Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202301357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301357

Sovereign Network Homes

16 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:
1. Response to damp and mould.
2. Response to repair issues including the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s staff and its contractors including discrimination and contact restrictions.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom end terrace house. She has lived at the property with her daughter since May 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The resident must take steps to prevent condensation.
2. The resident is responsible for carrying out fencing repairs unless the fencing was installed by the landlord or where it is a health and safety hazard.
3. The resident is responsible for repairing, replacing, easing or adjusting internal doors and locks and door furniture such as handles.
4. The resident is responsible for repairing minor plaster cracks and internal decorations.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions”.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (December 2022) states as follows:
1. It aims to undertake effective investigations and implement reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to manage damp, mould and condensation.
2. It aims to offer advice and assistance to residents, including information on how to prevent damp, mould and condensation.
3. It aims to ensure staff and contractors are trained on how to recognise, manage, and identify solutions to damp, mould and condensation within a rented property.
4. It will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp or mould and deliver effective remedial solutions.
5. It will remain in regular and effective communication with a resident, providing updates especially where an investigation may be complex.
6. Residents are responsible for making sure that they take appropriate steps to prevent significant amounts of condensation. These responsibilities include:
7. Following its advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp, mould and condensation.
8. Regularly checking and treating condensation and mould.
9. The resident is responsible for arranging adequate household contents insurance, to protect their home from damage caused by damp, mould, or condensation.
10. Where remedial works and mould wash treatments have been undertaken by the landlord, the resident is responsible for redecoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. It is responsible for:
  1. Keeping the structure in a good state of repair.
  2. Maintenance of walls at the boundary of the property (but not dividing walls), as well as pathways, steps and other means of access to the property.
  3. The installations for the water, gas and electricity supply.
  4. If it attends to a repair that is the resident’s responsibility, the resident will be charged for the repair.
2. Residents are responsible for the following repairs (this is not a full list):
  1. Fencing.
  2. Internal decorations.
  3. Minor repairs such as small plaster cracks, door handles, locks and hinges.
  4. Replacing electrical plugs.
  5. Repairing fixtures, fittings and equipment gifted to the tenant or not provided by the landlord.
3. It categorised repairs as follows:
  1. Emergency repairs – It aims to attend within 4 hours and make safe. These are situations where there is a risk to health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that is rapidly getting worse.
  2. Routine repairs – those which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away. It aims to attend within 2 weeks and aims to complete most repairs within 1 calendar month.
  3. Complex repairs – larger repairs which take longer to arrange. For example, a repair requiring a specialist contractor and surveys. It aims to complete within 90 days.
4. When reporting a repair that is not an emergency, it will offer a resident the next available appointment.
5. It expects residents to be available for arranged appointment. If access cannot be gained it will leave a contact card to rearrange the visit. A job will not be cancelled because no access could be achieved but the requirement to complete the repair within 15 days will not be expected from its contractor.
6. It expects residents to make simple lifestyle changes to resolve condensation. Where condensation is the likely cause of any reported damp or mould, it will advise the resident of the action that needs to be taken.
7. The resident is responsible for floor coverings including laminate floor.
8. The resident is responsible for bath panels.
9. The resident is responsible for adapting doors to accommodate carpets and easing and adjusting internal doors.
The landlord’s habitual complaints policy states as follows:
1. A complainant may be considered to be habitual where contact with them shows that they meet any of the following criteria:
  1. Persists in pursuing a complaint where its complaints procedure has been fully implemented and exhausted.
  2. Persistently raising new issues, unreasonably raising further concerns or questions on receipt of a response.
  3. Is unwilling to accept documented evidence of services provided as being factual.
  4. Insists they have not had an adequate response in spite of a large volume of correspondence specifically answering their questions/concerns.
  5. Is unwilling or unable to accept that the concerns identified are not within the remit of the landlord to investigate.
  6. Focuses on a trivial matter out of proportion with its significance and continues to focus on this point.
  7. Has an excessive number of contacts with the landlord placing unreasonable demands on staff.
  8. Electronically records conversations without prior knowledge and consent of the other parties involved.
  9. Displays unreasonable demands or expectations and fails to accept that these may be unreasonable once a clear explanation has been given.
2. If a resident has demonstrated one of more of these it may take the following action:
  1. Setting out a code of behaviour.
  2. Declining further contact with the complainant.
  3. Restricting contact to a single point of contact.
  4. Advising the complainant that they have been provided with a full response and continuing contact on the matter will serve no useful purpose. The complainant will be notified that the correspondence is at an end and that further communication will be acknowledged but not answered.
3. All contact will be reviewed to consider whether a different complaint is being reported, for which the usual complaints procedure will be implemented.
4. The habitual status of an individual will be formally reviewed every 6 months to determine whether their behaviour has improved.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It would not consider compensation if:
  1. The matter would be dealt with as an insurance claim.
  2. Repairs have been carried out in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
2. It sets out categories of compensation:
  1. Low impact delay £5/week.
  2. Medium impact delay £10/week.
  3. High impact delay £20/week.
  4. Low impact distress £5/week.
  5. Medium impact distress £10/week.
  6. High impact distress £20/week.
  7. Low impact time and trouble £1/week.
  8. Medium impact time and trouble £3/week.
  9. High impact time and trouble £5/week.
  10. Missed appointment – £10.
3. It will also consider discretionary compensation.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy as follows:
1. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.
2. Terms such as “good will”, or “without prejudice” are unnecessary and should not be used.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 23 May 2022 (this has not been seen by this Service).
On 12 August 2022 the landlord recorded internally that the resident had reported that the water from the tops was scalding hot.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint (from 23 May 2022) at stage 1 on 30 August 2022 and stated as follows:
1. She had previously been on the management transfer list since 2017. The property had become void on 21 March 2022 and had been intended as being suitable for her. The resident viewed the property in April 2022 and although she raised concerns in respect of cleaning, she agreed to move in and the tenancy commenced on 9 May 2022. Prior to moving in, the resident raised concerns in respect of some works including cleaning which was completed on 15 May 2022.
2. Following further emails of dissatisfaction from the resident, its surveyor and contractor had attended on 27 May 2022. During this visit it had agreed a final scope of works and a timeline of appointments.
3. It acknowledged that there had been areas of workmanship that were not to its expected standards and the property should not have been signed for until such works had been completed. It therefore supported the decision to carry out additional works (it did not say what) which were over and above its lettable standards.
4. It acknowledged that it should have communicated a clear plan of action. This had not happened sufficiently to prevent confusion and it apologised for this.
5. For the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, it offered £200 compensation.
6. It advised that it had put an action plan into place.
7. It had met with all parties to address its communications. It stated that all future enquiries regarding poor workmanship would be inspected by its inhouse surveying team to ensure quality was delivered consistently.
8. It advised the resident of the option to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
That same day (30 August 2022) the landlord responded at stage 2 to a complaint which it had given the same reference number (CAS- 877954) which it stated had been submitted on 8 June 2022 (this complaint nor the stage 1 response was provided to this Service). This response referenced the stage 1 response sent that same day for complaint (CAS-857954) and stated as follows:
1. Following a joint inspection on 27 May 2022, it had agreed a final complete list of works to carry out. It had sent this list to the resident on 3 June 2022. This Service has seen this list which comprised of over 56 jobs.
2. The resident had submitted a complaint on 8 June 2022 in respect of outstanding works. It had responded that same day and had agreed to fund the additional work. It had also awarded £200 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
3. It had confirmed that there were only 2 items outstanding from the final works list, namely the maintenance of a tree and work to the garden fence.
4. In future, it would only undertake repairs in line with is repair responsibilities.
5. The resident had sent it a further list of over 30 repairs on 2 August 2022 (this has not been seen by this Service).
6. It had done all it could to meet the resident’s requirements, including its contractors working on Saturdays to accommodate her availability.
7. It had supplied and fitted bathroom tiles which had cost it several hundreds of pounds. This had been carried out as a goodwill gesture as the resident had felt let down by contractor A.
8. It acknowledged that contractor A had sent a text to the resident and had suggested they meet for a drink. The contractor had advised that they had not meant for this to be taken seriously. The landlord accepted this and viewed it as an example of the efforts to maintain a friendly, positive relationship with the resident. It did not believe that there had been an ulterior motive. In hindsight the contractor had accepted that they should not have sent the text.
9. Its list of agreed works had been its final offer. The resident had since raised a number of other works which she stated had been agreed to by the landlord or contractor A. Contractor A’s recollection of events did not support this and it could not conclude that any further works had been agreed. It noted that the works were mostly ‘cosmetic’. As a resolution, it suggested that the resident instruct her own tradesperson. It would pay £300 towards this, in addition to the £200 offered at stage 1.
10. In respect of kitchen plinths, the resident had advised that unless it could exactly match the colours of the kitchen cupboards, she wanted a new kitchen. It asked her to make contact to discuss colours available.
11. Contractor A had identified what had been causing an issue with the water temperature. This boiler repair would take place once the parts were sourced.
12. It would arrange for rendering to be inspected.
13. It had asked for the resident’s concern about the lifting kitchen lino to be looked into.
14. It concluded as follows:
  1. There had been some issues in respect of the condition of the property which should have been addressed prior to it being made available for letting.
