Your Housing Limited (202233665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233665

Your Housing Limited

30 September 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 resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress from the roof.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has lived in the property since 2017. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2022. She explained that she had a leak in her lounge which had returned. The resident set out that she had plastering undertaken in 2021 and that she had decorating which was being finished off, which included a fireplace which was due to be delivered in the coming week. However, she had noticed there was “the black again coming through onto the coving and paintwork/paper bubbling again”. The resident added that whilst the matter had been dealt with by insurance the previous time, the landlord’s representative whom she had emailed, had assisted her.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 28 January 2022. It explained that it would email its repair hub to ask someone to identify the cause of the issue. It added it would await a response from that team and provide the resident with a further update once received.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 11 February 2022 noted that the resident had asked for someone to inspect the loft space.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022. She explained she was unhappy that an appointment made by the landlord’s operative to inspect the loft space had been pushed back to 28 February 2022 as she had made time for the original appointment. She asked for the appointment to be brought forward. The landlord emailed its operative about the matter.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 28 February 2022 the resident contacted it asking for confirmation that the appointment for that day had been cancelled.
The landlord’s internal email on 15 March 2022 noted that the resident had spoken to it the previous week with regards to damp which had started in September 2021. The email noted that its operatives had missed a few appointments, and the resident had explained that one of her neighbours had suffered a similar problem. The resident had been informed that the landlord’s operative would call her to arrange a visit however this had not taken place at that time. The notes set out that the resident had been waiting to have some tiles fitted to her fireplace but could not do this until the damp issue had been resolved.
The resident asked the landlord to provide an update on the matter on 22 March 2022. The landlord confirmed that a repair for the damp had been booked on 25 March 2022.
The resident emailed her insurer on 25 March 2022. She explained that the insurer had assisted in a previous water damage claim which had been finalised in September 2021 due to COVID 19. The resident explained that following that repair she had been waiting for a decorator which had been arranged in December 2021. A new fireplace had been ordered by her in January 2022 however she had been unable to get this fitted due to the new damage on her wall as well as the coving. The resident asked that the issue be investigated.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2022 following her receiving a text in relation to a job reference and called later on the same day to explain she had received three texts with the last one saying the job had been completed. The landlord confirmed that there were no jobs showing on its systems which would generate a job. This was despite the resident explaining a ceiling mould wash job had been scheduled for 21 April 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 April 2022 to explain that her wall was wet, and the issue was spreading down. She explained she had emailed her insurer about the matter. The resident added that she was due to have someone carry out block staining on 21 April 2022 however if the roof leak had not been fixed that this would be a waste of time. The resident asked if she was to get a specialist roofer to inspect the roof whether the landlord would pay for this. The resident sent a further email to the landlord later on the same day to explain that the insurer was possibly going to re-open the existing claim. It was going to get the original party who carried out the insurance work to come out again.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 April 2022. She explained that her insurer had informed her that the water damage was wear and tear and therefore not covered under the insurance policy. She added that she believed the matter was the landlord’s responsibility. She also enquired about the stain blocking which she thought was taking place on that day. She added the landlord had confirmed that nothing had been booked and that it appeared the resident had been receiving text messages which were intended for her neighbour. She asked for this matter to be resolved. The resident added she had contacted the contractor herself and was on hold before she was eventually cut off. She therefore wanted the landlord to arrange the repair itself. The landlord emailed its contractor about the issue.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 27 April 2022 noted it had not received any update back from its contractor in relation to the matter. It sent its contractor an email on 2 May 2022 concerning follow on works.
