the landlord completed a number of repairs around this time. However, on 23 March 2023 the resident told the landlord there were ongoing mould issues down the front and back of the property and in the bathroom. His correspondence related to his stage 1 complaint. There is no indication the landlord engaged with his comments at this point. This was unfair and inappropriate given they related to a potential health hazard.
It is noted the landlord introduced a specific damp and mould policy in March 2023. The policy’s exact release date is unclear. The policy shows the landlord should undertake a comprehensive risk assessment if it identifies a severe or recurring damp/mould issue. It also shows an assessment can prompt the landlord to undertake a range of actions. These actions can include providing or funding dehumidifiers, the installation of positive pressure, mechanical or passive ventilation systems and, among other measures, dry lining walls. There is no indication the landlord completed a risk assessment at any point after March 2023. The evidence shows this was inappropriate in the circumstances.
From the landlord’s records and correspondence, we were unable to identify any damp or mould related repairs that took place after March 2023. In its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, the landlord implied it would address ventilation and tiling issues in the future as part of a cyclical bathroom improvement programme. It said the roofing works (in December 2021) created defects “that led to mould within bedrooms”. It accepted the resident’s decorations were damaged and awarded £150 in compensation for decorating materials. Given his previous reports and the comments in his complaint correspondence, the landlord took an unreasonably narrow view of the resident’s complaint. It should also have addressed any related distress and inconvenience the resident was caused. Its response was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it can make “goodwill payments” for minor decoration work required as a result of repairs. The policy confirms the recommended compensation rate is £50 per room. The evidence shows the landlord’s payment was in line with its policy (it felt 2 bedrooms were damaged). In his recent update to the Ombudsman, the resident told us the landlord’s payment would not cover the cost of his materials. For clarity, a landlord is entitled to refer liability claims, where a resident holds it responsible for damage to health or personal belongings, to its lability insurer before it raises a related complaint. This is often the most suitable means to address liability matters.
In this case, the landlord may be unable to raise a retrospective claim with its liability insurer. This is because it has already accepted liability for the damage. This could amount to a breach of its insurance policy. The Ombudsman has made a relevant order to resolve the matter fairly for both parties.
In his recent update to the Ombudsman, the resident told us the main damp issue (that impacted the bedrooms) was resolved around October 2023. Based on the period between 1 December 2021 and 31 October 2023, this was around 23 months after the property’s roof and gutters were replaced. He also said there was an ongoing damp/mould issue which he described as slight to moderate. He said he frequently vacuumed water droplets from the windows, kept furniture and belongings away from the walls, and used anti-mould treatment/washing products every few weeks. Based on the period from 24 March 2021 to date, the problem has been ongoing for around 44 months.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was unfair, unreasonable, inappropriate, contrary to its own policies, and contrary to the HHSRS at various points. It is reasonable to conclude the prolonged case timeline is a reflection of the landlord’s overall handling. The evidence shows the situation is a source of frustration and inconvenience for the resident. The evidence (including his images) suggests his enjoyment of the property is reduced. The landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures and it has not made a reasonable attempt to put things right. Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Though the approach has been applied in a different way, it is also consistent with the landlord’s relevant complaints policy. In line with our approach to compensation, the calculation includes separate elements to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of enjoyment aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay his full rent given his reduced enjoyment of the property.
Although it is not a rent refund, our loss of amenity calculation is broadly equivalent to10% of the resident’s rent for the 23 month period between 1 December 2021 and 31 October 2023. This approach is approximately based on the number of rooms that were affected: 2 bedrooms, living room, bathroom and near the back door (presumably kitchen). For the remaining 21 months (44 – 23 = 21), the calculation rate has been reduced to 5%. This is because the evidence shows the damp and mould problems were less severe during this period. The relevant figures have been rounded to £68 and £34 per month respectively.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues

The landlord’s original heating contractor undertook the repairs during the initial phase of the timeline. This phase lasted for around 5 months between mid-December 2022 and early June 2023. It included some of the coldest months in the year. The contractor’s records show it attended the property at least 5 times during this period. They also show 2 related repair orders were cancelled. In his complaint, the resident referenced various issues including communication problems, delays, ineffective repairs and repeat visits. The evidence supports his concerns.