  2. It had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by undertaking a number of inspections, and agreeing a list of works. This included works over and above its lettable standard.
  3. Contractor A’s intention had been to complete everything specified, but some items remained unfinished because their operatives spent time engaged on other items which were not on the final scope of works.
  4. It signposted the resident to this Service.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord noted internally that the bathroom extractor fan was working correctly and that it was on a timer. It reiterated this to the resident on 21 October 2022. That same day, it noted that a new bath panel was needed but the resident had “refused” to have hardwood. On 16 December 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had declined to let contractors in unless they fit an acrylic bath panel. The contractors had then left the property.
On 14 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. She was concerned about the choice of method contractor B had proposed to repair the tile grout for the rendering. She had reported this in April 2022 and the landlord had given her “false promises”. Contractor B had proposed to cover up the tile grout with a 3mm board and cover this in render. She had arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property that week. A contractor (it appears this was one she knew and was unrelated to the landlord) had also confirmed that this was not a correct or professional way to repair the issue. She requested a second opinion from another of the landlord’s contractors.
2. Contractor B had confirmed that ducting from the extractor fan was extracting moisture into the loft space and it was not leaving the house but it had advised that this was not an issue. Her contractor and surveyor had advised her that the moisture needed to leave the property and not accumulate in the loft.
The landlord advised that same day (14 March 2023) that it would inspect the work once it had been completed. The resident advised that she would not trust the landlord’s judgement, that she worked in housing and had sought advice from 2 external professionals. She also stated that contractor B was looking at a “cheats way” to resolve the issue. She said the works should be postponed pending a second opinion. The resident subsequently agreed for the appointment to go ahead as planned.
On 17 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that contractor B had not attended the appointment. She also stated that she was living with damp and black mould including above her bed. She stated she had first reported this to the landlord in November 2022 during a visit.
On 25 April 2023 the resident advised that she would accept a full and final settlement of £4000 compensation. On 26 April 2023 the member of staff who had responded at stage 2 advised the resident that in view of the compensation of £4000 she had requested, it was not something that could be resolved. It advised her to submit a new compliant.
On 4 May 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. She was dissatisfied with the outcome of her prior complaint.
2. The issues had been outstanding since July 2022.
A new extractor fan was fitted on 17 May 2023 with redecoration works being competed on 27 May 2023.
On 30 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The majority of the repairs have been completed, however the following works were outstanding:
  1. The bathroom extractor fan was dripping water.
  2. The bathroom ceiling had been repainted that week but was bubbling already.
  3. The new garden gate bolt was not aligned properly so did not lock.
  4. Scratched tile trim.
  5. Bath chip rusting.
  6. Toilet door lock and handle was broken and she has to use pressure to open and close the door. A contractor had been unable to fix it (it is not clear when).
2. Contractor appointments had been missed and some had been attended at the wrong time. She had taken annual leave or arranged to work from home and this had wasted her time.
3. She was physically, mentally and emotionally drained.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord advised her that it was going through her correspondence and it would update her as to how long its complaint response would take.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2023 and stated that contractor C would re-attend on 2 June 2023 to readjust the gate post so that the bolt lock aligned. It would let her know in respect of other matters.
The landlord advised on 2 June 2023 that it had not made as much progress with the complaint response as it had hoped due to school holidays and emergency jobs. It would update her the following week.
The resident advised the landlord on 3 June 2023 that contractor C had not attended in respect of the gate bolt. The landlord apologised and advised this would be added to the complaint.
On 6 June 2023 the resident advised as follows:
1. Contractor C had attended on 5 June 2023 and had bent the metal to adjust it. There was a sharp corner sticking out which she said she could “live with”.
2. She asked to know what was happening about the fence which she described as being in a dangerous condition. There was a piece of wood “about a sharp as a knife”, along with sharp and broken bits and nails. It was also leaning in places and one part had fallen out. She stated she had reported this around 6 weeks ago.
3. The extractor fan was “dripping like mad”.
The landlord responded the following day (7 June 2023) and stated as follows:
1. It had seen a video of the bolt lock and could see it had been resolved.
2. It had explained its stance on a number of occasions in respect of the fence. Contractor C had removed protruding materials but the fence was not its to maintain. The resident would need to take any further issues up with her neighbours.
3. Although it could not conclude how the bath chip had happened, it had asked for this to be re–enamelled.
4. It had asked for a second opinion on whether there was any alternative solution in respect of the bathroom extractor fan.
5. Internal doors and handles were the residents responsibility to maintain as per the tenancy agreement. Unless it could find evidence that it had agreed to address this, it would not be taking this further.
6. The scratched tile trim was minor cosmetic damage and not something it would address. It was inconclusive how this damage had occurred.
The resident responded that same day (7 June 2023) and stated as follows:
1. The fence had not been made safe enough. The property belonged to the landlord so it was not her “battle to fight”.
2. The bath chip needed a professional “magic man” not enamel paint.
3. The bathroom door handle was not her fault or something she could fix. It had been that way since she moved in.
4. The scratched tile trims were not minor, they were “very aggressive large scratches” and had been damaged due to “lazy careless workmen”.
The landlord replied the following day (8 June 2023) as follows:
1. It had become clear that it was not going to be able to meet the resident’s expectations. It had already carried out a large number of works that were usually a resident’s responsibility.
2. It had tried to polish out the scratches on the tile trims as a goodwill gesture despite there being no conclusive evidence that this damage was caused by any contractors. The resident could arrange a “magic man” at her own expense.
3. It would not respond to any further queries on the same subjects.
On 9 June 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. Contractors had not polished the tile trims.
2. The fence was a serious matter and she was certain the fence belonged to the landlord.
3. The bathroom doorhandle issue was due to the door alignment and the frame as had been confirmed by contractor C (this confirmation has not been seen by this Service). She was not responsible for this.
4. The leaking bathroom extractor fan was causing a slip hazard in the bathroom.
5. It was the fourth occasion that contractors had damaged property and personal possessions.
6. She requested £4000 compensation for the “horrendous hell” since May 2022.
The landlord advised on 9 June 2023 that it would not be commenting any further and the resident would receive the Stage 1 response when it was ready.
An appointment was arranged for 15 June 2023 in respect of the bath chip and bathroom extractor fan. The resident requested that the contractor also inspect the bathroom door frame and stated that the situation had impacted on her physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing and on her daughter during her mock GCSEs. A new bathroom fan was fitted on this date and the landlord noted internally that the resident had been shown how to use it and was happy. The contractor also repaired the bath chip that day. The contractor advised the landlord that the resident had stated it had caused more scratches however it had photographs to show these were present before its attendance.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response for the second complaint (ref CAS- 1035865) on 14 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It had reviewed over 145 emails sent by the resident in the previous month. It had mutually agreed with the resident when the complaint was first logged, that due to the complexity and volume of information, its usual 10 working day timeframe for a response would not be achievable.
2. There had been a previous complaint (CAS-857954) which covered events up to August 2022. The stage 1 response had been issued on 8 June 2022 and the stage 2 on 30 August 2022. It summarised the findings of the previous complaint.
3. Before the works agreed could be completed, contractor A had advised that they were not willing to return, based on the resident’s behaviour, which included heavy supervision, not maintaining a safe distance, not providing access and unnecessary criticism. The works had been passed to contractor B. Contractor B provided the same feedback and had also been unwilling to return.
4. A surveyor had attended in November 2022 to specify the works to be carried out and these had been issued to contractor C. Contractor C had completed all the works. It noted that contractor C also reported obstructive behaviour from the resident, including unnecessary demands over the types of dust sheets used, constant supervision via the ring doorbell, including reporting to the landlord when the contractor had taken breaks or left to collect materials. This led to unnecessary queries from the landlord and overall delays in completing the works. It noted that the resident had denied such behaviour.
5. External rendering:
  1. Works had been carried out in July 2022 to address split render by contractor A however the resident had been dissatisfied with the quality of works. It had inspected the work in October 2022 and the works were fit for purpose.
  2. Following the resident’s continuing concerns it had re-inspected the property on 17 November 2022 and had agreed that render needed to be redone at the corners and above the door. It had issued this work to contractor B.
  3. Due to poor weather conditions and disagreements surrounding availability, contractor B did not complete the works and the landlord issued this to contractor C on 27 March 2023. Works had started on 4 April 2023.
  4. There had been a delay due to brick slips arriving damaged, however works had been completed on 27 May 2023. This included painting of the newly installed brick slips to match the render. This had been above and beyond what was necessary but it had agreed this as a goodwill gesture.
  5. Delays had been incurred as a result of a number of different factors, including disputes that contractors had with the resident.
  6. It acknowledged the poor workmanship by contractor A and that this was the main factor that led to subsequent delays. It apologised and noted that it no longer used contractor A.
6. Kitchen floor:
  1. This had not been included in the final list of works that had been agreed.
  2. It had found during an inspection on 4 October 2022 that there was a small section of lino with some slight bubbling, however the lino had been in a reasonable condition overall.
  3. It had offered to see whether it could glue the area down.
  4. Upon receipt of images, (19 October 2022) and as the resident had raised a number of other repairs, it had re-inspected the lino on 17 November 2022 and had determined that it needed to be replaced. It issued this to contractor B to complete on 30 November 2022.
  5. Contractor B had attended, however there had been a dispute as the resident had wanted a non-standard flooring option over the agreed costs. It had explained that if the resident did not want to accept the standard package, she would need to make her own arrangements.
