South Lakes Housing (202321401)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321401

South Lakes Housing

8 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report of required window repairs, causing a loss of heat and increased energy costs.
2. Report of damp.
3. Report of a leak in the utility room.
4. Request to move to a more suitable property.
5. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident has occupied a 2 bedroom ground floor flat on an assured shorthold tenancy with her son, since September 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident first notified the landlord of an issues with the windows in October 2020. The landlord has explained that the building had been through a major refurbishment, converting it from the Town Hall into residential flats. The conversion was governed by local conservation area restrictions which resulted in the original wooden sliding sash windows being retained and aluminium secondary glazing being installed to improve the energy efficiency of the building and reduce energy costs for the residents.
The window repairs throughout the time of this complaint relate to a combination of repairs to the primary timber sliding sash windows and to repairs to the secondary aluminium sliding sash windows. The resident was concerned about her energy costs as a result of heat loss. The landlord has said “at no point did any primary window remain in defect for more than 24 hours. The impact of the failure of the secondary glazing was that, at its worst, there were two sliding secondary glazing sashes that remained partially open by circa 10cm on two of the five windows in the flat”.
The landlord says the defect reported in October 2020 related to the timber primary windows and was therefore passed back to the main contractor. Refurbishment works were carried out but it is unable to say when that took place.

