Sheffield City Council (202309044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309044

Sheffield City Council

31 March 2025

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. a leaking pipe in the bathroom and subsequent repairs and temporary housing.
2. the landlord’s connection and removal of appliances and damage to the laminate flooring.
3. repairs to the roof and windows unrelated to the leaking pipe.
4. the associated complaint
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated 15 July 2002. The landlord is a local authority. He lives in a 2-bed house. He has autism and experiences anxiety and depression. The resident describes themselves as a vulnerable adult and the landlords’ records reflect this.
On 4 December the resident told the landlord there was water leaking into the kitchen from the bathroom. The landlord recorded 3 repair work visits completed in December 2021. On 5 July 2022, it raised an urgent repair appointment for the leak, however its records show this was cancelled.
On 30 July 2022, the landlord turned off water to the property and reported that part of the ceiling had come away. The landlord delivered drinking water and a chemical toilet to the resident in August 2022. At the end of August, the resident was temporarily rehoused. Works were completed and the resident moved back to his property around mid-December 2022.
At the time the resident was due to move back to the property, the landlord offered to install a cooker for him. The landlord then agreed to reconnect a cooker purchased by the resident. On 3 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request that it reconnect his cooker, which it agreed to.
Also on 3 March, the resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord. The main points were:
1. there had been issues before, during and after temporary housing process.
2. the house was not finished when he returned. There were no light features, some plugs missing and appliances had not been installed.
3. old appliances had not been removed as agreed.
4. there was damage to the laminate flooring and items had been stolen during the temporary housing.
5. he said he had reported the issue on 5 February and that he had been told the cooker would be reconnected, appliances sorted and credit that was on the meter when he was temporarily housed would be returned.
6. the landlord was not responding to him when he contacted it.
7. there was black mould on the walls.
8. that he was highly stressed, and that the situation was negatively impacting his health. He asked for help and for a new housing officer to be assigned.
The resident also contacted a representative who reported the same issues to the landlord. The landlord responded to the representative on 3 March. It said:
1. it was aware the resident had called, and it intended to be in touch to arrange fitting the cooker.
2. the resident would receive £70 for items in his freezer during temporary housing when the meter ran out.
3. it was investigating if it had previously committed to removing old appliances and if he would be compensated for credit he had on the meter.
On 15 March 2023, the resident advised his representative that he had not heard back from the landlord. The representative asked the landlord for an update. The landlord records cancelled appointments to reconnect the gas cooker on 15, 22 March and 19 April. It attended on 11 May but was unable to complete the works.
The landlord’s records dated 18 April 2023 noted that the resident did not have heat or hot water. Its records show this was restored by 21 April.
On 15 June 2023 the resident contacted this Service to ask for our assistance. On 28 June, we wrote to the landlord to request it provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of:
1. reports of mould.
2. responsive repairs to bathroom and kitchen (including cooker connection, removal of old appliances, floor damage).
3. new roof.
4. new windows.
We also set out the resident’s requested resolutions including all outstanding repairs to be completed, the cooker reconnected, the removal of a chemical toilet and compensation. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 21 July. It said it would visit the resident to discuss the issues raised and assess repairs. On 2 October 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the same issues.
On 17 November 2023, the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord. He did not receive a response so on 6 December 2023, the resident contacted this Service for assistance again. On 18 January 2024 we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 25 January 2024.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 January 2024, it said:
1. there were some delays to the temporary housing process, but this was exacerbated due to the resident not fully engaging with the landlord.
2. the resident did not comply with its request not to return to the property whilst work was ongoing.
3. it believed that the resident was well supported during the temporary housing.
4. it accepted that contact staff had changed during the temporary housing time.
5. the £70 compensation it had agreed to pay for food lost had not been paid at the time. It would now credit his rent account.
6. it offered £150 for damage to the floor and personal belongings. It asked the resident to complete a form for payment to be made.
7. it had ordered repairs for bathroom and kitchen. There had been issues with access at some appointments and the resident was responsible for contacting the landlord to rearrange.
8. it apologised for the delay in damp treatment and that this was now complete.
9. it had completed roof repairs on 30 August 2023.
10. it had been unable to fit a cooker purchased by the resident due to safety concerns. It had agreed to supply and fit a new cooker. There were access issues and so there was a delay in fitting the cooker.
11. it was not aware of specific staff conduct issues but accepted that communication and complaint handling may not have been at standard.
12. it apologised if the resident felt that the landlords service had fallen short.
The resident asked the Housing Ombudsman to investigate his complaint on 31 January 2024. He said he was unhappy with the stage 2 response and that the repair issues were still current.
The landlord reported 8 no access repair visits for the skirting boards, extractor fan, socket fitting and leaking bath between 2 February and 23 August 2024. It reported visiting the resident on 7 March 2024 to discuss the case and outcomes the resident wanted. In a phone call to this Service in March 2025, the resident reported that the cooker had been connected and that only minor repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