  6. On 20 December 2022 the landlord had advised the resident that works would commence on 6 January 2023.
  7. It acknowledged that despite the original stance on the kitchen floor replacement, replacement had been found to be necessary.
  8. It could not agree that the delays that were incurred in carrying out the works were due to poor management, as the dispute around the flooring had been outside of its control.
  9. The condition of the kitchen floor had deteriorated between both inspections.
  10. It agreed that there had been some delay that could have been avoided between when the matter was first reported on 9 August 2022 and the works being issued to a contractor B on 30 November 2022. It apologised for this.
7. Bathroom damp and mould and flaking ceiling paint:
  1. The resident had advised that the bathroom ceiling paint was peeling on 5 October 2022 (this was not seen by this Service). It had referred her to its previous stage 2 response where it had given her money to instruct her own contractor to paint the bathroom ceiling.
  2. The first email it found of a report of mould was from 11 October 2022 when the resident had advised of mould on the windowsills in her daughter’s bedroom (this was not seen by this Service).
  3. It had inspected the property on 17 November 2022 and noted that the bathroom had minor mould and blistered paintwork. It had concluded that this was due to condensation and a lack of ventilation.
  4. It had agreed for the bathroom extractor fan to be replaced to a more powerful model and also advised the resident to open the windows when showering.
  5. It had inspected the property and on 30 November 2022 contractor B confirmed that a mould wash had been carried out and that redecoration would be carried out once the external rendering had been completed.
  6. A further mould wash and redecoration had been scheduled for 11 to 13 January 2023. Those works did not take place as a dispute had arisen as to whether the resident would allow the operatives to use the toilet. Contractor B had not returned to complete this.
  7. It had agreed to arrange for contractor C to carry out the redecoration, despite having paid the resident (£660) to arrange her own contractor. Contractor C had completed the works on 27 May 2023.
  8. It had offered a one-off mould wash but the resident had declined this.
  9. It accepted that the root cause of the issue was the poor workmanship carried out by contractor A when they originally decorated the bathroom. This had resulted in unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  10. It advised that it would not be possible to eliminate the risk of mould entirely as this had to be controlled using appropriate ventilation.
  11. It did not agree that it was responsible for delays in completing the works that followed contractor B’s refusal to return.
8. Bath panel:
  1. It had offered to fit a standard panel on 8 November 2022, shortly after the contractor had to force access to it. The resident had declined this.
  2. It had explained on 22 November 2022 that if the resident chose a non-standard panel, it would not be liable for any future maintenance of it.
  3. It had arranged to measure the panel on 2 December 2022 however, access could not be gained.
  4. Contractor C installed a panel of the resident’s choice in April 2023.
  5. It concluded that it had provided an adequate service.
9. Chip in bath:
  1. There was no evidence that the chip had been caused by its contractors.
  2. It had arranged for the area to be re-enamelled on 16 June 2023.
  3. It would not take any further action on this.
10. Bathroom extractor fan:
  1. It had inspected the fan on 17 November 2022 and had fitted a new fan on 17 May 2023 and confirmed that it had been ducted with a condense trap installed.
  2. As the resident still reported issues it had sought a second opinion and a different fan was installed on 15 June 2023.
  3. It had advised the resident that if she continued to experience excessive condensation after taking long hot showers or baths, there was little more it could do.
  4. It had provided the resident with a working fan at all times.
11. Thermal imaging survey:
  1. It had explained that as the walls were solid there was no option for installing insulation within the brickwork.
  2. It had arranged for contractor B to inspect the loft insulation. This was not completed as contractor B had left the site. Contractor C had inspected the loft (it is not clear when) and deemed the insulation to be adequate.
  3. The matter was closed.
12. Fencing and gate:
  1. The gate had been replaced (it is not clear when) but the resident had reported an issue with being able to lock it whilst the works to the brick slips were being completed.
  2. The bolt had been adjusted on 6 June 2023.
  3. It had replaced the fence to the rear, the left hand side and the front. The conveyancing plans did not state that it was responsible for the maintenance of the right hand side fence.
  4. It had arranged for contractor C to remove any protruding objects from the side of the fence that faced the garden.
  5. In order to resolve the issue it had instructed a party wall surveyor to provide a legal stance.
13. Scalding water:
  1. The resident had raised this in August 2022. Its gas contractor had attended in September 2022 and had advised that a plumber would be required to install blending valves to help regulate the temperature.
  2. The plumber attended on 21 October 2022. It fitted a bath shower thermostatic mixer tap and a blending valve to the basin to regulate the temperature.
  3. It had responded appropriately and no further work was required.
  4. There had been a slight delay in completing the works in October 2022 after the resident reported it in August 2022.
14. Gas cupboard possibly containing asbestos:
  1. It had given the resident the results of the asbestos survey (from 31 May 2022) on 9 June 2022 and no asbestos had been found.
  2. The resident had accused the surveyor of making false statements and following this the surveyor had refused to return.
15. Boiler leak and subsequent mould in the cupboard:
  1. This had been reported on 10 January 2023 and its gas contractor had attended within 7 days. The condense pipe was pushed in and tightened.
  2. The resident reported on 23 January 2023 that the boiler was still leaking.
  3. The gas contractor noted that the resident was not available during the day and had therefore cancelled the order. They had advised her to contact the out of hours service to raise an emergency repair should she require attendance outside of working hours.
  4. On 30 March 2023 it had raised a further works order for the condense pipe to be repaired. This had been fixed within 24 hours.
  5. There had been some delay as a result of the resident’s availability. It however acknowledged that if the repair had been completed sufficiently on the first visit, there would have been no need to accommodate any further appointments. It apologised for this.
16. Damaged kitchen plinths:
  1. The resident had requested edging strips (18 October 2022) and requested to be paid £9.49 for this, plus a contribution to paying her builder.
  2. It had advised her on 2 November 2022 that it would pay £50 towards her builder and the requested £9.49 as a goodwill gesture to enable her to choose the design/colour. If she had accepted the designs/colours available, the work could have been completed without delay.
17. Mould to bedroom ceiling:
  1. Mould had first been reported on 11 October 2022.
  2. During the surveyor’s inspection (17 November 2022), 2 small areas of mould had been seen in the corners of the ceilings.
  3. It had advised during the visit that this was due to poor ventilation and a mould wash would be carried out.
  4. It had advised the resident to open the windows more frequently.
  5. Works had been issued to contractor B and a mould wash had been carried out (the date is not clear but this was prior to 30 November 2022). A further mould wash and redecoration had been scheduled for January 2023. Those works did not take place as a dispute arose with contractor B.
  6. It had advised her on 21 March 2023 that it was in the process of finding a new contractor to complete all the remaining work and in the meantime it offered a one-off mould wash.
  7. The resident had declined this and advised she had been carrying out mould washes herself.
18. Bathroom door handle:
  1. It would not take this forward. It had advised the resident on 7 June 2023 that as per the tenancy agreement, this was her responsibility.
19. Scratched tile trims:
  1. It would not take this forward. This was a minor cosmetic item, which it was unable to meet the resident’s expectations with.
20. Missed contractor appointments:
  1. 27 May 2022 – contractor A had missed an appointment due to a supply chain issue.
  2. 30 September 2022 – contractor C had attended despite the resident having advised that she would not be available. In addition, the contractor attended without the required item needed (a toilet). As the resident was not present she was not inconvenienced by this.
  3. 17 November 2022 – its surveyor had been due to arrive at 10am but had not arrived by 10:38am. It recognised that communication could have been improved, however this inspection took place.
  4. 8 December 2022- contractor C had been due to attend in the morning but did not attend until the afternoon. This would be considered a missed appointment.
  5. 4 April 2023- contractor C attended although it did not carry out as much work as the resident had hoped.
  6. 18 May 2023– this was a missed appointment by contractor C, however the resident had not needed to be at home to provide access.
  7. 19 May 2023– this was a missed appointment by contractor C, however the resident had not needed to be at home to provide access.
  8. 23 May 2023– contractor C had attended but did not send the appropriate resource that had been agreed (it is not clear what this is). This would be treated as a missed appointment.
  9. 2 June 2023- contractor C missed an appointment.
  10. It apologised for the missed appointments.
21. Contractor B’s conduct:
  1. It had reviewed the written correspondence with contractor B and did not agree that it had been unhelpful. The staff member had clearly explained their reasons as to why they could not meet the resident’s expectations (a higher priced flooring) and had signposted the resident to information on how she could escalate this. It would not expect contractor B to agree anything beyond the standard price without its consent.
  2. Due to the resident’s unwillingness to allow contractor B to use her toilet, they had to arrange a Portaloo. It was therefore not reasonable for the resident to have complained about the Portaloo not having been collected.
  3. It had seen evidence of the resident’s obstructive behaviour which included a phone call during which she called contractor B’s staff member a “cow”. This went against her tenancy conditions and was the second time it had had to write to the resident about her behaviour.
  4. If there were further incidents reported, it would likely consider closing down any remaining work orders and only agreeing to carrying out emergency repairs.
22. The involvement of staff member A:
  1. Staff member A had advised the resident on 21 July 2022 that she was being placed on the habitual complainants register.
  2. It had reviewed the contents of the emails and staff member A had signposted the resident and had tried to set her expectations appropriately. There were no discriminatory intentions in this.
  3. It acknowledged that the resident felt frustrated that some emails had not been responded to within the timeframes she had hoped. With the level of contact and the amount of new issues being raised, this had made the case difficult to manage.
  4. It agreed with the decision to manage the case via the habitual complaints register.
23. The involvement of staff member B:
  1. The resident had disagreed with the earlier stage 2 response and believed staff member B had been biased and the compensation was too low.
  2. It had advised her that it had signposted her to the Housing Ombudsman and that that was the correct route to take if she was unhappy.
  3. It had paid her an additional £660 in addition to what it had offered in its stage 2 response after contractor B pulled off site. This was so she could arrange her own decorator.
  4. Due to the excessive volume of emails, a small number may have gone unanswered. This had been a genuine oversight.
  5. Overall staff member B had invested a considerable amount of time helping to resolve the issues raised.
  6. There had been certain matters which the resident had repeatedly raised despite it providing its stance.
  7. It was not in a position to indefinitely pass the case onto a new member of staff to review and respond to.