The evidence also shows the property was impacted by different heating issues at different times. The initial repair order in December 2022 said 2 radiators were not warming correctly. On 6 January 2023, the contractor attended a complete lack of heating and hot water. The evidence shows a repair was completed in line with the landlord’s emergency response timescale. Records in February 2023 referenced a lack of heating in the living room and in a child’s bedroom. Around a month later, the resident said 5 out of the property’s 7 radiators were not working correctly. He also said the family had bought extra blankets to keep warm. The evidence shows the repair was outstanding when the landlord changed its contractor in June 2023.
The landlord has not disputed that the resident was unable to make full use of the property’s heating. In its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, it said it would complete a power flush, balance the system and leave it fit for purpose. By this point it had awarded the resident a total of £350 in related compensation. This level of award was consistent with the “serious service failure” guidance in the landlord’s complaints policy. This shows the landlord was aware that its accumulated failures had a significant impact on the resident. However, the evidence suggests it overlooked some other key failures at this point.
Its complaints policy states, “If a customer is without heating [the landlord] will offer them temporary heaters”. It also shows the landlord will provide compensation for the costs of running them. There is no indication the landlord considered supplying temporary heaters in line with its policy. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. The resident reported a lack of heating several times. He said the living room was “freezing” and he was worried about his children’s welfare. The landlord should have explored whether temporary solutions were needed to mitigate the situation. It could have discussed matters with the resident to improve its decision making. As the issues occurred over winter, the landlord’s approach arguably showed a lack of reasonable care.
Similarly, the resident said he incurred additional expenses due to the lack of adequate heating. Contrary to the provisions in its policy, there is no indication the landlord engaged with this aspect of his complaint. It should have gathered information about his expenses, assessed them, and responded in line with its policy. Based on the timing of this investigation, the evidence suggests the resident is still out-of-pocket around 20 months later. This is unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
The second phase of the timeline lasted around 4 months between early June and late September 2023. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of adequate heating was less of a problem given the time of the year. However, the evidence confirms there were similar issues with the landlord’s new heating contractor. During internal correspondence in September 2023, the landlord said the resident took time off work on 3 occasions but the corresponding appointments were cancelled at the last minute. The correspondence suggests the landlord increased its heating related compensation by £50 to £400 in total.
In the correspondence, the landlord said it was minded to increase this figure given what had happened. Its complaints policy shows the landlord compensates residents £30 for missed appointments. This policy suggests the landlord’s instinct was correct and the additional £50 in compensation that it awarded (for this phase of the timeline) was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord overlooked some key failures and its compensation award was disproportionate. During the initial phase of the timeline, it should have considered providing temporary heaters in line with its policy. It should also have addressed the resident’s out-of-pocket expenses for additional blankets. There is no indication it took either of this steps. In the second phase, the compensation it awarded for missed appointments was not consistent with the approach detailed in its complaints policy. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom

On 26 December 2021 the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property’s bath. He reported there were rust spots on it. He also raised wider concerns about the general condition of the bathroom. His email referenced cracked tiles and “badly fitted” fixtures. The evidence shows a number of images were attached to it. The landlord did not provide copies of these images. The resident asked the landlord to contact him when it had reviewed his information. There is no evidence the landlord responded to his report accordingly. This was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.
The resident raised similar concerns about the bath on 4 April 2022. He reported some of the enamel was missing and supplied supporting images. He did not mention his previous concerns about the room’s general condition. The landlord replied on the same day. It said the bath needed a simple repair using touch up paint that cost around £10. It also said this type of repair was not covered by its repairing obligations. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for minor repairs and maintenance. The evidence suggests the landlord gave him appropriate advice that was in line with its obligations.
However, based on the period between 26 December 2021 and 4 April 2022, the evidence also shows it took the landlord around 14 weeks to provide information that was relevant to the resident’s original enquiry about rust spots. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the circumstances. If the landlord had clarified its position promptly, the resident may have progressed the repair by this point. In any case, it should not have been necessary to chase the landlord for a response. It is likely this was both avoidable and inconvenient for him.