The resident reported in September 2022 that alcohol and a hedge trimmer had been taken from the property while repairs were ongoing. The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint and investigated. On 21 October 2022, it provided a stage 1 response and offered £250 for distress and inconvenience caused and to assist in replacing missing items. The resident confirmed that this part of the complaint has been resolved. As this complaint did not exhaust the landlords Internal Complaints Procedure (ICP), it has not been considered in this report.
The landlord’s records show that the resident did not have heat or hot water for 3 days in April 2023. However, there is no record of the resident complaining about this issue. As this issue has not exhausted the landlords ICP, it has not been considered in this report.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the communication and conduct concerns raised. This has been assessed in the resident’s reports of a leaking pipe and subsequent temporary housing section.

Policies, procedures and legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes of the property. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
What is a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of a case. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not have a repair policy at the time of this complaint. As of 2024, there is a repairs policy available on the landlords’ website.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs outlines good practice. Landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of wastewater, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Sanitation form part of potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, repair works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlords ‘area temporary housing procedure’ (2013) was in place at the time. The landlord has stated that it updated this policy in 2024. The procedure states that a Temporary Emergency Housing Checklist (TEHC) would record each stage of the temporary housing process and provide an audit trail of the case. This procedure gives a thorough 11 stage process that covers from the initial stage of assessing if a temporary housing is required, to the residents return or move to a permanent property.
Given the residents known vulnerabilities, the landlord was expected under the Equality Act 2010 to consider what reasonable adjustments he may need to access its services. The Ombudsman’s attitudes, rights and respect spotlight report says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ascertain what the support needs of its residents are.

The residents report of a leaking pipe in the bathroom and subsequent temporary housing.

Leaking pipe

The resident reported the leak from the bathroom to the kitchen on 4 December 2021. The landlord recorded this as an ‘urgent’ job. It attended and made repairs on 6, 17 and 22 December. It is not clear when the leak was made safe or what work was carried out. It is not possible to assess if the landlords actions were reasonable or not. This is a failure to maintain good record keeping.
The landlord recorded a cancelled no access repair job for the leak on 5 July 2022. The landlord had identified that this was an urgent repair and therefore likely to seriously affect the residents comfort or cause damage to the property. It would have been reasonable for it to attempt to make further visits to the property or contact the resident to remind them about its access policy. There is no evidence that the landlord did this and this was not reasonable especially given the residents vulnerabilities.
On 30 July 2022, the landlord recorded that there was a major leak at the property. The landlord attended and turned off the water to the property. It reported that part of the kitchen ceiling had come away and this would need to be pulled down.
On 30 July, the resident asked for a call back. The call was disconnected unexpectedly and there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident again. This was a failing and caused the resident unnecessary confusion, at what was an already distressing time.
The kitchen ceiling had come away and the landlord noted this needed to be ‘pulled down. There is no evidence that the landlord attended to make this safe. Nor contacted the resident in the first 4 days that he was without water. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
The landlord did not respond to the residents’ complaint about the handling of his reports of the leak in its stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge the failings highlighted above in its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate and was a failing.