The landlord’s internal notes from 26 May 2022 noted that, in terms of the leak in the resident’s living room, it had initially thought that this was damage as a result of previous leak which had been claimed on by the resident thorough its insurance. It added the insurer had visited the property in April 2022 and explained that the issue was wear and tear from the outside for which there would be no claim. The insurer had added it thought the issue had been the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord noted that the issue appeared to be water getting in at the chimney and running down the walls of the property. Although it noted that major roof works were to be carried out on this scheme, there had been a delay with those works so a job needed to be raised to rectify the matter before it got worse. It added it was not certain whether a surveyor needed to be sent initially, however it provided pictures provided by the insurance company of the issue. The landlord sent its contractor an email about the issue on 27 May 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 13 July 2022. She explained the chimney issue had been ongoing for 12 months and works had still not been completed. The resident explained that if she did not hear back from the landlord, she would be making a complaint. The resident made a further call about the issue on 19 July 2022 asking for the landlord to respond to her. The landlord’s internal notes from that day noted that multiple occasions where no contact had been made. It sent its contractor an email on that day about the matter.
The resident made an online complaint on 26 July 2022. She explained:
1. The issue had been dragging on since January 2021 when her decorator had found a leak on the ceiling and coving. Following many calls to the landlord it had provided details of its insurer to claim on and the resident had done this, and new plaster had been put on the walls in the lounge in September 2021.
2. Her decorator had returned in November 2021 when the plaster had dried out and as part of the redecoration the resident had ordered a fireplace which was delivered in January 2022. She had noticed damp in the same spot as before and so contacted the landlord about it.
3. After many contacts with the landlord who had sent several emails to its contractor she had been informed to try the insurer again. The insurer had visited the property and informed her that the outside chimney had been the cause and that this was not covered. She had forwarded the insurer’s photographs to the landlord.
4. The landlord’s operative had attended on two occasions to try and repair the leak which had been unsuccessful. She had been informed on many occasions by the landlord that its operative would be in touch with her about the matter which had not occurred. She simply wanted the issue resolved as soon as possible so she could enjoy the use of the room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2022. It stated it understood the resident’s complaint to be the time taken to resolve the chimney issue which had been causing damp. It offered compensation of £250 which was made up of £100 for the distress and inconvenience, £100 for the delay in resolving the complaint and £50 for the lack of communication. In relation to the resident’s complaint, it stated:
1. The repair had been logged by it on 27 April 2022 for its operator to inspect the roof and chimney. In addition to the external work to the chimney and roof, internal stain blocking had been carried out to the lounge area.
2. The roof would be checked by its surveyor “in the next few months and if any defects are spotted, repairs will be organised”.
The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation on 9 August 2022.
The landlord’s internal email on 30 November 2022 to its damp and mould team noted that there had been an issue with water ingress into the property which had been ongoing for almost two years. The landlord had raised the issue with its contractor as it had been told the water had been getting in through the chimney. An operative had raised a job to cap the chimney but when it had attended it had stated it could not do this as the flat below the property had a gas fire. The landlord noted that the resident was still experiencing further problems at that time and asked if the damp and mould team could assist. The landlord chased this up with the damp and mould team on 9 December 2022. It had replied on 3 January 2023 to explain that the issue should be picked up as a standard repair.
The resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint on 19 January 2023. She explained:
1. The leak in her ceiling which was coming from water ingress into the chimney had been ongoing for two years during which the landlord’s operative had visited many times, which the resident considered was a “waste of time and effort”. She added one of the operatives had informed her that the stains on the walls were just water stains.
2. The landlord’s operative had done block painting and painted over mould in the lounge after visiting the loft and stated there was no damp there. However, it did not clean the mould nor flatten down the coving where water damage had affected the ornate plaster coving. As a result, she had raised the issue with the landlord and the operative’s manager had inspected the work and stated that the operative had done the work correctly.
3. The resident had, following the landlord’s operative carrying out the above work, fitted the fireplace. However, due to the water spreading onto her ceiling paper she had paid £930 for a professional plastering company to come out and remove the existing coving and plaster. This had identified that the plaster was wet and that the “water stains” the landlord’s operative had informed her about were actually damp and the plaster was crumbling away and would have in all likelihood have fallen off at some point. Pictures had been sent to the landlord showing this.
4. Given the above issues she had postponed the second part of the coving being put in place by a coving specialist until the damp issue had been rectified.
5. Whilst she had previously accepted £250 compensation for the disruption this had been when she was unaware of the damage to the coving. She wanted the landlord to consider the expenses which she had already paid to her decorator who had had to return a number of times to rectify matters. This also included the £930 which she had paid the coving expert.