In October 2022 the landlord replaced the bathroom basin and completed some other repairs. From the information provided, it is unclear what prompted it to undertake these works. The evidence suggests they were completed within its non-standard repairs timescale. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord observed the general condition of the bathroom at this point. There is no evidence to show it raised any further repairs when the works were complete. Similarly, aside from damp and mould issues, there is no evidence to show the resident raised any additional concerns about the bathroom until March 2023.
At this point, the resident reported there were holes and rust in the bath. There is no evidence the landlord engaged with his comments before it visited the property in June 2023. In its stage 2 response the following month, it agreed to replace the bath for safety reasons. It said the bathroom would be renewed at an unspecified time in the future. Although it was aware of a health and safety issue at this time, the evidence shows the landlord did not raise a repair order until mid-September 2023. This was around 2 months later. This was unfair and inappropriate timescale in the circumstances.
Later that month, the landlord’s compliance manager chased the repair. They noted the resident’s son had cut himself on the bath. There is no evidence to show the landlord engaged with the resident about this incident. In the first instance, it should have signposted him to its insurance team or process. This would have allowed him to raise a personal injury claim if he wanted to. This was a significant procedural failure on the landlord’s part. It is reasonable to conclude the matter was distressing for the resident. There is no evidence the landlord apologised or attempted to provide any other form of redress. Its approach at this point was inappropriate.
In October 2023 the resident chased the landlord 3 times about the outstanding repair. His correspondence shows at least 1 repair appointment linked to the bath had been cancelled. It also shows he wanted to arrange his own repair. Soon afterwards, he reported his son had injured himself on the bath again. The landlord did not provide any information to show when the bath was eventually replaced. During his recent call with the Ombudsman, the resident recalled the works were completed in November 2023. This was around 8 months after he reported there were holes in the bath. This was an unfair and inappropriate timescale in the circumstances.
There is no evidence of any failures by the landlord in relation to cyclical bathroom improvement works. There are no provisions in the tenancy agreement to show it is obliged to complete cyclical works within a certain timeframe. There is also no evidence that the bathroom was deemed to be unfit for purpose by a suitably qualified professional. There is a lack of evidence to show whether the property meets the government’s Decent Homes Standard.
In summary, there were combined delays of around 11 months in total. The evidence also shows the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions during the relevant timeline. Since there was an acknowledged safety issue, it is reasonable to conclude any delays linked to the replacement bath were particularly distressing for the resident. The landlord was aware his son injured himself twice on the defective bath. There is no evidence the landlord engaged with this information accordingly. There is also no evidence that it attempted to put things right for the resident. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen

This matter was not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint or his escalation request. The evidence suggests he raised it during the landlord’s home visit in June 2023. The landlord did not provide any first-hand records from the visit. Subsequently, it addressed “kitchen disrepair” briefly in its stage 2 response. The landlord said the kitchen was generally fit for purpose. From the evidence both parties provided, no information was seen to undermine this assertion. However, the landlord promised to refit an end panel and renew a base unit that housed the sink. It was reasonable for the landlord to address any repair issues it identified.
Between January and April 2024 the resident chased the landlord at least 3 times. This would not have been necessary if the landlord had kept him adequately updated. It is likely that chasing the landlord was inconvenient. During this period, it told the resident the kitchen would be replaced during a cyclical works programme in the financial year 2024/25. This financial year will end in several months. Based on the timing of our investigation, we cannot fairly say that the landlord gave the resident incorrect information. The resident may choose to raise a further complaint with the landlord if the works are still outstanding at the end of the financial year.
The evidence suggests there were 2 failed visits in May 2024. It also suggests the situation was avoidable if the base unit was measured correctly. This points to coordination failures on the landlord’s part. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. In his recent call with the Ombudsman, he told us the base unit was eventually replaced, but the end panel repair remains outstanding to date. This points to an unreasonable delay of around 17 months based on the timing of this investigation.