Temporary rehousing

Without running water and sanitation, the property may not have been considered reasonably suited for occupation under the Homes Act 2018. The resident did not have access to running water for drinking, toileting and washing between 30 July and 3 August 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide alternative accommodation during this time. The landlord did not offer this and this was a failing.
On 3 August, the landlord visited the resident and discussed the possibility of temporary housing. From the evidence provided, it is not possible to assess what the landlord offered the resident nor the residents response. This was a record keeping failing.
It is unclear if the resident was offered immediate temporary housing, which would have been reasonable. If it was not possible to arrange this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer solutions around water, washing and cooking facilities.
The landlord delivered bottled water and a chemical toilet on 3 August. It delivered water again on 8, 12, 19 and 22 August. The landlord did not provide options for the resident to cook (for example, through arranging meal deliveries) or to wash (for example, arranging washing facilities nearby). The landlord did not arrange for the chemical toilet to be collected and for the human waste to be disposed of in this time.
This service has looked at manufacturers of chemical toilets who recommend that they be emptied every 5 days at least. This is to prevent bacteria from spreading and reduce the impact of bad odour. The toilet was not replaced for 19 days. This was not appropriate and increased the risk of harm to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response says that the resident viewed a temporary property on 11 August 2022. Telephone logs from the 16 August record the resident asked for more time to move. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident confirming that removals had been booked for 23 August. It is not clear why the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the temporary housing between 3 and 11 August. This was not appropriate and was a failing.
On 18 August, the landlord cancelled a planned appointment. The landlord and resident then communicated and discussed details of the repair work. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the timeframe and a lack of understanding of the temporary housing process. He told the landlord he was anxious. The landlord did not complete a Temporary Emergency Housing Checklist or follow the temporary housing procedure throughout the residents decant journey. This was not reasonable and is a failing.
The landlord records it moved the ‘majority’ of the residents belonging to the temporary property on 23 August and that the resident returned his keys to the main property on 26 August 2022.
The landlord’s safeguarding process for repairs operatives directed staff to raise concerns if they saw residents who were showing signs that they could not look after themselves or of mental health issues. This should be done by reporting to a manager who would then pass information to the housing management or social services to investigate and help the person concerned.
On 6 September, the landlord recorded that an environmental health clean of the property was needed as it was ‘in a bad state’ and there were human faeces on the floor. The landlord asked the resident if he had returned and discussed the condition of the property. He stated he had been back since returning his keys.
The resident told the landlord he was very anxious and had intentions to self-harm. The landlord told the resident it would contact support services and that it was worried about him. It tried to contact the community mental health team but was told it could not refer without consent of the resident. The landlord believed it could not contact emergency services as it could not contact the resident. The resident went to the property and told the landlord that he was in crisis again on 7 and 21 September.
The resident’s visits to the property after he had been temporarily moved may have impacted the repairs work. However, the Ombudsman’s Attitudes, Rights and Respect spotlight says that landlords should understand the potential link between a resident’s behaviour and an underlying condition, such as a decline in their mental health. The landlord should consider how to support the resident and what reasonable adjustments might be needed. These adjustments should be made to assist the resident, not the landlord, and should not be conflated with unreasonable behaviour.
During at least 4 interactions with the landlord in this time, the resident said he was struggling and had suicidal thoughts. The landlord has noted that it attempted to take some crisis actions and to signpost the resident to seek support directly from the GP and A&E. Repairs staff working at the property followed safeguarding procedure and raised these concerns with their managers. This was in line with their safeguarding procedure and was reasonable.
The landlord has not shown evidence that it investigated these reports further or assessed the risks to the resident. The landlord did not provide evidence of a safeguarding or vulnerable person policy in place at the time.
The landlord was not clear on what action it should take when a safeguarding issue had arisen. This is a particular concern as the Care Act 2014 sets out the responsibilities of statutory safeguarding partners such as local authorities to prevent harm, stop abuse and neglect where ever possible. As a statutory safeguarding partner, the landlord’s confusion on what it should do in this situation was a significant failure in service.
It also failed to give due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 20101.
The tenancy agreement ‘You and Your Home’ states that residents are expected to be considerate and respectful towards staff. Examples of behaviours that would break this include verbal abuse, threatening or violent behaviour and harassment.
The landlord took legal advice on 22 September and was told there was no realistic legal remedy to stop the resident attending the property. The landlord acknowledged that he was not aggressive or threatening but that he was anxious and stressed when attending the property. It then discussed putting the following support in place:
1. removing all remaining items from the property.
2. having an agreed phone call or visit each week to give the resident an update on progress.
3. asking the resident to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.
4. making a referral to mental health support.
5. checking if there was a family member who could be contacted.
6. documenting all further offers of support made.
The landlord did not make a weekly phone call or facilitate a regular visit to the property. It spoke to the resident about signing a behaviour contract on 29 September but has not evidenced it followed this up. It did not contact the resident to refer to mental health support or consider if there was familial support to contact.
The landlord has recorded that:
1. it attempted to call the resident on 28 September.
2. it spoke to the resident on 29 September and said it had arranged for all his belonging to be moved to the temporary housing property. It has not shared evidence that this happened.
3. it responded to a complaint from the resident on 21 October.
4. it met with the resident on 14 November.
5. it spoke to the resident on 15 November.
6. it returned a phone call from the resident on 30 November to discuss the temporary housing process and returning to the property.
The landlord showed a disregard for its proposed solutions to support the residents wellbeing. While it acknowledged that the resident was anxious and stressed, it did not action its proposed support measures. This was not reasonable and was a failure.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident taking undue time to engage and by attending the property while repair was ongoing made the delays worse. The landlord said that it believed the resident was ‘well supported’ during the temporary housing, although it accepted that there had been personnel changes. The landlord did not follow its area temporary housing procedure, did not assess the risks to the resident and did not record following its proposed support measures through. This was not reasonable and is a failing.
The landlord’s response to the resident failed to consider its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 which was unreasonable. The landlord failed to follow its own policies and legal obligations set out in the Homes Act 2018. It did not recognise these failings in its complaint responses
It is not clear from the landlords records what day the resident returned to his property. The temporary housing tenancy ended on 25 December, but the resident reports he moved back in mid-December. There were no landlord communication records submitted from the 30 November 2022 to the 21 January 2023. This was not in line with its area temporary housing procedure.