  8. Staff member B had previously apologised if any of the correspondence had caused upset and had explained that had not been their intention.
24. The involvement of staff member C:
  1. It had reviewed staff member C’s advice on how to help control condensation. It did not agree that advice (to open a window) was inappropriate or meant to cause offence.
25. The fencing contractor:
  1. The resident had stated that it had called her at a time that she had advised she would be unavailable and had refused to call her back. It acknowledged that this was not the standard of service it would expect and apologised. The contractor should have been accommodating of her availability and her request had not been unreasonable.
26. Contact centre involvement:
  1. It acknowledged that after the resident had suggested that a contractor call her with an appointment, this request should have been adhered to, as opposed to offering her a new date over email. It had fed this back to its contact centre.
  2. It apologised that personal information had been forwarded on to staff member B. Staff member B had made the resident aware of the arrangement for her emails to be re-directed to them as part of the conditions of being on the habitual complainants register. Whilst this may have been upsetting, it had appropriately informed her.
27. Stage 1 conclusion:
  1. It had carried out a large volume of repairs that would usually be a resident’s responsibility.
  2. The volumes of correspondence received by the resident had been excessive and time consuming. It had exchanged over 660 emails with her in less than 12 months which it considered to be “wholly excessive and unnecessary”.
  3. Its decision to place the resident on its habitual complaints register had been the correct action to take. This had not been done to penalise the resident but had been to ensure that it had the best opportunity of managing her concerns in the most effective way.
  4. There had been some genuine delays with a small number of repairs that could have been avoided, however the resident’s ongoing issues with each contractor and her consistently raising new faults that were not within its remit, had contributed to the delays.
  5. It had carried out in excess of 25 repairs that would usually be a resident’s responsibility.
  6. Some compensation was owed as a result of the poor workmanship carried out to the external render, the boiler leak and bathroom ceiling works. There had also been minor delays with the management of the kitchen floor and hot water issue.
  7. It offered £970 compensation in addition to the £1219.49 that had already been paid for the previous complaint (£200 at stage 1, £300 at stage 2, £660 handyman payment and £59.49 plinth payment). This brought the total for the previous complaint and this stage 1 offer to £2,189.49.
  8. It apologised for the impact that the poor workmanship had on the resident. It advised that this had been addressed with those involved to ensure they were aware of its expectations on standards moving forwards.
  9. It had reviewed the terms of the habitual complaint agreement and agreed that the most appropriate course of action would be to ask that the resident send no more than one email per week which it would responded to within 1 week.
That same day (15 June 2023) the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and reiterated a number of points of dissatisfaction and added as follows:
1. The landlord had told lies about her. She had got on well with contractor A, however one of them “fancied” her and had “ulterior motives” which was why repairs had been done above the usual standard. She had not complained about Contractor C taking breaks.
2. It had failed to acknowledge the impact on her health, sleep and work life.
3. There had been a water damaged and stained ceiling in the rear hallway when she moved in.
4. It had not acknowledged that a radiator had fallen on her foot in June 2022.
5. The £300 had not been a goodwill gesture and was instead to pay a handyman.
6. Contractor A had left sharp dangerous wood unfinished on her daughter’s wardrobe. This had “sliced” her daughter’s hand and pulled her hair.
7. She had paid £650 for a builder to repair all of the items so the £200 ‘award’ was not money she was able to enjoy or to compensate for the stress, anxiety, disruption and mess.
8. Works had not been delayed due to brick slips arriving damaged but because contractor C had failed to attend on a “ridiculous number of occasions”.
9. The brick slips had been ordered in the wrong colour. This was not a goodwill gesture but was fixing a mistake.
10. She requested all of the information the landlord held about her.
11. The kitchen lino had been in a bad condition due to the “old mouldy lino” having been left underneath. It was a trip hazard.
12. The landlord had tried to blame her for not ventilating the property. Being told to shower with the window open was “absurd”.
13. The £660 compensation to pay her own contractor had not been for the bathroom but had been for the bedrooms and living room.
14. The first mould wash had only happened because she asked for it.
15. She had spent £15,000 on flooring for the property which the contractors had damaged.
16. The water temperature had taken until October 2022 to be addressed after she had been “fobbed off and ignored”. The household had been burnt every day.
17. The surveyor had agreed there was a problem with the bathroom door frame or the door itself had swollen which had affected the door closure. This had been on the agreed list of works.
18. There had been 18-20 missed appointments by contractor C.
19. It had not awarded any compensation for the impact on her. She stated she would accept £2500 as full and final settlement of the complaint.
20. Putting her on the habitual complainers register was discrimination.
It is not clear when works were booked or if works went ahead, however the landlord raised a job for the bath chip to be repaired and the extractor fan to be inspected on 15 June 2023. On 30 June 2023 it noted internally that the resident had reported that the bathroom fan did not turn off.
On 3 July 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the bathroom extractor fan was not working at all. She advised it was brilliant at extracting steam but had an electrical fault and ran intermittently so needed to be replaced. She stated the making goods works were ok but one area was lumpy. The landlord advised on 10 July 2023 that an electrician would attend on 12 July 2023 to replace the fan.
On 12 July 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the electrician had not been aware of the need to replace the fan and that it had attended thinking it was only inspecting it. As such she had had a wasted day.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The water damaged and stained ceiling in the rear hallway was subjective and the damage was considered minor.
2. When it received reports of residents inappropriate or challenging behaviour, it had to take it seriously, explain its stance and try to manage expectations of acceptable behaviour moving forwards. The decision to place the resident on the habitual complainants register had been based on the level of contact at the time. This was in line with process after the concerns over contact had been raised. It acknowledged that it could have managed the resident’s expectations earlier into the initial discussions, but overall it was responsive and communicative.
3. It agreed that the poor workmanship of contractor A was the main factor that led to subsequent delays. It apologised and advised that it no longer used contractor A.
4. It had not seen anything to suggest that the wrong colour brick slips had been ordered. It asked her to supply evidence of this.
5. Its response in respect of the condition of the flooring was reasonable.
6. It agreed that a waterproof paint may have helped the situation.
7. The bathroom fan would be installed that evening. It apologised that the resident had to chase this and for its failure to attend and install the new fan as agreed.
8. Its response in respect of thermal imaging was unchanged.
9. A Chartered Surveyor had investigated the boundary in dispute. It had advised that, if it was not clear from land registry who was responsible for the boundary, then according to Land Registry guidance the boundary should be considered a shared ownership and maintenance liability. It advised the resident of the option to instruct a chartered surveyor if she disputed this. In an attempt to resolve the matter it had asked if it could complete the works, however it had been advised (possibly by its legal team although this was not specified) that it could not do so unless it was certain that it was responsible or had permission to complete works. Once it had this confirmed it would act appropriately.
10. The temperature of the water had taken longer than expected to resolve and the resident had to raise this matter several times before it was resolved. It apologised for this. It advised her to inform it if she wished to make an injury claim to its insurance team.
11. There seemed to be some confusion from the resident over the timeline of events for the mould in the bedroom. It considered its actions to have been appropriate.
12. It had discussed her comments in respect of the surveyor’s behaviour with them and their manager. The surveyor had a differing version of events, but it had reminded them of the need to remain calm and professional. It apologised if the behaviour was anything other than exemplary.
13. It had been clear in respect of the bathroom doorhandle. It may have indicated that it would complete this as part of the original scope of works, however upon further investigation it confirmed this was the resident’s responsibility.
14. It would review the missed appointments if the resident could provide evidence of these. Its findings at stage 1 were in line with the attendances identified on its internal systems. It acknowledged that there had been a further failed attendance to install a new extractor fan and it apologised for this.
15. It apologised if contractors had made her feel uncomfortable. However, given the concerns around the resident’s behaviour, the stage 1 response was reasonable. It did however apologise if this caused any distress.
16. Any works which the resident agreed to complete would not be considered as part of a compensation award. It clarified how it had determined the £2,189.49 compensation (for this complaint and the previous complaint) as follows:
  1. Render delays:
  2. 8 July 2022 (1 month after works had been agreed) to when contractor B was issued the job on 30 November 2022 due to contractor A’s poor workmanship (21 weeks).
  3. Contractor B left the site on 15 July 2022 and works were re-issued to contractor C on 27 March 2023 and were completed on 27 May 2023.
  4. The total delay was 25 weeks.
  1. Kitchen floor delay: 9 September 2022 (1 month after issue reported) to 30 November 2022 (contractor being instructed) was 12 weeks.
  2. Bathroom ceiling delay: 5 November 2022 (1 month after paint flaking was first reported) to 11 January 2023 when contractor B refused to return was 9 weeks.
  3. Water temperature delay: 2 September 2022 to 21 October 2022 was 7 weeks.
  4. Boiler leak delay: 10 February 2023 to 30 March 2023 was 7 weeks (due to it not being fixed correctly the first time).
17. Total compensation timeframes:
  1. Render 8 July 2022 to 30 November 2022 and 27 April 2023 to 27 May 2023.
  2. Kitchen floor 9 September 2022 to 30 November 2022.
  3. Bathroom ceiling 5 November 2022 to 11 January 2023.
  4. Scalding water 2 September 2022 to 21 October 2022.
  5. Boiler 10 February 2023 to 30 March 2023.
  6. “Delay @ medium impact = 28 x 10 = £280.
  7. Delay @ high impact = 9 x 20 = £180 (Damp & Mould).
  8. Distress @ medium impact = 37 x 10 = £370.”
  9. Missed appointments = £140
  10. Total = £970 (offered at stage 1).
18. This was in addition to the £1,219.49 that had already been paid to the resident following the earlier 2022 complaints.
19. For a lot of the issues raised by the resident it was one word against another and it could not be certain what was said or what took place. It could however have been more empathetic in its approach as it had been responsible for many of the issues. This was something it would learn from.
20. It awarded an additional £200 compensation as follows:
  1. Rendering completed 27 May 2023 but works still outstanding. Rounded up to 8 weeks at medium impact– £80.
  2. Recall extractor fan that was installed (15 June 2023) still outstanding. Rounded up to 5 weeks at medium impact– £50.
  3. Missed appointment to install new extractor fan– £30.
  4. Time and trouble in chasing for updates/progressing both issues above. High impact rounded up to 8 weeks– £40.