In summary, around 17 months have passed since the landlord promised to complete repairs to the property’s kitchen. The evidence shows the resident experienced distress and inconvenience during this period due to the landlord’s handling of these repairs. One of the repairs remains outstanding to date. Given their duration, the delays are inappropriate and the situation is unfair to the resident. There is no indication the landlord has recognised its failures or tried to put things right for the resident. In the circumstances, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, call notes from 7 February 2023 said the resident had “called to complain” about a failed appointment. Although his dissatisfaction was clear to the landlord, there is no indication it raised a formal complaint at this point. Similarly, there is no indication it offered to raise a formal complaint. If it was unsure what to do, the landlord should have asked the resident how he wanted to proceed. Its policy shows his concerns met the landlord’s definition of a complaint. Its approach was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 acknowledgement on 15 March 2023, the landlord asked the resident how he wanted his complaint to be resolved. The resident replied around 1 week later. He introduced some new complaint issues and confirmed he did not want the heating contractor to return. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 2 working days later. It did not address any of the resident’s additional information (which he sent in response to the landlord’s question). If it thought the new issues were too complex to include in its upcoming response, the landlord could have raised a new stage 1 complaint to address them.
In any case, the landlord should have considered the information the resident provided. The applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The evidence shows the landlord’s failure to engage with the resident’s information was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code. It also compounded his frustration. In his relevant email, the resident said the heating issues began in December 2022. The timeline in the landlord’s stage 1 response started in January 2023. In his escalation request, the resident said the timeline was “completely wrong”.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 March 2023. In line with its policy, the landlord should have issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Based on the period between 25 April (20 working days later) and 11 July 2023, the response was delayed by around 11 weeks. There is no indication the landlord kept the resident updated during this time. He eventually chased the landlord in May 2023. It is likely this was both avoidable and inconvenient. In its response, the landlord awarded him £70 in related compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach given the duration and impact of the delay.
However, the evidence points to similar issues at stage 2. The response acknowledged that mould and damage were linked to defective repairs that stemmed back to late 2021 (when the property’s roof was replaced). This aspect of the complaint involved a potential hazard and an extended timeline. These features were an indication that something may have gone wrong. However, the landlord only offered the resident £150 for decoration materials. It did not attempt to unpack the issue, establish a timeline of events, identify any specific failures or quantify the resulting impact to the resident. This lack of engagement and thoroughness was unfair and inappropriate.
In its response, the landlord promised to complete various actions to resolve the resident’s complaint. They included several repairs and arranging the compensation payment. The landlord promised to complete them within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence shows it failed to fulfil this promise. For example, although the resident provided his bank details promptly, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 3 months to action the payment. During this period, the resident chased his compensation payment on at least 2 occasions.
Each of the landlord’s promised actions was delayed significantly. This shows the landlord failed to monitor its progress or follow up its agreed resolutions accordingly. This is concerning and shows a lack of reasonable care on the landlord’s part. It is reasonable to conclude the situation undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling. Overall, there were significant delays and failures throughout the complaint journey and the resident was impacted. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve matters for him. It did not acknowledge the full extent of its complaint handling failures or do enough to put things right.
Given the above, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

Record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. The evidence confirms its repairs and complaint handling were affected throughout the timeline. In April 2022 the landlord was unable to retrieve a copy of the resident’s original damp and mould questionnaire or his accompanying images. Later, we obtained this information from the resident. The landlord’s inability to retrieve it was concerning given the information related to a potential safety issue.
Many of the landlord’s (and its main contractor’s) repair records failed to capture the attending operative’s findings or a description of the works that were carried out. These inadequate records made it difficult to keep track of events. At different points in the timeline, we were unable to establish if key mould treatment works took place. There is also evidence that the landlord repeated some repair actions. It is reasonable to conclude missing records made repeated visits/actions more likely. It is noted the resident raised concerns around repeated actions in his recent call with the Ombudsman.
There was some conflicting evidence about the date of specific repairs. Since we were unable to rely on the landlord’s repair records, we cross referenced them against the parties’ correspondence from the time. This should not have been necessary. The evidence indicates the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own records at times. There was also a lack of adequate inspection records. The inspection findings the landlord provided were brief. It did not provide any supporting images of repair issues. Ultimately, it was difficult to gauge the property’s condition from these findings. For the reasons outlined above, we were unable to use the property’s general repair records as a backup source of information.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaint processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was concerning and inappropriate. The evidence shows record keeping issues hindered the landlord’s operations, and impacted the resident. It also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. As a result, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould and record keeping. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice in relation to its damp and mould handling and record keeping practices. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review ordered as part of case 202218444. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. Complaint handling.