Delays to fitting light fittings, plug sockets and kitchen boards and plaster work.

The resident’s tenancy agreement ‘You and Your Home’ states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to inside walls, skirting boards and electric wiring, sockets and light fittings.
The same document states that residents must allow employees or contractors to enter the property to carry out repairs or improvements. It will give reasonable notice if it need to access the property and will only enter the property without giving notice in the event of an emergency. Reasonable notice will depend on the reason needed to access and in some cases it may need to visit without an appointment.
The resident reported that some light features and some plug sockets were missing when he returned to the property. The resident says he reported this to the landlord in December 2022. The landlord has not provided any communication records for this time. He also reported this via an online complaint on 3 March 2023.
Between 29 December 2022 and 20 November 2023, the landlord recorded 3 completed repairs issues on the electrics, bathroom fan, switches and skirting boards.
In 2023, the landlord recorded 6 cancelled appointments for socket install, plastering, skirting board and repairs to the kitchen and bathroom due to no access. On 15 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that there was a lack of communication between staff and that the landlord kept turning up ‘randomly’ instead of making appointments. He said that the situation was negatively affecting his mental health.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. It said that it had visited the resident after his complaint made on 28 June 2023 and ordered repairs for bathroom fan and switches, sockets, plaster patches, cooker kickboard and workboard fit. It said there were access issues at some appointments, resulting in rescheduling. It said its policy stated that the resident was responsible for contacting the landlord to rearrange.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights best practise for landlords to inform residents of appointments so that access can be provided. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it:
1. informed the resident in writing about all appointments in advance, including the time of the appointment and whether the resident would need to be present. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘complaints about repairs’ (March 2019) recommends when making appointments, landlords should confirm appointments and send reminders using the agreed method of contact.
2. contacted the resident when it was unable to access the property.
3. examined the access attempts to establish why the resident would refuse access when it was them who had repeatedly requested for the repair to be carried out.
The resident has said that he has missed appointments when his mental health is ‘bad’. He has said his mental health made it difficult for him to chase issues. He said that the landlord often did not give reasonable notification of the visit, and this does not give him time to prepare. This is another example of the landlord failing to ask what reasonable adjustments the resident may need. This is not appropriate.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it followed its tenancy agreement and gave reasonable notice to the resident for the 6 cancelled repairs appointments in 2023. This was not in line with its policy and was unreasonable.
In March 2025, the resident reported that the majority of repairs had been completed, but that there were still outstanding repairs for socket installs, skirting and back boards.