Summary of events

On 24 March 2021, the landlord discussed with the resident there being draughts from the windows. It explored the possibility of adding an additional form of draught proofing to the timber primary windows. However, on inspection it was determined this could not be done on the existing windows, so no further action was taken at that time.
The resident reported a primary timber window not fully closing on 21 May 2021. The landlord attended as an emergency response and eased the sash that day to resolve the fault.
The resident re-registered for housing on 19 October 2021, as she wanted to move. She made an unsuccessful bid on a property and registered for mutual exchange on 12 January 2022.
The resident reported having to regularly wash off damp and mould, on 20 January 2022.
On 2 March 2022 a survey was carried out which noted that there was condensation in some of the rooms and that the fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not suitable. It proposed replacing the fans so they had humidity tracking controls, which would reduce the risk of moisture migration. The landlord was sent a copy of this report on 4 April 2022.
In the meantime, the landlord says it sent a damp specialist on 1 April 2022, who expressed concerns around the listed status of the building. It then carried out an inspection on 12 April 2022 and only one area of damp was identified in the main bedroom. It says the resident had painted the affected area and it had not returned, so no further works were instructed.
On 10 May 2022 the resident reported a problem with the secondary glazing window not opening. An operative attended on 26 May 2022 and eased the sash and adjusted the window lock. This was the first time it had received any report of repairs to the secondary glazing system.
The resident reported a bedroom window handle was broken/loose on 8 June 2022 and she had lost the key. This was again a secondary glazing issue and was to a different window to the previous one. She then reported issues with the dining room primary glazing sliding sash window. The landlord attended on 6 July 2022 and concluded that the resident did not fully understand how the sliding sash system worked, so it demonstrated this.
On 27 and 28 June 2022, the resident reported a leak in the utility room. Although this was originally logged as a routine repair, it was upgraded to an emergency on 28 June 2022. An operative attended the same day and found an issue with the way the sink unit waste outlet was connected to the waste pipework. A follow-on order was raised to return the next day to remove the sink base unit, make good the cause of the previous leak, and reinstate the sink unit. This was completed on 29 June 2022.
The resident reported to the landlord on 26 October 2022 further issues with damp and mould and it re-opened the case and discussed options with its specialist contractor. It says it instructed works immediately but at the time there was a draw on damp specialist resources nationally.
On 8 November 2022, the resident reported that the secondary glazing to the bedroom window had dropped and come off its runners. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended the same day but the resident had gone out, so the job was re-booked for 15 November 2022. The landlord attended that day and found that the spring system to the secondary glazing system had failed. Replacement springs were required but these needed to be sourced and were ultimately fitted on 4 January 2023. However, they then failed again.
The resident reported on 12 January 2023 that there was a smell from the utility room flooring and an inspection took place the following day. An order was raised to renew the plywood flooring. On 2 February 2023, an operative returned to remove the flooring and found there was insulation under the flooring which was wet, so a heating contractor was contacted to see if the hot water system was leaking. There was no leak, so the flooring was removed and the area left to dry out.
A surveyor attended on 2 February 2023 and an issue was found with the way the soil pipe had been connected to the drain at the floor connection during the building’s refurbishment. This was determined to be the likely cause of the ongoing dampness in the insulation under the flooring and the cause of the unpleasant smells in the utility room. These works were drawn up into a specification of works involving removal of cabinets, removal of all sub flooring, making good the joint between soil pipe and underground drainage, and re-instatement of all affected works. This work was completed on 3 March 2023.
In the meantime, a medical assessment was carried out on the resident on 9 February 2023, which stated, amongst other things, that she required a higher toilet and a walk-in shower in her bathroom, but these could not be installed in the property. It said she required “re-housing to a suitable adapted level access property”.
As a result of the delay and its inability to secure an appointment to undertake damp works with the contractor, the landlord cancelled the order with the original contractor on 14 February 2023 and re-issued to an alternative contractor.
On 28 February 2023 the resident made a complaint that for the last 2 years she had reported issues with windows which remained unresolved. In addition, a repair to the utility room had not been resolved for the last 4 weeks. As a result, she had incurred a large electric bill as the heat escaped the windows, the property was cold and mould had ruined a wardrobe and shoes. She felt there had been poor communication, as she had been told things would be done, but they had not been. She had spent money on cleaners and carpet cleaners and her furniture was covered in a thick black film. She explained she was terminally ill and the paint work had been knocked and walls had been marked every time an operative was sent to do a repair. She wanted to move and had been told it would either be a swap or a mutual exchange but felt the landlord could do more.
The complaint was acknowledged on 3 March 2023 and the resident was advised a response would be sent by 17 March 2023. On the same day, an order was raised for an operative to examine the window springs. It attended on 9 March 2023 and noted that part of the secondary glazing window sash that the spring attached to had failed, so new springs could not be fitted.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord asked for another 10 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint (to 31 March 2023).
The fans in the kitchen and bathroom were replaced on 10 March 23.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord found the parts required to fix the window and raised a new order.
Following a conversation with the resident on 13 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 March 2023. It detailed the various repairs issues raised and went on to confirm its position on each. It said that:
1. The part to fix the bedroom window would be fitted on 4 April 2023
2. The kitchen heater cable would be clipped to the skirting board and the hole filled the same day. A time clock would also be fitted in order to assess electricity usage and it would then consider paying compensation towards that cost.
3. It would send a surveyor to look for damp in the communal area, a new fan would be installed in the utility room on 17 March 2023 and new flooring in the utility room would also be fitted.
4. It had read a report produced by the company that insured the resident’s washing machine, saying it had been damaged by the springy floor. It therefore offered £100 towards a new one.
5. It did not usually supply carpet but it would arrange for underlay and a new carpet to be fitted in the bedroom, so she would be more comfortable.
