Livv Housing Group (202103424)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103424

Livv Housing Group

28 February 2023

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 response to reports of water ingress and damp at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping, and;
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a tenant of the landlord from 2016 to 2022 at the property, a two-bedroom flat on the twelfth floor of a block. The resident remains a tenant with the landlord; however, he has since moved to a new property.
In communication with this Service, the resident advised that he raised concerns about damp affecting the property since 2017, but that the landlord failed to respond appropriately.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that in December 2017 the resident first reported a patch of damp within the living room of the property. The landlord has advised that at the time, it arranged for a plasterer to attend and a job was raised for the existing plaster to be removed, damp proofing works to take place and for the wall to be re-plastered. The repairs records show an entry on 13 December which reads “inspect damp in living room”. However the job was cancelled the next day, with the description reading “raised in error”. It is unclear what happened after this. However, it is noted that further reports of damp affecting the property were made in 2018 and 2019.
In 2019, the landlord offered the resident another flat within the same building, which the resident viewed and accepted. However, soon after moving in, the resident began to carry out internal decorations and while stripping the wallpaper, identified that the walls were damp. The resident reported this to the landlord, and agreed to move back into the original property. The landlord has provided information to show that you lived in the other flat between 14 October 2019 and 25 October 2019.
In January 2020, the landlord arranged for another plasterer to tank the living room ceiling. The resident was advised to wait until August before redecorating again, which the resident did. However, by December 2020, the damp had reappeared.
In 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint. The exact date that the complaint was made is not known; however it was logged by the landlord on 1 February. The landlord noted that the details of the complaint were that the resident had first reported a patch of damp in 2017, and that the situation was persisting. The resident had advised that the situation was affecting his mental health.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that a meeting had been arranged with the repairs team for 22 February 2021, and in the meantime it wished to know whether a move to a new property would be something that the resident was open to. The landlord added that it would provide a full response to the complaint no later than 26 February. The resident replied on 23 February and advised that he would prefer to stay in his current property as he had recently had new floors laid. However, he added that he would consider a move if “it was worth it”, and it would have to be in the same area as he needed to be close to his mother.
On 2 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as he had yet to receive a response to his complaint. The resident said that the situation had been ongoing for a considerable time and that they were no closer to a resolution. He explained that the situation was causing him a lot of stress, as he was having to sit in a living room with damp that he was unable to decorate.
The resident again chased the matter on 4 March 2021. He said that he had initially reported the matter in 2017, and that he was on the brink of a nervous breakdown. The resident expressed concern that the landlord was unaware of how the situation was affecting him.
The landlord replied on the same day. It apologised for the time that it was taking to provide a response, and said:
1. As the resident was aware, it had been difficult for it to find the cause of the leak that was causing damp within the property.
2. A survey from a specialist contractor had been ordered to try to identify the source of the leak, and it would provide a date for this as soon as it had been received.
3. Following the survey, it would carry out any recommended works to rectify the issues. Once the works were complete, it would be in contact to discuss compensation for the inconvenience that had been caused.
4. The other option would be to look into a home move; however, it understood that the resident wished to remain where he was owing to the works that he had undertaken.
5. It would be in touch as soon as a date for the structural survey had been arranged.
On 5 March, the landlord emailed the resident again to advise that one of its surveyors had been in the area and had left a calling card. The landlord asked if the resident would be available on either 11 or 12 March so that it could assess the affected area and carry out any remedial work while the source of the leak was traced. The resident confirmed that he could provide access on 12 March, but asked if the member of staff could advise when they were on their way as he had been spending time at his mother’s home.
The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the landlord visited the property on 12 March 2021, however there was no access.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 25 March 2021. Within this, it said:
1. It wished to apologise for the delay in providing the resident with a response to his complaint.
2. After a recent inspection of the property, the following jobs had been raised:
  1. Hack off the ceiling, tank with waterproof membrane and replaster the affected area.
  2. Paint the ceiling after the plaster works were complete.
3. It wished to apologise for the difficulties the resident had been experiencing. It wished to inform him that there were plans to renew the roof to the block during the summer months. It believed that this would “finally resolve the longstanding issues” the resident had experienced.