Damp and mould.

The landlord did not have a repairs policy in place at the time of complaint and damp and mould is not covered within its tenancy agreement booklet.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
The resident reported damp and mould on the 3 March, 22 August and 31 October 2023. The landlord recorded that mould treatment was ordered on 21 July and completed on 14 November 2023. Given the resident had previous experienced a major leak, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect and treat the mould within 28 days. It did not do this. The landlord did not clearly communicate with the resident when he reported damp and mould. This was not reasonable.
The landlord apologised for this delay in its section 2 response. In August 2024, it stated that it had completed the Ombudsman’s damp and mould self-assessment. It said it had introduced improvements as a result.

Summary

In summary, the landlord:
1. stopped the major leak on the 30 July by turning off the water to the property.
2. did not contact the resident between 30 July and 4 August 2022. It did not offer the resident alternative accommodation, access to water, cooking and sanitation facilities in this time.
3. provided bottled water and a chemical toilet between 4 and 22 August. It did not offer the resident access to cooking and washing facilities in this time.
4. did not arrange for the contents of the chemical toilet to be disposed of in the 19 days he had a chemical toilet.
5. failed to follow its temporary housing procedure by not keeping the resident up to date on the progress of the repairs and not completing a Temporary Emergency Housing Checklist.
6. failed to consider the Equalities Act 2010 and consider what reasonable adjustments the resident may need to safely access the temporary housing process and repairs appointments.
7. recognised the resident was anxious and distressed and that the resident’s visits were disrupting repair work. However, it did not interrogate the potential link between the resident’s behaviour and any reasonable adjustments he may have needed.
8. did not appropriately investigated safeguarding concerns or assess the risks to the resident.
9. failed to action its proposed support measures.
10. has failed to evidence that the resident was given reasonable notice of repairs appointments and was therefore responsible for rearranging missed appointments.
11. did not complete the repairs to the light fixtures, plug sockets and kitchen boards and plaster work. It is unclear why these were not completed during the temporary housing period.
12. did not investigate the residents reports of damp and mould in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman considers this amounted to severe maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted him.
The resident has explained the distress, upset and frustration he experienced. He has said that his housing situation has seriously impacted his mental health and that at points he has experienced suicidal ideation and intent. He has said he consistently felt ignored by the landlord over a significant period.
The landlord did review the case in August 2024. We want to encourage landlords to revisit complaints, however when looking at the outcome the review will not be considered as it is outside of the ICP. It is noted that some of the failures were identified within the review.
Having considered the landlords compensation policy in place at the time and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay £1341.84. This is calculated by:
1. £314.84 for 4 weeks rent due to the house being unfit for human habitation from 30 July until the temporary housing tenancy began on 29 August.
2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords’ lack of communication and failure to consider what reasonable adjustments the resident may need during the leak and temporary housing time period.

The residents report of repair work to the kitchen including the connection and removal of appliances and damage to the laminate flooring.

The residents tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for furniture and fittings it has provided. If agreed previously in writing, the landlord will maintain fixtures or fittings the resident has added to their home.
The landlord agreed to connect a cooker purchased by the resident cooker. It then agreed to fit a new cooker as a good will gesture when it assessed that the residents cooker was unsuitable.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord noted which white goods could remain at the property and which could be removed. On 15 December 2022, the landlord offered to install a cooker for the resident. The resident declined this offer and said he intended to purchase his own. The landlord’s offer to install a cooker was in line with the tenancy agreement and was reasonable.
On 15 and 22 March 2023, the landlord recorded two cancelled cooker connection visits due to no access. The resident said he had not been told of the first visit and asked to be told about appointments in advance. On 11 May 2023 the landlord attended and was unable to fit the second hand cooker due to safety concerns.
Between 11 May and 24 November 2023, the landlord does not record any work about the cooker. On 23 November and 20 December 2023, the landlord made attempted visits to install the cooker. The cooker was fitted on 20 December 2023. The landlord did not notify the resident in advance about these appointments and this was not reasonable.
Laminate flooring is the responsibility of the tenant. Between 21 September 2022 and 15 November 2023, the resident reported seven times that the laminate flooring had been scratched during the temporary housing. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £100 compensation and an additional £50 goodwill gesture.
In November 2023, the landlord said that it had provided a temporary electric cooker but has not noted when temporary cooker was provided. This is a record keeping failure and means it is not possible to assess if there was any period that the resident was without cooking equipment.
The landlord offered reasonable compensation for the damage to the laminate flooring and offered to supply and fit a new cooker. However, the delay in fitting the cooker and responding to the residents reports of damage was not reasonable.
The Ombudsman considers this did amount to service failure. The landlords offer of £150 compensation in its stage 2 response was reasonable redress and should be paid if not already done so.