6. That once the damp issue had been rectified then the walls inside would have to be dried out which could need a dehumidifier. Given this would require electricity to run she felt she should not have to pay for this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 January 2023. It explained that it had asked a different contractor to resolve the water ingress issue.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 27 January 2023 asked about the issues which had occurred since the stage 1 response in August. It wanted to understand why the resident had not escalated the complaint earlier. Following it understanding that there had been further issues of water ingress since August 2022 it sent the resident an acknowledgement to her complaint on 14 February 2023 and explained it would provide its response by 7 March 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 8 March 2023 to explain that she had not been contacted by the deadline the landlord had given her. She sent an email to it on 13 March 2023 to explain she was disappointed with the lack of contact and how the landlord had failed to act when it said it would.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 13 March 2023. It explained that it would chase up the matter with its complaints team and ask someone to contact her. It asked the resident if she had heard anything from the contractors on site as it was informed that the contractors updated the resident on a daily basis. The resident replied to state that she had not heard from the contractors since the previous week, but she had heard some banging that morning outside of her window towards the back of the property. The landlord asked if the resident was going to be in on 14 March 2023 as it had a meeting scheduled with the contractor at that time.
The landlord’s internal notes on 16 March 2023 show that the resident had contacted it again on that day as she had not heard back from the complaints team. It sent an internal email asking for someone to contact the resident. It also noted that the contractor on site had been doing major roof works. It had asked it to rectify the chimney/roof and understood a quote for this would be with it by the end of the week and so works could commence shortly after that time.
The resident’s niece contacted the Ombudsman on 3 April 2023 to explain her aunt had yet to hear back from the complaints team. She set out the nature of the resident’s complaint and asked the Ombudsman about her next steps. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the matter on 18 April 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 11 May 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 April 2023. Its internal notes stated it had agreed in principle to carry out internal works to the walls and the ceiling and it would contribute to the cost of the specialist plaster coving contractor and decorator. It asked its contractor to be in touch with the resident on that day to assess the current state of the property and assess what was required once the roof/chimney had been repaired.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 April 2023. It noted the resident had ongoing issues with water ingress and wanted the landlord to complete the works as quickly as possible and to cover the costs incurred by her for the specialist coving contractor she had used as well as covering the cost of a dehumidifier if it was needed. It explained:
1. It had appointed a roofing contractor to investigate and address the causes of water ingress into the property. It added this was likely to include repointing work and either the capping or removal of the chimney. It added that work was scheduled to start on that week although this was dependent on the weather.
2. A building surveyor had attended on 19 April 2023 to assess the condition of the property internally. It had stated there was some plastering work required to the wall and ceiling which it would undertake for the resident.
3. It was happy to pay the £930 expense the resident had spent on the specialist coving company as well as contribute £350 towards the decorating. It added once the roofing, paster and coving work was completed it would fund any “reasonable additional decoration costs”.
4. In addition to the above costs, it would offer a further £250 compensation which comprised £100 for the inconvenience, £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint and £100 for the delay in completing the repairs to the roof.
The landlord sent its contractor an email on 24 April 2023 setting out the work which needed to be undertaken. It asked the contractor to keep it updated with the status of the work.
The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation on 11 May 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 30 May 2023 as she had been expecting a plasterer on that day. The landlord’s contractor was unable to find any record and stated nothing had been booked for that day. A job was booked by it for the following day. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 31 May 2023 suggested a dehumidifier was used to remove the damp in the plasterboard. It also noted that the damp in the ceiling had expanded so would need removing and that a plasterer would need to return to carry out the work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 June 2023. It explained that the plastering work had been scheduled for the beginning of July 2023. It added that it had also agreed to pay a further £126 in relation to the dehumidifier costs.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2023. She explained that a further downpour had led to water entering the property again. She added she had been forced to use containers to catch the water and that whilst she was due to go on holiday her son would be checking on the property in her absence. She stated she was losing patience in the matter and that if the dehumidifier was needed again, she would not be paying for it as it had been on continuously for three weeks the last time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2023. She stated:
1. The landlord had called her and that whilst there had been two rings at her end the call had ended. When she had tried calling back the landlord it had gone straight to voicemail. She considered this was not appropriate.