On 19 July 2023 the resident responded as follows:
1. The landlord had shown “zero care, acknowledgement or empathy” for the impact on her health, menstrual cycle, fertility and wellbeing or how her daughter’s GCSEs had been disrupted.
2. She accepted the “very poor amount” of compensation.
3. She requested to open an insurance claim for her and her daughter being burnt and scalded by the water and for the radiator that fell on her foot.
That same day (19 July 2023) the resident advised that a contractor had changed the electrical fitting on the wall outside the bathroom for the extractor but it was still not powerful. She reiterated that making good works were required. The landlord advised that its contractor would attend on 24 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 July 2023 and advised that its contractor could no longer attend that day and offered a date of 26 July 2023.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord advised that a job for the fencing had been arranged for 2 August 2023.
On 26 July 2023 the resident noted that the contractor for the extractor fan had advised they would be attending after 8pm. She later advised that the contractor had arrived just after midnight. She asked for this to be rearranged.
On 31 July 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 3 August 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had nailed in loose fence boards and nails that had been sticking out. At least 6 meters of fencing needed to be changed.
On 7 August 2023 the resident advised the landlord that a contractor had checked the bathroom fan and changed the settings but it was still weak. The walls had been dripping and items in the bathroom had started to get saturated.
On 8 August 2023 the resident advised that she had not heard anything about deep cracks forming under the property.
The landlord advised her on 11 August 2023 that it had chased the outstanding works which included:
1. The extractor fan.
2. The fencing/boundary.
3. The rendering (to be corrected).
The resident advised on 14 August 2023 that landscaping, trip hazards, broken old brick and pottery were also outstanding.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. Extractor Fan – the fan was working as intended. As such it would not take this matter forward. It had gone beyond its usual expectations by sending back the original engineer to inspect it again. The contractor had confirmed that the fan would not remove all moisture as the room needed to be regularly ventilated via the window.
2. Boundary/fencing – Once it had determined who was responsible it would either complete works (if its responsibility) or request that the necessary works be completed by the responsible party.
3. Rendering – it was waiting for contractor C to confirm when they intend to remedy the poor workmanship.
On 17 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that constantly having to defend herself had had a “horrendous and detrimental impact” on her physical health and wellbeing which the landlord had not acknowledged. She had not heard from its insurance team.
On 22 August 2023 the resident advised that the extractor fan was turning on at the wrong times. She stated she had to jump up to turn the switch off to get it to turn off in order to sleep. This was dangerous as it was near the top of the stairs. The landlord advised her the following day to source her own contractor and if a fault was found with the fan, it would consider reimbursing her. The resident responded and stated as follows:
1. She would not arrange her own contractor for the fan.
2. She requested a copy of the report in respect of the fencing.
That same day (23 August 2023) the landlord advised her as follows:
1. It reiterated that it had inspected the fan and that she could arrange her own contractor.
2. It had asked a surveyor to check the fencing again to note the works required and to speak to the neighbour. It would identify who was responsible for the fencing and may take legal advice.
The resident reiterated her dissatisfaction with the extractor fan in late August 2023. The landlord responded on 30 August 2023 and stated that it would not respond any further to the fan issue.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 6 September 2023. The landlord advised the resident on 19 September 2023 that following the inspection it had agreed the following works:
1. Making good / infilling the crack in the render. It was determined that subsidence was not of concern.
2. The soffit ventilation grille would be replaced.
3. The fencing to the right hand side was structurally sound and fit for purpose. There were minor imperfections to the vertical boards, but nothing that required immediate attention. No works would be carried out.
On 2 October 2023 the resident advised the landlord that it was “ruining her life” and causing her stress. She requested that the extractor fan be replaced or a “proper” ventilation system installed. She stated she had a video recording from her doorbell of the landlord saying it would replace her fence panels.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord noted internally that the extractor fan was the same as the resident had had before. It was on maximum boost and was working effectively. The resident wanted the steam from the bathroom to be removed immediately. It had explained that the fan needed time to remove steam.
On 7 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord that there was black mould growing on the ceiling and paint bubbling on the bathroom ceiling.
On 11 and 12 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reiterated her frustrations. She advised as follows:
1. Her decorator had attended to paint her room and treat the mould on the ceiling and walls. They had advised that the mould would come straight back and it indicated gaps in insulation and the insulation being too thin in the loft. She stated that the landlord had not checked this.
2. The decorator had found slow leaks down the walls at both ends of the ceiling in her bedroom, which she had first reported in November 2022. Her contractor had advised that the amount of water coming in indicated the loft insulation was either wet or there were gaps or broken roof tiles. Contractor A had “clearly lied” about the loft insulation being fine.
On 13 November 2023 she stated that mould had destroyed her bed and mattress costing £2000.
On 23 November 2023 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and found as follows:
1. Moisture readings throughout were very elevated. It found no evidence of moisture penetration. The elevated moisture readings were likely to be condensation or a leak.
2. The use of a flexi-duct with the bathroom extractor fan reduced the ventilation rate of the fan and could permit moist air to condense and drip back down into the bathroom.
3. The fan’s humidity level trigger was switching on and off in response to fluctuations in humidity.
4. Condensation build-up was evident to most of the double glazed windows. No deficiencies were noted with the windows or trickle vents.
5. The loft insulation was poorly installed with significant variation in thickness and some parts had been laid over debris. This would be contributing to difficulties in heating the property. It recommended that the area be cleared and the insulation fully reinstated.
6. There was no cross-ventilation in the eaves and no ventilation at ridge level internally and the roof space was effectively unventilated. The breathable membrane lining was not suitable as the sole means of ventilation and moist air would be trapped within the roof void. It would condense and run down through the ceilings and walls.
7. It had run the heating for 1.5 hours but this had not adequately raised the wall temperatures. Even warmer air and surface temperatures would not be enough to avoid condensation.
8. It recommended as follows:
  1. Supply and install a programmable control to the central heating system.
  2. Arrange for a test of the bathroom extractor fan by a specialist ventilation engineer to ensure its humidistat function was correctly set and operating.
  3. Modify roof-space ventilation to achieve a ventilated roof-construction.
  4. Renew roof space insulation.
  5. Modify the bathroom extractor fan so that the fan exhaust did not rely on a flexi-duct within the loft space.
  6. Reposition the fan to the wall.
  7. Carry out an intrusive inspection of the external wall insulation.
  8. Carry out intrusive (core-sampling) of the external wall substrate.
  9. Monitor conditions within the property following the above changes.
On 2 March 2024 the resident submitted a complaint in respect of sunken paving in front of the house and having to lift a heavy rubbish bin up to the pavement.
On 3 March 2024 she stated that her bathroom light had stopped working due to the inadequate extractor fan and that every ceiling in the house was splitting and cracking. She asked if it was possible to be moved to a newbuild property.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord confirmed that it would complete works as follows:
1. Repairs to rendered base plinth to side/rear elevation.
2. Gate and locking mechanism overhaul.
3. Make good wall outside of bathroom.
4. Mould treatment and decoration with damp resistant paint to boiler cupboard and the walls by the back door.
5. It confirmed the works it would not take forward as follows:
  1. Bathroom extractor fan. Both its surveyor and contractors had confirmed that it was more than suitable for the shower room. It reiterated that the fan was not the sole factor for reducing condensation in the bathroom.
  2. Property temperature. The resident would need to allow time for the insulation works to take effect.
  3. Bath chip. The area was small and was not causing an issue with the use of the bath.
  4. Damp smell from kitchen cupboards. No damp or mould had been found by surveyors or contractors.
  5. Plaster on wall behind fridge. This was a small hairline crack of the paint, which was the resident’s responsibility.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this and requested an independent surveyor to check the loft insulation and the bathroom extractor fan.
On 26 March 2024 the landlord advised that it had agreed for its gas team to check that the heating was adequate. The resident responded that it was “pointless” and that the loft insulation needed checking. She stated that she would not open her door to the gas team unless the loft insulation was inspected.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint in respect of contractor behaviour is in relation to a contractor inappropriately using her personal phone number. Whilst this service is able to investigate how the landlord responded to the complaint, we are unable to consider the possible misuse of personal data. This is because Paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body responsible for considering complaints about data protection, therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint would be better suited for consideration by the ICO.
It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the repairs including damp and mould on her mental and physical health and that of her daughter. She also outlined physical injures which she stated had been caused by a radiator and a sharp wardrobe. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
It is noted that the resident submitted a number of complaints to the landlord, this included two complaints from 2022 (23 May and 8 June 2022), which completed the internal complaints process on 30 August 2022. The resident also submitted a complaint on 4 May 2023 which completed the internal complaints process 19 July 2023. This Service would normally only consider one complaint per investigation report, however in this case all of the resident’s complaints are linked and the landlord advised the resident to make a new complaint when she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered for the 2022 complaints rather than correctly signposting the resident to this Service. In the interest of fairness, all of the complaints referenced above have been considered in this report.
The resident raised concerns about other issues following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (on 19 July 2023). As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, these are not aspects that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Following such, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. The aspects of complaint which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure are as follows:
1. Cracks under property.
2. Sunken Paving.
3. Landscaping and trip hazards in garden.
4. Delay in submitting insurance claim.
5. Heavy dustbin.
6. Damp smell from kitchen cupboards.
7. Plaster on wall behind fridge.
8. The quality of rendering works by contractor C.