  3. Record keeping.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of heating issues.
  2. Concerns about the condition of the bathroom.
  3. Concerns about the condition of the kitchen.

Reasons

At various points, the landlord’s response to the resident’s damp and mould reports was unfair, unreasonable, inappropriate, contrary to its own policies, and contrary to the HHSRS. This caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident. It also reduced his enjoyment of the property. The landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right.
The landlord overlooked some of its key failures in relation to the resident’s heating complaint. It should have considered providing temporary heaters in line with its relevant policy. It should also have addressed the resident’s out-of-pocket expenses for additional blankets. There is no indication it did this. Later, the compensation it awarded the resident for missed appointments was not consistent with the approach in its complaints policy.
In total there were around 11 months of delays relating to the general condition of the bathroom. The resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions during the timeline. The landlord had acknowledged it needed to replace the bath due to a safety issue. It later became aware that the resident’s son had injured himself twice on the bath. There is no indication it engaged with this matter. There is no evidence that it attempted to put things right for the resident.
Around 17 months have passed since the landlord promised to complete repairs to the property’s kitchen. The evidence shows one of the repairs is still outstanding to date. It also shows the resident incurred distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the repairs. There is no indication the landlord has acknowledged its failures or tried to put things right for the resident.
There were significant delays and failures throughout the complaint journey and the resident was impacted. The landlord failed to monitor or follow up each of its agreed complaint resolutions properly. This arguably showed a lack of reasonable care. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s complaint. It did not recognise its most significant failures or try to put them right for the resident.
Record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. Many of its repair records failed to capture the attending operative’s findings or a description of the works that were carried out. There was conflicting information and the Ombudsman was unable to establish whether key repairs were completed. The landlord’s brief inspection records were inadequate. Record keeping issues hindered its activities and impacted the resident. They also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in person. The apology must acknowledge the key failures that are identified in this report. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks (allowing for the Christmas period).
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to complete a damp and mould assessment of the property in line with its damp policy. Any identified actions/mitigation measures should be addressed accordingly. The landlord should share a copy of the assessment and details of any follow up actions with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,128 in compensation within 6 weeks. Compensation should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his reports of damp and mould.
2. £2,278 for his related loss of enjoyment/amenity (£68 x 23 months = £1,564 + £34 x 21 months = £714)
3. £650 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of heating issues. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £400 it previously awarded at stage 2.
4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s response to his concerns about the general condition of the bathroom.
5. £300 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s response to his concerns about the general condition of the kitchen.
6. £400 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £70 it previously awarded at stage 2.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident and gather details about his expenses for decorating materials and blankets. It must then assess the information and respond accordingly. If there is evidence its previous award for decorating materials is inadequate, the landlord should address any discrepancy accordingly. In relation to blankets, the landlord should avoid imposing onerous evidence requirements on the resident. This is because the evidence shows it failed to follow its correct process in the first instance. It should also signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. This is so he can raise a personal injury claim for his son if he chooses to do so. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to incorporate the damp/mould and record keeping learnings from this case into its ongoing review of these topics. This review was previously ordered under paragraph 54f. of the Scheme as part of case 202218444. Among other measures, we said the landlord should complete (the below are relevant to this case):
1. A review of its damp and mould policy and practices, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to ensure going forward there is a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould which does not delay remedies until a planned investment programme.
2. A review of its record-keeping practices and consider, if it has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
3. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
4. An implementation plan for staff training to ensure all relevant staff receive training on how to:
  1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
  2. respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner and reflect the urgency of the issue and any vulnerabilities within the household.
  3. not apportion blame or use language inferring blame on the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct an internal review into the other key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present its findings to its senior leadership/executive team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The landlord should also cascade its improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The review should include:
1. The steps the landlord will take to ensure its staff can handle claims around damage/injury/liability accordingly. This is because it did not address the resident’s related concerns suitably a number of times in this case.
2. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it learns from the complaint handling issues that were identified in this case. This is because there were significant issues throughout the complaint journey and the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord updates the resident in writing about the timescale for its upcoming kitchen replacement works.