6. It had notified a repairs manager about the lack of communication and how appointments had to be arranged around her medical care and it apologised for not having followed up a telephone conversation with an email and said it was improving its communication.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s response on 20 March 2023. She said she wanted to speak with it the following day as arranged, as it had not taken all issues raised in to account. She rejected the response because:
1. £100 was not sufficient to replace the broken washing machine.
2. She had lost 13 pairs of her son’s shoes and a wardrobe due to damp and mould as a result of the broken window.
3. There was damage to the walls caused by operatives.
4. The heat was going out of the window and she could not afford the electricity bill.
5. The utility room leak should have been addressed 2 years ago, and when operatives did come, they left a black film over lots of things and left dirty marks from their feet.
6. There was some unsightly putty on the window outside her son’s bedroom.
The landlord acknowledged the resident remained unhappy on 21 March 2023 and said a stage 2 response would be sent by 19 April 2023.
On the same day, 21 March 2023, the landlord was provided with an estimate from a flooring company, to replace the utility room and bedroom flooring.
On 3 and 4 April 2023, new skirting was fitted throughout the property.
On 12 April 2023, the landlord responded to emails sent by the resident and acknowledged having spoken with her about her complaint the week before. It summarised what had been discussed. It then sent its stage 2 response on 14 April 2023. It said:
1. It was an old, listed building so there were restrictions on being able to refurbish it. However, it would review the scheme and its history to see whether any further work was required and any learning it could gain would also inform future developments.
2. Although she felt the bedroom window was unsafe, it understood it was secure, but a repair was needed to enable it to open and close properly. It noted the appointment for 4 April 2023 to deliver the part had been changed to 19 April 2023.
3. The resident had cancelled an appointment to install timers, but it would be rearranged to fit timers to the immersion and towel rail and all the heaters would be set to charge to the economy settings.
4. It had requested an electrical safety check be carried out, as the resident had said she had an electrician install an additional light fitting. It asked her to provide certificates from the electrician.
5. It had reminded its operatives to be considerate, careful, and respectful when working in its customers’ homes and ensure they tidy up and leave the home clean and tidy.
6. It took damp and mould seriously and a surveyor had attended on 2 February 2023 but did not find damp or mould. However, it would send the surveyor again to review the communal areas.
7. The building had an energy rating of ‘C’, and it was not aware of any works outstanding regarding the windows or doors that could lead to heat loss.
8. It noted the resident switched to dual tariffs and her supplier had issued a £500 credit. It asked her to send it details of the issue it found. It could not consider this issue further until the timer clocks were installed on 19 April 2023, it had looked at the costs a year before to assess consumption, and it understood the fault.
9. It was sorry if the operatives were not careful when removing the flooring in the utility room.
10. In terms of compensation it said:
  1. To send a copy of the engineer’s report to show the washing machine was broken by the flooring. It would increase compensation from £100 to £250.
  2. It was willing to pay £300 towards the cost of replacement carpet to the bedroom and front room and replace the utility room covering.
  3. It noted her claim for damages to the wardrobe, but without evidence of losses, it would not be paying compensation.
  4. It would offer an additional £250 to recognise the number of issues and inconvenience.
The resident responded the same day and said she would accept £250 for the washing machine but wanted compensation for the cleaning, carpet cleaning and carpet replacement as well as front room and utility room floors to be replaced. She also wanted help with paying the electric bill and £200 towards the wardrobe and items damaged.
The window springs were fitted on 19 April 2023. On the same day, the resident asked for her complaint to be moved to stage 3. This was acknowledged on 3 May 2023 and she was told the next stage was for a Tenant Complaint Panel to consider the matter within 20 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2023 and explained:
1. The window issues and mould in her son’s bedroom had been resolved as the fans were working and the window had been repaired.
2. She had health issues so needed up to 2 baths a day and her son had asthma and the damp and mould was not helping him.
3. The damp and mould had ruined her wardrobe and contents so she wanted at least £250 towards this cost.
4. She reiterated the mess caused by operatives removing the utility room floor and that her washing machine had broken. The utility room was meant to be a sterile room for her feeding tubes, but it could not be used for that now.
5. She wanted:
  1. £350 for the washing machine.
  2. £250 towards the wardrobe and its contents.
  3. £200 for the clearing up and carpets and the constant re-painting.
  4. A carpet for the second bedroom and new flooring in the utility room.
  5. The majority of the electric bill resolved.
The resident reported that the window in her son’s bedroom had broken again, on 1 May 2023. She explained she was really unhappy and said she had meant to say there was redecoration also required. The landlord attended on 4 May 2023 and confirmed the springs in the window had broken again. The resident then raised a new issue she wanted the landlord to address; the radiator in the bathroom not sustaining heat. She reiterated how unhappy she was with the situation on 7 and 9 May 2023.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 10 May 2023 in response to 4 emails she had sent about the repairs. It said:
1. The window had been repaired but there was still an issue so on 1 June 2023 an operative was attending to relocate the mechanism in order to fully resolve.
2. The utility room floor had been replaced but there was some redecoration needed.
3. It had fixed the electrical issues and was considering her electric bills now as promised.
4. It noted she had reported new repairs but these did not form part of the original complaint.
5. In terms of compensation, it would consider this further at stage 3.
Once the utility room had dried out and the landlord was satisfied there were no further issues, an operative was asked to renew the flooring. However, the flooring was not installed until 16 May 2023 due to the resident’s availability and her health issues.
A stage 3 complaint panel hearing was held on 16 May 2023 and the outcome was sent on 23 May 2023, as follows:
1. It had considered the issues raised in the complaint. However, in relation to the recent new issues reported, it said:
  1. An appointment was booked for 17 May 2023 to resolve the bathroom radiator issue.
  2. An appointment was made for 18 May 2023 at the resident’s request, to fix storage heaters coming on when turned off.
  3. A repair was scheduled for 23 May 2023 to look at the front door lock.
2. An electrical safety check was completed on 20 April 2023 and a satisfactory certificate was issued. The new fans in the kitchen and bathroom had improved ventilation.
3. It apologised again for the service delays and frustration and inconvenience caused and accepted it had impacted on the resident and her son. It concluded the compensation should be increased as follows:
  1. Washing Machine – increase the offer from £250 to £350.
  2. Carpet – increase the offer from £300 to £500.
  3. Damaged shoes and items in the wardrobe caused by mould – it would pay £250 as had been requested.
  4. Inconvenience – £250.