2. The landlord’s surveyor had made two visits to assess the dampness in the bare brickwork and there had been no change. The dehumidifier she had previously used (which she accepted she had received the electricity costs for) had not “done anything for the situation”.
3. The matter had been ongoing for three years which was unfair and one of the workmen who had attended had stated the area where the water ingress was occurring should have been checked previously.
4. She was informed that she needed to wait for the brickwork to dry out, but no timescale had been put on this. She had coving which had been waiting in the warehouse and this had been since November 2022. Similarly, her decorator had been waiting for the issue to be resolved.
5. She had to have a new settee which she ordered before Christmas 2022. This had been delivered in January 2023 as the company could not keep it any longer. The settee had been in the room with plastic covering still attached to it. All of her belongings were covered, and this included the new fireplace which she could not have fitted. This had also extended to the carpets which she could not have fitted due to the situation.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 29 August 2023. It explained:
1. The call to her on 26 August 2023 had been in error whilst the landlord’s representative had been on annual leave.
2. It had discussed the situation with its senior surveyor and agreed to monitor the situation at two-week intervals. It added the dehumidifier had helped. However as not all sources of the water ingress had been resolved this had hindered the drying out process. It proposed a dehumidifier continued to be used and confirmed that it would pay the running costs of this.
3. It accepted the matter should not have been taking as long as it did. It apologised for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 September 2023 questioning whether the property had been checked for asbestos. The landlord confirmed that asbestos had not been used in the particular type (lath and plaster) of construction used in the property. It added that if the resident remained unhappy then she would need to appoint a suitably qualified contractor to take samples and carry out testing.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 18 October 2023 asked for an update on the resident’s property. It noted that remedial work had taken place in April 2023. An explanation of the work carried out since that time was provided. The landlord confirmed in a further internal email on 30 October 2023 that the property was sufficiently dry to reinstate plaster to the wall and ceiling and the work was scheduled for 4 November 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive on 5 November 2023. She explained that the landlord’s contractor had put a membrane on the brickwork in the lounge and it had completed plastering. She hoped this would resolve the matter. The resident explained what the landlord had done so far including details of the compensation which it had paid. She added she wanted to make the Chief Executive aware of the situation.
The landlord’s Chief Executive acknowledged the resident’s email on 6 November 2023 and accepted that it needed to get the matter resolved and had copied in the Director of Property who would be getting in touch with the resident and would agree a clear timetable of actions to resolve the matter.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 November 2023 and an appointment was made for the Director of Property to visit the property on 1 December 2023. Following this appointment, a job was booked for the cleaning and rectifying of plaster.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2023 to explain that there had been a further instance of water ingress. She wanted an external roofing specialist to address the matter. The landlord replied to say that it was surprised that the issue had only come to light at that time, as there had been a history of bad weather occurring. It added it was looking to arrange for a roofer to attend. However, given the height of the property it would need a contractor for access equipment.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2024 to explain she was concerned the water ingress did not damage the coving once again. The landlord explained that it would be coming out the following day to investigate the matter and the likely cause.
A surveyor attended the property on 18 January 2024 and sent the landlord a copy of the damp survey on 25 January 2024. A copy was forwarded to the resident on 2 February 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 February 2024 to question why the landlord could not identify where the leak was coming from. She added she had decorators due to come in the following month which she would now need to cancel.
The landlord’s contractor carried out work on 14 February 2024. This had followed it not attending the previous day despite the landlord saying it would be attending. The contractor’s notes noted there was damp around the chimney breast. It had also identified a hole in the lead from a previous job which had been carried out. It added it would carry out work on the roof which would take one day to complete.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 February 2024. It confirmed that it had completed internal works on that day and would finish up the external work by the next day. It added it had been unable to clean the internal fireplace, so it agreed to fund a replacement. It asked the resident to obtain the costs of this. It also explained the resident should keep the heating on in the lounge to prevent moisture from forming.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 February 2024 as well as a further email four days later to set out what, in its opinion, the outstanding actions were for the resident. This had been in response to a request for this from the resident’s niece. It stated these to be:
1. To reimburse the cost of running the dehumidifier. This had been agreed with the resident as being £426.
2. To agree to fund the cost of the replacement fireplace.
3. To agree and fund the additional costs in terms of further decoration work required. For this it needed a revised quote from the resident’s decorator.