Damp and mould

It is not clear when the resident first raised her concern about the bathroom extractor fan and damp and mould, however she had done so since at least August 2022 when the landlord had addressed this concern within its first stage 2 response. On that occasion it advised that it had checked the fan which was found to be working and it paid her compensation in order for her to instruct her own contractor to paint the bathroom ceiling.
Despite the landlord’s assurance that the extractor fan was working, the resident reported damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom on 11 October 2022. It took over a month (until 17 November 2022) for a surveyor to inspect the property. It is not clear why this was delayed. The landlord took appropriate action in respect of the surveyor’s findings by replacing the bathroom extractor fan with a more powerful model and a mould wash was carried out (by contractor B) around the end of November 2022.
Around this time (although the exact date is not clear) the resident requested a thermal imaging survey of the property. The landlord explained that as the walls were solid, there was no option for installing insulation within the brickwork. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that the construction of the property would not accommodate this. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken her concerns about the heat retention of the property seriously and it arranged for contractor B to inspect the loft insulation (although the date is not clear). It also arranged for a further mould wash and redecoration of the bathroom ceiling (in January 2023) however none of these works took place due to a dispute between the resident and contractor B over toilet facilities on site.
Despite being aware that these works had not gone ahead, by March 2023 (2 months later) the landlord had still not instructed a different contractor. It is noted however that this was the second contractor who had declined to return to the resident’s property. Around this time the landlord offered a mould wash as an interim measure, however this was declined by the resident. The landlord instructed a new contractor (C) who inspected the loft (although it is not clear when) and deemed the insulation to be adequate. It is noted however that the landlord did not provide the inspection reports of its contractors or the report in respect of the request for a thermal imaging survey to this Service. This highlights a possible issue with the landlord’s record keeping and also the reliability of its decision making. It is also noted that a later survey (November 2023 – see below) found that, in fact there were issues with the insulation in the loft space.
A new extractor fan was fitted on 17 May 2023 and redecoration works were competed on 27 May 2023. When the resident reported further concerns about condensation and the new paint bubbling (30 May 2023), the landlord installed a different extractor fan on 15 June 2023. This was appropriate, however it did not resolve the issue and the landlord arranged for a further replacement fan on 19 July 2023. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns that it was not functioning correctly.
During the internal complaints procedure, which concluded on 19 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a 9 week delay in addressing the bathroom ceiling paint and that the contractor should have used waterproof paint. It offered £180 compensation in respect of this and an additional £50 for the issues with the extractor fan.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the resident continued to report her dissatisfaction with the extractor fan. The landlord carried out further inspections of the fan in the summer of 2023 and advised the resident that it was working and that it needed time to remove steam. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the findings of its contractor. The resident instructed her own contractor in November 2023 and subsequently advised the landlord that this contractor had identified issues with the loft insulation.
It is not clear if it was prompted by the resident’s surveyor, however the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 23 November 2023. This found that the loft insulation was not sufficient or installed correctly. In addition it noted issues with the installation and ducting of the extractor fan which was causing water to condense and drip back into the property. This was in line with what the resident had been reporting in respect of water dripping from the fan (in May 2023).
It is noted that it took around a year (October 2022 until November 2023) for these issues to be identified, despite a number of inspections having been carried out. This raises concerns as to the thoroughness of these earlier inspections, the communication between the contractors and the landlord and how these factors impacted upon the landlord’s overall decision making and the time taken to progress the case to a resolution. It is concerning that the resident had advised the landlord in March 2023 that contractor B (who had attended in 2022) had advised her that the ducting from the extractor fan was extracting moisture into the loft space. It is clear therefore that this issue had been identified in 2022. It is noted that the resident felt that she was not being heard by the landlord in respect of the information she had provided.
It is noted however that contractors declining to return to the site likely impacted the feedback received by the landlord in respect of the contractors findings. The amount of correspondence received from the resident and the landlord having to identify new contractors willing to attend also likely affected its handling of the matter and resources to respond. There is no evidence however that the landlord had asked its contractors to further investigate the ducting following contractor B’s refusal to return. Instead the landlord focused on the functionality of the fan itself, which was repeatedly found to be satisfactory. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.
Given the resident’s repeated concerns however, particularly in light of her reports of mould in her bedroom (since October 2022), the landlord could have been more responsive to the possible health and safety risk associated with mould in line with the HHRSR and guidance from this Service. Although the landlord appropriately offered mould washes, this did not seek to remedy the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord could have gone further to provide interim measures to tackle the damp and mould, such as the provision of dehumidifiers.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of issues with the extractor fan at times came across as unsympathetic in suggesting that her expectations of the fan were too high and her baths and showers were long and hot. Its suggestion that she should open a window failed to address her concern that water was dripping out of the fan. It is not clear if the landlord would have instructed a surveyor in November 2023 had the resident not instructed her own contractor who identified the issues within the loft and with the extractor fan.
In summary, the landlord considered the resident’s concerns, replaced the fan and arranged a number of inspections of it. The lack of records relating to earlier surveys/inspections has left questions over the reliability over the landlord’s decision making however. This contributed to the overall delay in progressing these issues to a resolution. It was not until the resident’s contractor identified issues within the loft and after the completion of the internal complaints procedure that the landlord identified and acknowledged an issue with the functionality of the fan. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to acknowledge its failures however, its offer did not go far enough to fully acknowledge the impact of its failure on the resident. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to this aspect of complaint.
To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident compensation of £400 has been ordered. This includes the previous offer of compensation of £230 for this aspect of complaint. This amount is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a failure of the resident had a detrimental impact on a resident. It is not clear if the landlord has acted on the findings of the surveyor since November 2023 and an order has been made in respect of this below.
It is noted that the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that damage caused by damp and mould should be pursued via a resident’s contents insurance. The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on damp and mould sets out that landlord’s policies should have flexibility in respect of compensation for such damage and that it is not appropriate for the landlord to signpost a resident to home contents insurers when a failure by the landlord has led to the damage caused by damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to review its policy to reflect this guidance.

Response to repair issues including the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.

For clarity, each repair issue has been addressed separately.