4. In recognition of the continued issues, it wished to offer him a payment of £500.
5. Under its complaints policy, the resident could escalate his complaint if he wished.
Meanwhile, the resident contacted this Service on 13 May 2021 to express his concerns. He said that the situation with the ongoing leak was affecting his mental health as he had been living with the ceiling in a state of disrepair for over four years, and he was unable to carry out any redecorating as the water ingress was persisting. The resident also said that over the years he had been told many different things about the cause/source of the leak, and he was not convinced that the landlord knew how to resolve the problem. This Service provided guidance to the resident on escalating his complaint within the landlord’s complaint procedure, which he did on 13 May 2021.
The evidence provided to this Service suggests that a telephone conversation took place between the landlord and the resident either towards the end of May or beginning of June 2021, although records do not confirm what was discussed and/or agreed. The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 15 June. Within this, it said:
1. It wished to thank the resident for discussing the complaint, and it understood that he was unhappy that the issues in relation to the water ingress and damp had yet to be resolved.
2. During the conversation, they had discussed the option of rehousing. Given that it was unlikely that the resident would be relocated to a house – due to his current housing need being a one-bedroom property – his preference was to remain at the property while the issues were resolved. This was particularly so given that the resident had invested in new floor coverings recently.
3. When they spoke, they had also discussed the need to instruct specialist contractors to thoroughly investigate the causes and to provide a report with recommendations. It had since tried to contact the resident via telephone, and had provided an update via email.
4. Specialist roof contractors had attended on 24 May 2021. It believed that repairs had been carried out that would solve the water ingress. The landlord’s Legal Manager would be visiting the property on 8 July to complete a moisture level check. If at the time of the visit, the previously damp building fabric was within normal tolerances, it would be able to raise the necessary remedial works to the ceiling. However, if the problem persisted, it would progress with the plan to instruct a specialist contractor – as had been discussed.
5. The resident had the Legal Manager’s contact details, and could get in touch if the water ingress persisted during the monitoring period.
6. It wished to thank the resident for his patience while it was trying to resolve the problems that had been raised.
7. If the resident was unhappy with the response he had received, he had the option of contacting his local Councillor or MP, or referring to the matter to this Service after a period of eight weeks.

Events after the landlord’s stage two response

The resident contacted this Service again in August 2021, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint, and that the water ingress was persisting.
Internal correspondence exchanged between landlord staff in September 2021 shows that staff considered that the best solution was to move the resident to a new property. The landlord considered that it was doing what it could to try to find the source of the leak, and that a full roof replacement was due to commence at the end of the month. However, it was aware of the negative effect that the situation was having on the resident. This was discussed with the resident; however, he advised that he would prefer to stay put given the money that he had expended in decorating the property.
On 2 November, the resident advised the landlord that nobody had been in touch for over two months, and he was wondering if anything was going to be done. The resident confirmed that water was still entering the property, and that he was unhappy that no solution had been found despite reporting the problem for four years. In November 2021, the resident provided this Service with photographs of the ceiling showing the ingress of water, and damage to surrounding areas. The resident advised that these had been taken on 2 November, and that he was still waiting for the landlord to remedy the situation.
The landlord responded to the resident’s contact on 4 November. It said:
1. Its first choice was to move the resident from the property. While it understood that it was his home, the source of the water ingress had always been difficult to locate. It confirmed that it would include flooring and decoration in any new property. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if it should arrange for a named member of staff to contact him in relation to this.
2. Contractors were onsite completing the full roof replacement. It had also asked the same company to look into how it could access the ring beam above the property and treat it with a water repellent barrier. This work would need to be carried out via rope access and it was trying to confirm the availability of a suitably trained professional to abseil down and undertake the work.
3. It had attempted some internal works, and asked the resident to allow these to take place. It was fully underway with the major roof replacement and would continue to work until the leak was resolved.
The landlord and resident continued to exchange correspondence. On 17 November 2021, the resident confirmed that he wished to stay within the property to see if the leak could be repaired but if the landlord was unable to resolve the leak, he would be open to moving to a new property.