4. It acknowledged the energy supplier had offered a £500 credit and it agreed to pay her £1,000 compensation towards her energy bill.
5. Overall, it had offered £2,350 compensation.
The resident was advised on 3 July 2023, that she was accepted on to the housing register and was allocated to band B.
The landlord initially arranged to carry out a further repair on the window on 1 June 2023 but this date was changed several times due to the resident’s availability, and the repair took place on 13 July 2023. However, the landlord said it had concerns over the integrity of the repairs and of the secondary glazing system as a whole. As a result, the Repairs Manager was asked to attend with the operative and review the whole installation on 29 August 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2023 to say not only was her son’s window not fixed, the window in the front room had also broken. She stressed how the draught was causing issues to their health. She wrote to the landlord again on 30 August and 4 September 2023 reiterating the issues, the amount owed to the energy company, and that the property no longer met her medical needs.
On 5 September 2023, the landlord asked the resident whether occupational health (OH) would be sending a report, or whether she wanted it to chase it. It noted she needed a shower and that could not be fitted in the property, so it would need to move her to band A once it had the supporting evidence.
A letter was sent to the landlord on 13 September 2023 by an agency representing the resident, asking that it consider moving her from band B to band A as the property was no longer suitable for her needs. She needed a shower and the windows were not secure and she was on the ground floor.
The resident explained to the landlord that she wanted to move not only because of needing a shower. On 22 September 2023 the landlord reiterated that it needed an OH report so it understood what adaptations she would need and what type of property would meet her physical health needs. It said a letter from her GP would also be useful from an overall perspective of her situation and housing need and it could then reassess her banding. Once the landlord had the evidence needed, the resident was moved to band A on 22 October 2023.
On 25 October 2023, the landlord made the resident aware of a 2 bedroom bungalow being available with a wet room. Photographs were shared with the resident and a viewing was arranged for 1 November 2023, but she felt it was too small and did not have sufficient space to store her medical equipment. On 8 November 2023 the resident was informed of some new build flats that would meet her requirements, but she explained she would prefer a bungalow. She was then shown a bungalow on 1 December 2023 and confirmed on 15 December 2023 that she wanted to accept it.
Following the visit in August 2023, the Repairs Manager told the resident they did not feel that repairing the windows further was an appropriate course of action and it was best to look for an alternative replacement. She was advised this could take some time to resolve as the local conservation restrictions may hinder progress or limit options. It was agreed that she would therefore receive compensation for the loss of heat arising from 2 of the 5 secondary glazing units. She had received compensation in May 2023 for that, so from June 2023 she would receive £10 per week until such time as a permanent fix could be found and installed. After a search, new windows were ordered on 5 December 2023.
In the landlord’s letter to the resident of 15 December 2023, following contact from this Service, it:
1. Summarised the background to the complaint.
2. Explained the steps it had taken to assist her in moving and confirmed she had recently found another property to move to.
3. Said, after trying to repair the windows on a number of occasions, it decided in September 2023 to replace them, despite the property already having an EPC rating of C which was the maximum it could achieve. However, there were restrictions on what changes could be made and full planning was needed and there was an existing restriction which prevented individual changes to windows. That meant all windows in every flat would have to be changed at the same time and full consultation was needed.
4. Recognised the resident’s health issues, so had agreed a level of compensation of £10 per week to cover any potential heat loss due to the partial gaps in the secondary glazing. It was back dated to the end of June 2023 and would be paid to the point that the permanent solution was in place. It had paid compensation from the end of June 2023 to the end of January 2024, a sum of £280 which was when it envisaged the permanent fix to the secondary glazing problem. If evidence of the actual sum lost was greater than the £10 per week then it was happy to increase the offer. An alternative secondary glazing system was agreed with the resident, to be installed on 16 January 2024.
5. Said at stage 3 it was agreed to pay the resident £1,000 as a contribution to her energy bill which was accepted. It also offered support to work with the energy company, and she obtained a further £500 refund. The bill had been cleared and the resident had since changed supplier.
6. Had installed 2 dehumidifiers due to condensation and paid the resident £40 to cover the running costs until January 2024.
7. Addressed a recent issue raised about noise nuisance, which had since been resolved.
8. Apologised for the delays and recognised that a more strategic approach should have been considered sooner. Several landlord staff were supporting her with the move and the provision of compensation until the secondary glazing was to be installed in January 2024. It offered another £50 compensation for the delays to the windows repairs.
The resident liaised with the landlord in the following months, in relation to getting the new property ready to move in to. Despite the windows being ready by 8 February 2024, she asked for the work to be done once she moved out, as she was not well enough to deal with matters.
The resident’s tenancy ended on 9 February 2024, but the landlord has said she remained in the property while it carried out voids repairs and made adjustments to the new property. These included: altering the kitchen layout; creating a wet room; and replacing the skirting boards with UPVC ones (it was then asked by the resident to remove them, so it offered to refit timber skirting boards once she moved in).
The landlord has said that in addition to the £2,350 compensation paid, as set out at stage 3 of the complaint process, it has paid:
1. An additional £50 compensation on 15 December 2023.
2. £200 for bed damage.
3. Heat Loss – £320 Potential heat loss because of the partial gaps caused by the secondary glazing failings. Made up of:
  1. 30/11/23 – £10 per week for 27 weeks = £270 (to the end of December 2023)
  2. 01/01/23 – £10 per week for 5 weeks = £50 (From 1 January 2024 to 2 February 2024)
4. £30 for carpet cleaning payment in lieu – dehumidifier.
5. £40 Payment for running costs of dehumidifier – 8 weeks at £5 per week (Covers the period 8 December 2023 to 2 February 2024).
6. To waive £1,342.80 in charges it could have made to the resident for rechargeable repairs it had to undertake.
7. £500 towards redecorating the property how she wished.
8. To credit her rent account to cover four weeks’ rent due to her vulnerability and health conditions, allowing all internal works to be undertaken, prior to her moving in amounting to £459.24.
9. A choice of flooring in the kitchen and bathroom at its expense. The resident also chose some for the hallway and asked it to pay £150 from the £500 offered for redecoration to the supplier, which it did. The remaining £350 was paid to the resident’s rent account upon her request.
In total, the landlord has paid £3,899.24 in compensation.
The new windows were fitted at the property on 23 May 2024 after the resident left.