4. To agree and fund the cost of replacement carpet for the lounge and hallway.
5. To review the compensation previously awarded as part of the formal complaints process.
6. To pay for a piece of dado rail to be refitted as well as a small section of insulation to be refitted in the loft space. The insulation was scheduled to be undertaken on 28 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The resident initially complained to the landlord in July 2022 and accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation the following month. The resident’s complaint had followed her having initially raised the issue of water ingress with the landlord as far back as January 2021 and for which a claim had been successfully made with the landlord’s insurer. She then escalated the complaint in January 2023. Whilst the landlord had issued its stage 2 response in April 2023, it is clear from the communication between the parties that there were further instances of water ingress into the property after the end of its complaints process which were all linked to the earlier repairs undertaken by the landlord. As a result, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the works from the time of the resident’s initial contact with the landlord over the water ingress from the chimney following the insurance claim, in January 2022 onwards. This will include the events following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of water ingress from the roof.

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that leaseholders should refer to their lease for details of repairs and maintenance responsibilities.
The resident’s lease says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to “keep in good and substantial repair (except internal repair to the internal parts of the demised premises) the property”. Whilst the lease does not explicitly specify the roof and chimney they would form part of its responsibilities, as external parts.
The landlord’s repairs policy set out that repairs fell into three categories. These were emergency repairs, routine repairs and major and planned work. Whilst the repairs policy did not specifically state the timescales for completing repairs to a leaseholder property, it classified emergency repairs as ones where there was a serious risk to customers or their homes. It added it would attend as soon as possible, within 24 hours. Routine repairs were those which posed no immediate risk, and the timescale was within 21 calendar days. Major and planned works were those where due to their nature they could not be undertaken and completed within 21 calendar days or needed to be added to a mini programme of similar works grouped together for multiple customers. Temporary repairs would be carried out within 21 days and the full repair completed within 63 days. These timescales are in line with the approach the Ombudsman would expect to see.
Following the resident having initially contacted the landlord about black mould which had been coming through on her coving and paintwork in January 2022, it made arrangements to have someone inspect the loft space/roof of the property. This was an appropriate initial step for the landlord to take, especially as it had appeared to be coming from a similar area as the previous repairs in 2021. The contractor’s notes show that it attended on 2 February 2022 and completed the job, although no notes detailing what had been done or photographs were taken at the time. The landlord’s repair records noted a recall job was raised on 10 March 2022 and that the operative attended on 25 March 2022 to check the roof and loft space for signs of damage and water ingress. This determined there was no water ingress and whilst a follow up job was raised for 27 March 2022 to treat the mould internally, this did not take place as the contractor noted that repairs to the roof and chimney were due to take place in the next couple of months.
The landlord’s repairs log differs from the information provided by the resident and the landlord’s internal notes. These had shown that, following raising the matter in January 2022 an appointment was scheduled, which had been pushed back by the landlord to 28 February 2022. Whilst the resident had made herself available on the original scheduled date, the landlord has not provided any explanation for this change and, although it attempted to contact its contractor about the matter, it did not receive any response from it. This rescheduled appointment did not take place as it was cancelled and rescheduled for 25 March 2022. This was two months after the resident had raised the matter. This was not reasonable and not in keeping with the timescales for a routine repair, but rather for major or planned works.
It is clear from the landlord’s contemporaneous notes that the resident had frequently contacted the landlord to ask for an update or for a call back from it. Despite the landlord sending its contractor emails on the matter and explaining to the resident that she would be contacted by the contractor, there was a lack of a response from the contractor, who was acting on behalf of the landlord. The resident informed both the landlord and the Ombudsman that the contractor had missed a number of appointments, however no further details were provided of when these appointments had been scheduled to take place.