The residents report of repairs including to the roof and windows.

The resident first reported issues with the roof and requested new windows on 28 June 2023.
In its stage 2 response the landlord states that roof repairs reported on 22 August 2023 were repaired on 30 August 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged and investigated the report made on 28 June 2023. This was a failing.
The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of response in June 2023. When the landlord marked the repair needed on 22 August, it set a 6-month target date. It therefore did not assess this as a priority or urgent repair. However, the landlord did not explain the timescale to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated it could not locate any evidence that there were issues to the windows. It referred to an assessment visit on 2 August. It is unclear which year this visit took place, and the landlord has not provided contemporary records of this visit.
Post ICP in August 2024, the landlord clarified that the resident said that the windows were old, wooden and single glazed and they would like new windows throughout the property. It said it had had no indication of if or when a window replacement programme would be scheduled. It said it would visit the resident to assess any worsening in the conditions of the windows.
This is an example of the landlord failing to investigate and define the complaint. There was an 18-month delay until the landlord had understood the issue and fully responded to the resident. This was not reasonable and was a failure.
Due to the delays in defining the issue and providing a clear response to the resident, the Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration.
The landlord did not offer any compensation for these failings. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the delay in defining and responding to the residents reports of issues with the windows and roof.

The landlord’s handing of the associated complaint.

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code, which became mandatory in April 2024, and further guidance are available on our website.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy was focused on early resolution, record keeping and learning from complaints. On 1 April 2024, the landlord updated the policy to align with the Code.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. The landlord should name its learnings, so it does not repeat failings.
The landlords policy defined a complaint as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or not’. The landlord distinguished between complaint cases that it believed it could resolve quickly and those that it believed would take longer. Stage 0 (“problem solving” stage) involved complaints that it believed there was no need for a formal investigation and could be both fully resolved within 3 working days and to the customers satisfaction.
When the landlord did not expect the complaint to be resolved quickly, Stage 1 (“investigation stage”) should be completed within 28 days. Stage 2 (“review stage”) required further investigation and sign off from senior members of staff. The review stage did not have a timeframe. It was detailed as an “opportunity to review the investigation process, the investigation conclusions, and the steps taken to achieve resolution of the customer’s complaint”.
On 18 August the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the temporary housing process. This was marked as an enquiry by the landlord. The resident complained on 21 September 2022. However, the landlord only responded to the residents’ reports of missing items. It did not investigate the residents report of damage to the laminate. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
The resident complained via the online form on 29 November 2022, 3 March, 28 June, 2 October and 17 November 2023. His representative also escalated his complaint in March, May, October, November 2023 and January 2024.
It is noted that the landlord did respond to some complaint correspondence with attempts to try and resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction, in the form of the actions and remedies outlined in the above assessments. However, it failed to provide timely formal complaint acknowledgements and responses. These provide reassurance that a landlord is taking a matter seriously and can ensure failings are not repeated.
The Code states that stage 1 and 2 complaints should be acknowledged, defined and logged within 5 working days of receipt. Acknowledgment also provides an opportunity to fully understand and address a resident’s concerns. In this case, the landlord did not provide acknowledgement that the resident’s complaint had been formally logged for most of his complaints. A reoccurring theme was the landlords uncertainty over what the resident was unhappy about and what outcomes he wanted. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
There were a number of occasions where the landlord did not engage with the resident’s request to raise a formal complaint about its handling of his concerns. Based on the evidence the failing was not a localised issue but more systemic within the complaints process.
The complaints in 2022 and 2023 were closed at ‘problem solving’ or ‘case resolved’ stage, without a formal investigation. The resident continued to complain about the same issue, showing that these had not been resolved within 3 days. This prevented the resident from escalating his complaint to the landlords review stage and to the Ombudsman. This was a failing.
This Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response by 19 July 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It did not define the complaint and arranged an in person visit to assess repairs. The landlord did not evidence that it completed this visit. This was not reasonable and was a failure.
The Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website, is clear that apologies should not try to shift the blame or use passive, ambiguous or dismissive language. It states that when giving apologies, landlords should express regret and include an acceptance of responsibility.
This Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response in January 2024. It acknowledged some delays in service and offered an apology ‘if the resident felt that the landlords service had fallen short’. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
In summary there was:
1. a delay in responding.
2. a lack of response.
3. the inconvenience caused to the resident who had to contact a representative and this Service to request the landlord respond.
4. a lack of acknowledgement to the resident escalating the complaint which delayed the response further.
The Ombudsman considers that this did amount to severe maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted him.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord should pay £400 for complaints handling failures.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords record keeping