Assessment and findings

Report of required window repairs, causing a loss of heat and increased energy costs.

The Tenancy Agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to structural and exterior parts of the property, as well as installations it has provided. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook says emergency repairs are attended within 24 hours. Other repairs would be done by making an appointment.
The resident started reporting issues with her windows in October 2020 and the evidence shows that primary glazing issues were dealt with as emergency repairs, in accordance with the Repairs Handbook. There were however, several issues with springs in the windows in the secondary glazing that repeatedly failed. The landlord did then schedule these repairs as it should; but, it took until August 2023 for it to really consider whether a more substantive investigation in to the problem, should take place; nearly 3 years after the first issue was reported.
When it did eventually inspect the windows more fully, the landlord took a proactive approach to replace the windows and warned the resident of the hurdles it may face being in a conservation area. However, bearing in mind the number of times issues were reported, and that the resident was concerned about the impact it was having on her energy bills and health of her family, the landlord should have taken the steps it did in August 2023 much sooner. By the landlord not carrying out a detailed review of the windows earlier, it meant the resident was adversely affected having to live with the issue for so long, and this amounts to maladministration.
The resident has serious health problems and being unable to fully shut windows time and time again, inevitably caused her frustration and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has seen she was very worried about how she would be able to afford her mounting energy bills, Ultimately, some of her energy bill was waived, and the landlord also contributed £1,000 towards it. It then went on to make an arrangement with the resident to pay her £10 a week to cover additional energy costs until the windows were replaced; a total of £320. It also offered a further £50 compensation in recognition of delays in finding a permanent resolution to the windows issue; a total of £1,370. This demonstrates that the landlord did appreciate the impact the faulty windows were having on the resident and her family.
The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to not only fix the problem permanently, but to assess the detriment caused to the resident and make amends. It also worked with the resident to arrange for the windows to be replaced. Although it could have taken more substantive steps to address the window issues earlier, the remedy offered by the landlord is significant and it had clearly attempted to put things right, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The compensation offered is more than this Service would usually direct in situations like this so a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Report of damp