The works to the balcony of Flat 48 above the property were completed towards the end of November 2021. However, on 8 December, the resident confirmed that water was entering the property again. He advised that he did now wish to be moved, as he was not hopeful that the leak would ever be fully repaired. The resident asked if on moving him, the walls could be tanked and he could be given secondary glazing in the bedroom and living room. The resident also queried whether the flooring could be replaced as he had all new flooring laid within the property only a year ago.
Further correspondence was exchanged and on 18 December 2021, in which the landlord queried whether the housing department had been in touch with the resident. The resident confirmed that it had been, but that he wished to continue the correspondence after Christmas. The landlord attended the property on 23 December 2021, but there was no access.
The resident subsequently moved to a new property in March 2022. He has informed this service that no further repairs took place within the property between December 2021 and when he moved out.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the tenancy terms and conditions. However, Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies certain obligations into all tenancy agreements. This states – “there is implied a covenant by the lessor – (a) to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes), (b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and (c) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.”
The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out how it will approach repairs, and its service standards. It states that repairs are broken down into six categories – responsive repairs, emergency repairs, planned repairs, compliance works, cyclical maintenance and major investment works. The policy states that emergency repairs will be responded to and completed within 24 hours and routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. The policy does not provide examples of what constitutes an emergency repair; however it states that these may include instances where there may be a security, health and safety risk and/or the vulnerability of the tenant.
The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments policy (Complaints policy) sets out how complaints will be considered, and the timescales within which they will be responded to. The Complaints policy states that the landlord will “aim to resolve all complaints within ten working days of receiving them”. At the first stage of its procedure, it will discuss the complaint with the resident and try to agree an effective solution. Once the complaint has been considered in full, the landlord will write to the resident confirming its decision. The Complaints policy adds that in “exceptional circumstances” further time may be required to consider a complaint. If so, the landlord will explain this to the resident, and confirm when they can expect a response.
If the resident is unhappy with the response at stage one, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated. At this stage, either a manager or director who has not been previously involved will consider the complaint further. The Complaints policy does not provide the timescale within which a stage two response will be issued; however, it states that if it needs additional time to consider a complaint e.g. if complex works are involved, it will let the resident know. At the end of the second stage, the landlord will summarise its position and confirm the outcome in writing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported damp within the property in December 2017. An entry on 13 December reads “inspect damp in living room”. However, the job was cancelled the next day, with the description reading “raised in error”. As such, it is not clear what action was taken by the landlord, if any.
The landlord has advised that following the initial report, it attended to remove the existing plaster and damp proof the ceiling. Following this, the ceiling was replastered. However, this information has not been detailed within the repairs records, and the landlord has not provided any further information which evidences if and when this work took place. In addition, while the landlord states internal works were undertaken, it is unclear whether the landlord conducted any investigation into the source of the leak at this time; and if not, why not. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the repair by satisfying itself that the source of the leak had been identified and remedied to avoid further ingress of water into the property.
The next entry relating to the living room is shortly after, on 21 February 2018. This reads “inspect mould/damp in living room”. This job was cancelled on 26 March, and it was noted that works were no longer required; however, it is not known how the landlord arrived at this decision. There is no evidence that the property was inspected and found to be without need of repair, or that the resident cancelled the request. It follows that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s reports of damp appropriately and in line with its obligations. The landlord has provided details of the following further repairs work:
1. Letter from the landlord to the resident dated 14 March 2018 – confirms that the landlord had identified that the source of the damp was the upper floors within the block. It explained that it had raised works and contractors would be sent to resolve the issue.
2. Renew seals to the windows – this repair was first raised in March 2018. It was then cancelled and re-raised in May 2018 and September 2018. The evidence available indicates it was completed in October 2018.
3. Letter from the landlord to the resident dated 25 July 2018 – landlord updated resident and offered an additional £250 in compensation due to delay with investigation.
4. Tank cracks in ceiling – this repair was first raised in October 2018. It is recorded as completed in March 2019.
5. Tanking with installation of asphalt (horizontal) – this repair was first raised in December 2018. It is recorded as completed in January 2019.