The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 10 of the Scheme obliges landlords to provide information requested by this Service. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
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 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.
Highlighted throughout the substantive issue, there were a number of record keeping issues, these included:
1. recording of repairs assessed and actions taken.
2. recording of communication with the resident.
3. recording of when the resident moved to and from temporary housing property.
In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This is a record keeping failure.
The report identified several gaps in the documents. Many of the landlord’s repair records failed to capture the attending operatives findings or a description of the works carried out. Some actions were not recorded in the repair logs, and we have had to cross reference them with correspondence from the time and an internal review the landlord carried out in August 2024. This should not have been necessary and is a record keeping failure.
We wrote to the landlord on 15 July 2024, 20 February and 4 March 2025 to request that it provided evidence for this investigation. The landlord did not provide all the documents this Service requested. The landlord stated that the resident’s lack of access was a key reason for delays. Concerningly, the landlord did not provide communication logs or visit notification records to this investigation. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord has also provided inaccurate evidence. The resident’s temporary housing tenancy began on 29 August and ended on 25 December 2022. However, the landlord stated that the resident returned his keys to the original property on 26 August. It was not clear when the resident returned to the original property or what condition the original property was in on return. This is a record keeping failure.
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.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a leaking pipe in the bathroom, repairs, damp and mould and subsequent temporary housing.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b, there reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repair works to the kitchen including, the connection and removal of appliances and damage to the laminate flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs to the roof and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. The CEO should write this letter. The landlord should provide a copy of the letter to this Service.
Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1814.84 compensation. This compensation is comprised of:
1. £314.84 for loss of enjoyment from 30 July until the temporary housing tenancy began on 29 August.
2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords lack of communication and failure to consider what reasonable adjustments the resident may need during the leak and temporary housing period.
3. £100 for the delay in defining and responding to the residents reports of issues with the windows and roof.
4. £400 for complaint handling failures.

Evidence of the compensation payment should be sent to this Service within 28 days.

Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to ensure its primary records accurately reflect the residents’ vulnerabilities. The landlord may need to contact or meet with the resident and clarify the correct details before updating its records. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered inspect the resident’s home and write to the resident with a copy of any outstanding repairs. If there are outstanding repairs the landlord should include a schedule with a timeline of when the repairs will be completed. A copy of this letter should be provided to us within 8 weeks.
Within 12 weeks the landlord should carry out a case review of the failures identified in this report. The landlord should consider as part of this:
1. Its safeguarding failures
2. Its approach to working with vulnerable adults
3. Its access process
4. Its record keeping
5. How it can prevent similar failures in the future.

A copy of this report should be provided to us within 12 weeks.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is recommended to honour the compensation already offered. This was £150 for damage to the laminate flooring and distress caused by the delay in responding to the residents’ complaints about this.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is recommended to complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.