Kitchen plinths

This repair issue was raised within the first complaint from 2022 as the resident had requested an exact colour match to the kitchen cupboards or alternatively a new kitchen. The landlord met the resident’s request to pay for the edging strips of her choice and to pay for her to employ her own builder to carry out the works. This is something which the landlord was not required to do and demonstrated a resident and solution focused approach.
The landlord noted that the work would not have been delayed had the resident accepted the designs and colours available, which was all that it was required to provide (standard materials) in carrying out the repair. It is noted that in August 2022 the landlord paid the resident £9.49 as requested for the edging and £50 towards her builder. The resident did not raise this issue again following the stage 2 outcome to this complaint in August 2022. The landlord acted reasonably in considering the resident’s requests and acting above what it was required to provide to accommodate her wishes.

Rendering

It is not clear when the issue was first raised however works to the split render were carried out by contractor A in July 2022. As the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the quality of these works within her complaint the landlord acted appropriately and agreed to inspect the rendering within its stage 1 response for the 2022 complaint (30 August 2022). Despite this assurance, it took the landlord 2 months, until October 2022, to inspect the render. The reason for this delay is not clear however it was found that the render was fit for purpose. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this finding at this stage.
When the resident continued to express her dissatisfaction it agreed to re-inspect the property on 17 November 2022. During that inspection it was found that the render needed to be redone. It is not clear why this was not picked up during the earlier inspection. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage opportunity.
It is noted that due to a dispute between the resident and contractor B, this work was not caried out. The landlord appropriately issued this to a new contractor (contractor C) on 27 March 2023. Following this the works began the following week (4 April 2023) and were completed on 27 May 2023. The landlord advised that this delay was in part due to materials having arrived damaged however this was disputed by the resident. This Service has not seen evidence in respect of these materials. It is noted that within its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the poor workmanship and that this had been the main cause of the delays, which it advised totalled 25 weeks in total. It was appropriate for it to apologise for this and for it to advise that it was no longer using contractor A. It also offered compensation, although the amount for this issue was not clear, to acknowledge the impact of its failures on the resident. The reasonableness of the compensation offered in respect of the repairs has been considered below.

Kitchen laminate floor

This Service has not seen the original report however the landlord advised this was received on 9 August 2022. It addressed this aspect of complaint in its 2022 stage 2 response (30 August 2022) when it advised that it would inspect the kitchen flooring. There was a 2 month delay in carrying out this inspection (on 4 October 2022) when some slight bubbling was identified. This delay was unreasonable and was not in line with its repairs policy. A further inspection was carried out on the resident’s request on 17 November 2022 when it was determined that it needed to be replaced. The landlord noted that the flooring had deteriorated during this time. The resident disputed this, however this is not something which this Service has seen evidence of either way. The landlord issued the works to contractor B within a reasonable time (30 November 2022) however this was delayed as the resident had requested a non-standard flooring option. This was something which was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay (of 12 weeks) that could have been avoided between when the matter was first reported on 9 August 2022 and the works being issued to a contractor B on 30 November 2022. It apologised for this. It was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for this delay.

Bath panel

The landlord acknowledged on 2 September 2022, that following other works, the bath panel had been damaged and needed to be replaced. It noted that the resident had declined to have a standard hardwood panel fitted on 8 November 2022. It responded to this appropriately in advising the resident (on 22 November 2022) that if she chose to have a non-standard panel, it would not be liable for any future maintenance of it.
Contractors had tried to gain access to the property on 2 and 16 December 2022 however the resident had declined entry unless an acrylic bath panel was supplied. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the contractors to have left the site following the resident’s refusal.
It is noted that contractor C installed a panel of the resident’s choosing in April 2023. It is clear that the landlord had arranged to replace the damaged bath panel although there was a delay from 2 September to 22 November 2022 in it actioning this. Despite this delay, the landlord was subsequently hindered by the resident’s insistence on a certain bath panel. It responded appropriately and in a resident focused way in advising her about its repair responsibility and ultimately installing the panel she requested.

Chip to bath

The resident reported this to the landlord on 30 May 2023. The landlord responded on 7 June 2023 which was within 6 working days and advised that although it could not conclude how the chip had occurred, it would re-enamel this for the resident. Whilst it advised that this was a cosmetic issue (rather than a repair) it carried this out, over and above its obligation, within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its repairs policy, on 15 June 2023. The landlord’s actions were reasonable given the lack of any evidence that its contractors had caused the chip.

Scratched tile trim

The resident brought this to the landlord’s attention on 30 May 2023. The landlord responded to this within 6 working days (on 7 June 2023) and advised that this was minor cosmetic damage and it could not evidence how it had occurred. Despite this, it tried to polish out the scratch on 8 June 2023. This was appropriate and demonstrated a resolution focused approach and its desire to accommodate and respond to the resident’s concerns.

Scalding water

The landlord was made aware of this on 12 August 2022. It is not clear when a contractor attended however on 30 August 2022 it advised that its contractor had identified an issue with the boiler. Although having identified the issues within a reasonable period of time, the next contractor who attended (a gas contractor) was unable to complete the work as a plumber was required. It is not clear why the type of contractor required had not been correctly identified and this led to a delay. It took until 21 October 2022 for a plumber to attend. This was over 2 months later. Works were completed to regulate the temperature. Given the resident’s reports that her and her daughter had burnt themselves on the water this is something the landlord should have prioritised and should have considered as a potential health and safety issue. It fitted a bath shower thermostatic mixer tap and a blending valve to the basin to regulate the temperature.
The landlord however appropriately acknowledged its failures in responding to this. It also appropriately signposted her to its insurance team in respect of making a personal injury claim.

Gate bolt

The resident first raised this issue on 30 May 2023 when she advised that the bolt was not aligned. The landlord arranged for contractor C to attend on 5 June 2023 (4 working days). This was a reasonable response timeframe and the contractor adjusted the bolt to resolve the issue. The landlord’s actions in respect of responding to this issue were reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.

Garden fence

This Service has not seen the initial report of the resident’s concerns about the fence being sharp although she contacted the landlord about this on 6 June 2023. It responded the following day and confirmed that it had removed protruding materials but that the fence was not its to maintain.
Following the resident not accepting this position, it acted appropriately in instructing a surveyor to inspect the boundary. The surveyor advised that if the land registry records were silent on the matter then the boundary responsibility was shared.
The landlord demonstrated a resident focused approach and looked into whether it could carry out the works in any event, which was appropriate. It is not clear where the advice came from however the landlord was advised that it could not carry out the works without having the ownership confirmed and without the associated permissions having been received. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice it was given. It is noted that the landlord was waiting on the confirmation as to this at the time of the resident referring the complaint to this Service.

Gas cupboard possibly containing asbestos

The landlord had provided the resident with the results of the asbestos survey (from 31 May 2022) on 9 June 2022 and no asbestos had been found. This was provided to the resident within a reasonable timeframe. It is noted that the resident subsequently challenged the findings of this report and stated that the surveyor had made false statements. This was not supported by any evidence. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the finding of its surveyor in respect of this.

Bathroom door

The resident advised the landlord on 30 May 2023 that the toilet door lock and handle was broken and she had to use pressure to open and close the door. The landlord responded on 7 June 2023 and advised that internal doors and handles were the residents responsibility to maintain. This was in line with the tenancy agreement. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise that it would not be taking this further.

Missed contractor appointments

The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns of the missed appointments. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information confirmed on its internal system to confirm which appointments had been missed. It identified a number of missed appointments and acknowledged that some of these had ben attended at the wrong times or that communication could have been improved. It acknowledged the frustration caused to the resident and offered compensation for this which was appropriate and was in line with its compensation policy.

Conclusion

Overall the landlord demonstrated that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns in respect of the repairs and the associated appointments. It acknowledged periods of delay and explained the reasons for this. In addition, it acknowledged the impact and frustration its failures had had on the resident.
When failures are identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered the following redress in respect of these repair issues:
1. An apology.
2. Assurances that it would not be allocating work to certain contractors in the future.
3. A summary of conversations it had had with contractor’s in respect of their behaviour
4. Feedback to its contract centre.
5. Compensation totalling £2209.49 made up as follows:
  1. Compensation for the complaints from 2022:

1) £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble.

2) £300 for the resident to instruct her own tradesperson.

3) £660 for the resident to instruct her own contractor.

Compensation for the complaint from 2023:

1) £50 towards the resident’s builder.

2) £9.49 for kitchen plinths.

3) £790 for delays. (The offer of £180 in respect of the damp and mould has been considered separately.)

4) £80 rendering.

5) £50 extractor fan recall.

6) £30 missed appointment.

7) £40 time and trouble.

The landlord’s offer of redress, both financial and non-financial took account of the failures it had identified. Its offer included both amounts requested by the resident to cover her own tradesperson and materials and discretionary amounts for the failures identified. The financial redress offered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration where a resident was caused a significant impact by a number of failings. It is clear that the landlord had acted in excess of its responsibility outlined in the tenancy agreement and it had sought to put things right for the resident throughout.
It is noted that the landlord experienced significant difficulties in addressing the resident’s concerns, including having to identify alternative contractors who could attend the repairs given the disputes others had experienced when working at the property. The landlord was also hindered by the substantial amount of correspondence received from the resident in respect of repetitive issues and this ultimately led to its decision to manage this via its habitual complainants register. In all the circumstances of the case, including these mitigating factors, the landlord’s overall offer of financial redress is considered both reasonable and proportionate and amounts to reasonable redress.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s staff and its contractors including discrimination and contact restrictions.