The landlord had, following an inspection, referred the resident to contact its building insurers. This was a reasonable approach especially given the earlier claim in 2021 which the insurer had covered. However, following the insurer having attended the property in April 2022, its inspection put the landlord on alert that the water ingress was due to the chimney and wear and tear and hence would be the responsibility of the landlord. Despite this the landlord’s notes show that it did not do anything until the end of May when it contacted its contractor about the matter and noted that specialist equipment (cherry picker) was required to access the roof. The landlord’s repair records show that it had attended on 16 June 2023, and it had resealed around the gas vents. A further visit had followed on 23 July 2023 although the landlord’s repair notes did not provide any details about what work had been carried out at that time. The delays and lack of notes of what work had been carried out was not acceptable and the impact on the resident would have been that she was inconvenienced by not being able to use her lounge with no update on what work the landlord was doing and when it would be undertaking it in order to resolve the water ingress. As the resident had other external parties carrying out work at the property, this lack of updates would have impacted on what information she could pass on to those tradespeople.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted that there had been delays caused in dealing with the matter for which it had offered a total of £150, and it explained that work would be carried out and that a surveyor would be checking the work several months after it had been completed. However, despite the landlord’s comments, the water ingress had not been resolved and the resident noticed the return of the issue during the autumnal and winter months when the weather had become more unsettled. The landlord’s documentation has not clearly set out what work it had carried out following the stage 1 response. Given the lack of evidence and the apparent continuation of the leak, this Service cannot conclude that the matter has been satisfactorily investigated or repaired by the landlord.
The landlord should have further investigated the cause of the water ingress when alerted to the return of it by the resident in November 2022. It would have been reasonable to appoint a surveyor to inspect the roof and the resident’s property, especially given the repeated nature of the leak as the water ingress and subsequent dampness and mould had been ongoing for more than 10 months at the time, from the resident’s initial contact in January 2022. As stated above, there is no conclusive evidence the landlord had at this time diagnosed the cause of the water ingress or completed the necessary repairs to stop this from returning.
The landlord’s contractor had identified in April 2023 when it went to replace the resident’s damaged plasterboard that the exposed brickwork underneath had been wet. Whilst it sought to dry out the dampness by use of the humidifier it should have identified where the dampness had been coming from. The landlord’s repair records show that it did not inspect the property until July 2023, some three months later. It had at this point stripped off the ridge tiles and taken off all slates to check for water marks before re-bedding them and carrying out repointing and the fitting of lead flashing in places where it had been missing. Despite this work, this failed to resolve the issue as the resident experienced further water ingress later in the year.
The landlord’s delays have been extensive and unreasonable. The time taken to complete the repairs falls outside the timescales mentioned in its repairs policy. These delays have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She remained unable to use the lounge in her property, along with damage to her personal belongings which the resident has stated was caused by the damp and mould. Whilst the landlord did visit and carry out repairs to the property at times, by not clearly identifying the cause of the leak, the work it was doing was reactive in nature and it was not permanently resolving the issue but rather providing a temporary fix.
The resident has confirmed that, whilst the property has two bedrooms, she had with the permission of the landlord knocked through part of the wall in the second bedroom and used that room as a dining area. Nonetheless the nature of the dampness in the lounge restricted the resident from entertaining friends at the property and making full use of the property.
The resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing updates from the landlord since raising her complaint. Her communications were often not responded to. When the landlord did respond, this often lacked a substantive response. This was likely to have caused additional significant concern and inconvenience to her.
To resolve her complaint, the resident has repeatedly said she would like the landlord to complete remedial works to the interior of her property to deal with the dampness and mould caused by the water ingress as soon as possible. Whilst the internal repairs would not normally fall under the landlord’s repair responsibility as set out in the lease, it did confirm that it would contribute to the resident’s redecoration costs as well as covering the costs of the resident’s new fireplace which had been damaged by the water ingress. The landlord had also accepted as a gesture of goodwill to cover the cost of the resident’s carpet in the lounge and hallway. This was appropriate given the circumstances.