This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case the resident reported damp in January 2022 and a survey dated 2 March 2022 identified that the fans in the kitchen and bathroom ought to be replaced, to reduce condensation. However, there is no evidence of the landlord acting upon that recommendation at that time. In fact, it has said a damp specialist attended in April 2022 and there was only damp in the main bedroom which the resident had treated, so it took no further action.
The resident reported further issues with damp and mould in October 2022, and although the landlord apparently discussed it with a specialist contractor, due to a lack of resources, no action was taken. While it cancelled the original work order and re-issued the job to another contractor due to the lack of resources, it waited 4 months before doing that. This is not indicative of the landlord treating the damp report with urgency as it should have. In the meantime, the resident’s belongings were getting damaged and she brought this to the landlord’s attention.
When the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in March and April 2023 it said it took damp and mould seriously and had sent a surveyor in February 2023 who did not find damp or mould but it would send another surveyor to assess the damp. It is not clear whether another surveyor was instructed to produce a report, but there is no evidence of the landlord identifying damp after that.
While the landlord told the resident no damp had been found, it is clear it was on notice in April 2022, that there was an issue with condensation and the bathroom and kitchen fans needed replacing. The evidence shows it took the landlord nearly a year to replace the fans and more than that to eventually provide dehumidifiers.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord paid the resident £250 compensation for damaged property due to damp, and £40 towards the cost of running the dehumidifiers. However, it failed to acknowledge the delay in taking action following the findings of the March 2022 surveyor’s report and the impact that had on the resident. It clearly missed an opportunity to carry out the repairs needed, as recommended in a timely fashion and this led to the resident having to continue living in a difficult situation, which is particularly concerning due to her serious medical condition.
The landlord’s delay in taking the recommended action needed sooner amounts to maladministration. Therefore, in addition to the £290 compensation paid towards the costs incurred as a result of the damp, the landlord should also pay the resident an additional £600 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Report of a leak in the utility room

Having reported a leak in the utility room on 27 and 28 June 2022, the landlord ensured it attended as an emergency appointment on 28 June 2022, in line with its Repairs handbook. The operative found an issue with the way the sink unit waste outlet was connected to the waste pipe-work so a follow-on order was created, and the operative returned the next day. The repair was completed on 29 June 2022, so the landlord complied with its obligations to maintain the property.
An issue arose in January 2023 when the resident reported a smell coming from the floor in the utility room. The landlord arranged for the floor to be inspected the following day, which again was within the timescales set out in the Repairs handbook, and a job was created to replace the flooring.
The Ombudsman notes the floor was to be replaced on 2 February 2023 but was not actually completed until 14 May 2023. This was because on 2 February 2023, an operative found the insulation under the flooring was wet. A surveyor attended and found an issue with the soil pipe connection and this led to work having to be done to rectify that issue which was not completed until 3 March 2023. The resident then had health issues that needed to be taken in to account, and meant the flooring could not be replaced until later.
Although the resident first reported an issue in June 2022, the immediate issue was resolved promptly. It was only in January 2023 when dampness caused a further issue and this resulted in the resident being inconvenienced for 4 months while the damp flooring was addressed. The cause of the dampness was deemed to be an issue with work carried out during the building’s refurbishment; not as a result of the landlord’s operative doing anything wrong.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to say whether the operative that attended in January 2023 should have been able to identify an issue with the insulation. It is clear though that the landlord acted promptly and appropriately by investigating the issue and scheduling the repair work promptly. It also recognised the impact on the resident as well as the financial loss claimed, by paying her £350 compensation for the washing machine being damaged and £250 for the inconvenience. While the landlord chose to compensate the resident as she requested, the Ombudsman has found no failings in its handling of this issue; therefore, makes a finding of no maladministration.