For clarity, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about induvial staff member and contractors has been addressed separately.

Contractor A

This aspect of complaint was raised in 2022. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response (30 August 2022) that contractor A had sent a text to the resident and had suggested they meet for a drink. It had spoken to the contractor in respect of its actions being inappropriate. It also changed contractor and advised that it would no longer be using contractor A. This demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s report seriously and it had investigated her concerns and taken appropriate action to prevent this happening again.

Contractor B

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and reviewed the written correspondence with contractor B. it explained to the resident that contractor B and acted appropriately in advising that it could not agree to install a higher priced flooring on her request. It appropriately referred the resident to the conditions of her tenancy and advised that the evidence it had seen of her referring to a member of staff of contractor B inappropriately would be considered a breach of her tenancy. This was appropriate in the circumstances to prevent an escalation of the dispute the resident had with this contractor.

Fencing contractor

The landlord took on board the resident’s concerns as to the contractor calling her when she had advised she would not be available. It apologised for this. This was appropriate although the landlord could have advised what feedback it had given to the contractor in respect of this not happening again.

Staff member A and the habitual complainants register

The Ombudsman acknowledges that a minority of residents will present behaviours that are challenging. This can take up an unreasonable amount of the landlord’s time and resource, often to the detriment of other residents. This Service encourages landlords to have a policy in place to deal with such instances and it is encouraging that the landlord has such a policy.
It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the landlord placed the resident on the habitual complaints register, however the resident considered this action by staff member A to be discriminatory. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord has been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident as that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately and sensitively to the resident’s concerns about discrimination, and whether it followed good practice.
Following the resident’s concerns the landlord reviewed email correspondence with the staff member and investigated the decision making made as part of placing the resident on the habitual complaints register. It found that the staff member had appropriately tried to manage the resident’s expectations and had explained why it had deemed it necessary to add her to the register. It noted that the frequent communication from the resident was often focused on the same aspects of repair issues that it had confirmed its position for and which the resident disagreed with. It is noted that the landlord considered the resident’s repeated concerns about the bathroom extractor fan to be part of its justification to add her to the habitual complaints register. Although her concerns were later found to be justified, the landlord had relied on a the advice of a number of its contractors in concluding that the fan was functioning correctly.
Its communication with the resident around its decision and the justification for this was clear and consistent with its policy and was therefore appropriate. Within its complaint response it took the resident’s concern about this seriously and explained why it had deemed this step necessary in light of the volume of emails it had been receiving from her and the impact this had on its ability to manage her case. The reasons given by the landlord in respect of the decision to place the resident on this register were in line with its habitual complaints policy.

Staff member B

This concern revolved around the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response to her 2022 complaint. The landlord replied appropriately by advising that it had signposted her to this Service if she was dissatisfied. It noted that some emails may have gone unanswered but that this was due to the amount to emails received by the resident. It demonstrated that it had taken her concerns seriously and noted that this staff member had previously apologised if the resident had been caused upset. It investigated her concerns about staff member b having been forwarded her information but found she had been made aware of this arrangement as part of her being on the habitual complainants register.

Staff member C

The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about having been advised by this staff member to open a window to reduce condensation. It had reviewed the advice the resident had been given and concluded that it was appropriate. It had reviewed staff member C’s advice on how to help control condensation. It did not agree that advice (to open a window) was inappropriate. It had however reminded the staff member of the need to remain calm and professional and it appropriately offered to apologise if that had not been the case.

Contact centre

The landlord appropriately acknowledged a failing of its contact centre as it had not called her with an appointment as she had request. It responded appropriately that it had fed this back to its contact centre.

Conclusion

The landlord agreed that aspects of service received by the resident from its staff and contractors fell short of the expected standard. It instructed new contractors in a timely manner following disputes between the resident and contractors A and B and it apologised on behalf of its contractors. This demonstrated a resident focused approach, which was appropriate. The landlord also appropriately communicated with the resident in respect of its decision to place her on its habitual complaints register. Its apology in respect of the actions of its contractors amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord signposted the resident to this Service within its first stage 2 response (30 August 2022). When the resident indicated her dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response and her request for £4000 compensation (25 April 2023), the landlord advised her that she would need to submit a new complaint in respect of this. Not only was this incorrect and contrary to its complaints policy, this contradicted the signposting it had previously given the resident to contact this Service. The landlord’s failure led to the resident inappropriately having to restart its internal complaints process in respect of matters it had already investigated. It is however acknowledged that the resident also raised a number of new aspects of complaint which were appropriately dealt with as a new complaint.
The failure to correctly signpost the resident and follow its complaints procedure for matters already considered, caused at least 3 months (April to July 2023) of further communication from the resident in respect of this complaint. It also delayed the resident referring the complaint to this Service by this same timeframe. In addition to the impact of this failure on the resident, this meant that this investigation has been required to consider two separate complaints with conflated issues. This made the investigation of the landlord’s actions more difficult than it should have been had the landlord followed its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s complaints handling in this case has been confusing which made the investigation more difficult.
Complaint A was made by the resident on 23 May 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 to this complaint on 30 August 2022. It is not clear if a stage 2 response was provided to this and the landlord did not provide it to this Service.
The landlord advised this Service that another complaint (complaint B) had been both submitted and responded to at stage 1 on the same date (8 June 2022). This Service has not had sight of this complaint nor the stage 1 response related to it. It responded to this complaint at stage 2 on 30 August 2022.
Both complaints A and B appear to have involved similar issues and the provision of a stage 1 and 2 response for these on the same date (30 August 2022) was confusing. It is of concern that when this Service queried this with the landlord it advised that the only complaint it could find from around that time was the resident’s complaint from 23 May 2022. It is not clear why this confusion has been caused however this made the investigation of this case more difficult than it should have been.
Complaint C was submitted by the resident on 4 May 2023 after the landlord incorrectly advised her to make a new complaint instead of involving this Service. In respect of complaint C, the landlord had advised the resident (it is not clear when) that it required more time to respond at stage 1 over its complaints procedure. This was reasonable given the number of issues raised and the significant amount of correspondence. It further advised her on 2 June 2023 that due to emergency jobs and the school holidays the stage 1 response was not ready. It then advised on 9 June 2023 that it would not be commenting further and the resident would receive the stage 1 response when it was ready. This was not appropriate and was dismissive of the resident understandable wish to know when to expect the stage 1 response. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord had a significant amount of correspondence to review, it should have maintained an empathetic approach. Instead it effectively cut communication off without any indication of how long the response would take.
The landlord subsequently issued its stage 1 response to this complaint on 14 June 2023. This was 15 working days after the resident submitted the complaint. In light of the complexity of the case and the amount of correspondence this was not unreasonable in the circumstances although the landlord’s communication should have been more resident focused.
Following the resident’s escalation request on 15 June 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 July 2023. This took 24 working days, which was 4 days over its timescale in its complaints policy but again give the complexity of the case this was not unreasonable.
It is noted that the language used by the landlord’s staff in referring to compensation offers as goodwill gestures caused her frustration as she believed the term was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy states that such terms should not be used. Given the repeated use of such terminology throughout the complaint responses it suggests the landlord’s staff are not aware of the contents of this policy. Staff training on the complaints policy has been ordered below.
It is noted that the landlord did not acknowledge any failures in its complaint handling nor offer any redress for the impact this had on the resident. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handing. This Service has ordered compensation of £250. This acknowledges the impact that the landlord’s incorrect advice to start the complaints process had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to repair issues including the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s staff and its contractors including discrimination and contact restrictions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord carried out inspections of the fan and offered mould washes, at least one of which was carried out. The landlord had considered the thermal properties of the walls and had relied on the findings of its contractor that the loft insulation was adequate. Although this was later found (after the internal complaints procedure) to be a possible contributing factor, the landlord could have arranged a surveyors inspection at an earlier time given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
The landlord addressed all of the repair issues identified by the resident either in advising her that as per the tenancy agreement, they were her responsibility or carrying out the works. It acknowledges repairs which had been delayed and apologised and offered financial redress in respect of its identified failures. It also explained the lessons it had learnt.
The landlord identified failures in respect of interactions between its staff, contractors and the resident. Although it took appropriate action to instruct different contractors and offered redress by way of an apology.
The landlord’s incorrect advice to submit a new complaint instead of referring her dissatisfaction to this Service cause unnecessary delay and frustration to the resident. Although the landlord had kept the resident updated with the progress of her complaint it became frustrated with the level of contact and stopped communicating with her in respect of when the response would be provided. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failure or offer any redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
Pay £650 compensation direct to the resident. This figure includes the offer of £230 made during the internal complaints process in respect of damp, mould and the bathroom extractor fan. The compensation is made up as follows:
1. £400 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of the damp, mould and extractor fan.
2. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Confirm to the resident and this Service the status of the works identified by the surveyor from November 2023. If works have not commenced, provide a detailed schedule of works.
Review its damp and mould policy in respect of its stance of damage to property caused by damp and mould and the appropriateness of signposting to contents insurance.
Arrange staff training on the complaints procedure with a focus on the language used in complaint responses and the signposting to this Service.