The landlord offered further compensation at stage 2 of its complaints process. This factored in that there had been a further instance of water ingress after it had issued the stage 1 response to the resident. In addition to covering the costs the resident had paid to a specialist coving company; the landlord paid an amount for the cost of the dehumidifier. The landlord had not set out how it had established the cost of the dehumidifier that it would pay and whether it had based the amount payable on a fixed use per day or on the resident’s additional electrical usage over the time the dehumidifier had been used. It has added a further £200 which comprised £100 for inconvenience and £100 for the delay in completing the repairs to the roof, to the £150 for the delays which it offered at stage 1. The amounts offered by the landlord were in keeping with its own compensation policy for service failures as well as for time and trouble. However, given the individual circumstances experienced by the resident due to the time taken by the landlord to resolve the matter, the Ombudsman considers the award to be inadequate as it does not fully recognise the extent and impact of the failings in this case.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, dampness, and mould in her property. The water ingress appears to have originated from the roof, making this the landlord’s responsibility. It took just under three years to fully identify the cause of the water ingress and to stop this. Whilst the landlord did carry out remedial repairs earlier in 2023, it had not removed the compressed wet insulation in the loft which contributed to the moisture seeping through into the resident’s ceiling and wall. This has led to additional damage to the resident’s belongings including the replacement fireplace, as well as distress and inconvenience caused to her.
For the distress and inconvenience its failures have caused, the landlord should pay the resident a further £400. This compensation award, when added to the earlier awards paid by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The amount is proportionate where a series of significant failures have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, where the landlord’s response to the failures undermined the landlord/resident relationship, and where the failures accumulated over a significant period.
The landlord should, in addition to making the compensation payment, pay the resident in line with its outstanding commitments as set out in its communication with the resident on 22 February 2024. It should also perform a management review of this case to determine where its failings occurred and what it can do to prevent these in the future.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy from 2022 stated that at stage 1 it would aim to respond within 10 working days. If the resident remained unhappy, they should escalate the complaint within eight weeks of receipt of the stage 1 response. At stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days although if this was not possible it would advise the resident of the delay and ensure a response was provided within a further 10 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response within the time limits contained in its complaints policy. Whilst the resident did not raise a further concern until several months after stage 1 response, after understanding the reasons for this delay, the landlord acted reasonably by escalating the matter to stage 2 of its complaints policy as opposed to restarting its complaints process.
Whilst the acknowledgment letter issued by the landlord on 14 February 2023 stated it would provide its response within 15 working days, which was not in keeping with its complaints policy of 20 working days, the landlord did not provide it until 21 April 2023, some 46 working days after it had issued the acknowledgment letter. The landlord’s notes show the resident had been chasing the landlord for the stage 2 response on regular occasions and internal correspondence showed that it had set daily tasks for the case handler reminding of the deadline. Despite this the landlord failed to provide any update to the resident on the matter. This was a serious failing by it and the impact on this would have been to cause the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience. Whilst the landlord did make an offer of £50 in its stage 2 response for the delays in resolving the complaint the Ombudsman does not consider this was appropriate to fully recognise the service failings here and resulting inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman considers a total award of £150 is appropriate given the circumstances to reflect the impact of the delay on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress from the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of compensation of £500, on top of the amounts offered in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This amount is comprised of:
  1. £400 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s reporting of water ingress into the property.
  2. £100 for the failings in its complaints handling.
3. Pay the resident the amounts outstanding as per its correspondence to the resident of 22 February 2024, if it has not already done so. For the landlord’s reference this should include the following aspects:
  1. The additional costs of running the dehumidifier at the resident’s property.
  2. The cost of the replacement fireplace for the resident.
  3. Subject to it being provided with a quote from the resident’s decorator, the additional reasonable cost of decoration needed.
  4. The cost of replacing the resident’s carpet in the lounge and hallway.
  5. The cost of the replacement dado rail at the property.
Within eight weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case, identify any learning points and service improvements needed, and actions to implement these and provide a copy of the review to this Service.