Request to move to a more suitable property

Having moved to the property in September 2020, the resident re-registered for housing on 19 October 2021 as she wanted to move. The same day she bid for a property but found out the following month she was unsuccessful. Other than the resident making an application for mutual exchange on 12 January 2022 there is no evidence of her having bid on another property at that time.
The resident was awarded band B in July 2023. She then bid on properties and the evidence shows that because the landlord was aware of her health issues and had certain needs, it liaised with her in order to obtain medical and OH evidence. This was so it could ensure a property was found that met all of her needs. This was in line with the guidance on its website, which explains that in order for it provide major adaptations, an OH therapist had to carry out an assessment first. The landlord rightly explained that once it fully understood what adaptations the resident needed, it could also potentially reassess her as band A.
The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord worked with the resident to find her a suitable property to move to. Once she was allocated to band A, a bungalow was found; but the resident found it too small. It then made her aware of a new build flat, but this was not deemed appropriate. However, another bungalow was then found on 1 December 2023, which the resident accepted. The landlord then went about adapting the bungalow significantly for the resident by altering the kitchen and bathroom. In addition, it also credited her £500 that she could put towards redecoration, that she wanted to arrange herself. It also went as far as crediting her rent account to cover four weeks rent, in the amount of £459.24. This was to recognise her vulnerability and that internal works needed to be carried out.
It is clear the resident has health issues that have made it difficult to live in the property; but the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took a proactive approach to get her reassessed and find appropriate accommodation and complied with its obligations in that regard.

Formal complaint

The landlord’s Complaint’s procedure at the time, said a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response at stage 1 issued 10 working days later. If a complaint was escalated to stage 2, a full reply should be issued within 20 working days. In both cases, it should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. A complaint could then be escalated to stage 3 which was a Tenant Complaint Panel Review; the outcome of which should be issued within 20 working days. Any additional time would only be justified if related to convening a panel. An explanation and a date when the stage three response would be achieved would be provided to the resident.
This procedure was not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as it contained a third stage. However, having reviewed the landlord’s website, it is apparent this has now changed, and its complaints process only contains 2 stages and is in line with the Code.
The landlord did comply with the timescales set out in its Complaints procedure at stages 1 and 2. There was a slight delay in it acknowledging that the resident wanted the complaint escalated to stage 3, as it took 10 working days, but a panel was arranged promptly, and the outcome of the panel meeting issued 24 working days after the resident requested it.
The landlord’s Complaint procedure was not clear when the 20 working days started at stage 3; but, even if it is assumed to start on the day the resident requested the escalation, the landlord in this case only missed the deadline by 4 working days. There is certainly no evidence of the resident chasing for a response after 20 working days, so there was no detriment as a result of a slight delay.
The landlord at each stage of its Complaints procedure, addressed the issues put to it, and made offers to try to resolve the complaint. It has even paid the resident additional compensation, over and above that set out at stage 3. Other than a very minor delay at stage 3 that had no consequence, the landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable. Therefore, it follows that there has been no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of required window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp.
2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
  1. A report of leak in the utility room.
  2. A request to move to a more suitable property.
  3. The resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

It took the resident to report issues with the windows several times before the landlord investigated the matter further. Although there was a delay in it escalating matters, it did then make a reasonable offer of compensation to remedy matters.
The landlord failed to act on a surveyor’s recommendations to address damp issues, for over a year.
The initial leak in the utility room was addressed as an emergency by the landlord, and when a further issue arose, it responded promptly. Although there was a delay replacing the flooring, this was not as a result of the landlord doing something wrong, but it still ensured the resident was compensated appropriately.
The landlord liaised with the resident in order to obtain an OH assessment, in order to find a suitable property. It made the necessary adaptations and also offered additional support by way of rent credit and funding for redecoration.
All stages of the landlord’s Complaints procedure were complied with. There was a very short delay at stage 3, but this caused no detriment.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
1. Pay the resident £600 compensation for the delay in acting on recommendations to address damp. This is in addition to compensation it has already paid.
2. Carry out a review to ensure its internal processes are in line with this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, it’s not lifestyle (October 2021).