6. Letter from the landlord to the resident dated 24 January 2019 – landlord updated resident and explained work would no longer be completed by external contractors, but instead an internal team.
7. Email from the landlord to the resident dated 15 November 2019 – landlord confirmed repair works (mainly tanking) to be actioned. These were completed in January 2020.
8. Tanking of the ceiling – this was proposed by the landlord via email on 31 August 2021. The resident chose not to agree to this repair work as previous tanking had failed.
It is noted that the resident moved to a new flat within the same building in 2019;. It is unclear whether the landlord attempted any further inspections or remedial works while the original property was void. On 21 March 2019, a further job was raised for “inspection rising damp”, although it is not detailed where in the property the damp was considered to be in the property. This job was also cancelled as there was “no access”. However, the records do not indicate that the landlord attempted to reschedule the inspection by contacting the resident following the “no access” appointment. This was inappropriate. The landlord had been alerted to the possibility of damp within the property, and it had a responsibility to investigate this.
The information provided to this Service by the landlord states that tanking was applied to the ceiling within the living room in January 2020. This is not reflected within the landlord’s repair logs, and neither is any detail about any inspections or reports which led to this work. The landlord’s rationale for these works is therefore unclear. By December 2020, the damp patch was reported to have appeared again.
The first entry in the repairs logs for 2021 is dated 19 March. Information provided to this Service by the landlord shows that it was aware that the damp patch had reappeared as of December 2020. However repairs were not raised until March 2021. The reasons for the delay are unclear from the evidence that is available. The job description reads – “hack off, plaster and skim and tank ceiling patch”. It is not known when the work was completed; however a further job was raised on 25 March for the ceiling to be painted after plaster works. Once again, records do not confirm that the landlord investigated the potential source of the leak at this time and that it had satisfied itself that the leak had been identified and resolved.
The landlord’s repair logs do not contain sufficient detail. It is clear that some, albeit limited, actions were taken by the landlord which were not recorded in the records, and that where actions were recorded, the information is limited. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. It is reasonable to expect repair records to detail the date and description of jobs raised and the date of inspections and follow-on works. If an appointment is cancelled, or needs to be rescheduled, this information should be clearly recorded together with the reasons why.
Accurate and complete repair records ensure that the landlord is able to monitor and manage outstanding repairs, understand the condition of its stock, and provide accurate information to residents. They also assist the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, and providing such information to the Ombudsman and other third parties when requested. That the landlord’s repairs log does not contain sufficient detail or information is a failing in its record keeping. The landlord should now take steps to review its current record keeping practices, and ensure that they are sufficient.
It is not in dispute that the leak, and damp within the living room, were apparent from the end of 2017 onwards. However, the landlord has not provided evidence which shows that it appropriately investigated the source of the leak and arranged for any remedial works to take place within the timescales detailed in its repairs policy. After the resident raised his concerns as a formal complaint at the beginning of 2021, the landlord advised that it would be instructing a specialist contractor to inspect the roof. While this was appropriate, given that the ingress of water had been affecting the property since 2017, it is unclear why the landlord had not arranged this sooner.
The information on file suggests that around the time of the stage one complaint, the landlord and resident entered into discussion about a move to a new property. The resident had advised that he wished to remain at the property given the internal decoration that he had undertaken – and that it was within close proximity to his mother’s home. The landlord acknowledged this and no further discussion about a move took place until a few months later. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise rehousing as an option given that the problem had been longstanding, although it is also considered that the landlord had not by this point made exhaustive efforts to find and resolve the leak, enabling the resident to remain in the property. The resident’s reasons for wishing to remain in the property are understood.
When the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 25 March 2021, it acknowledged that the leak had been longstanding and that the resident had been inconvenienced as a result. In recognition of the inconvenience, the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. It was appropriate to offer the resident some financial redress for the inconvenience that he had experienced as a result of the leak and because the repairs remained outstanding. However,in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the rationale for its decision, including setting out the failings in its response to the repair and explain how the figure of £500 had been reached. In view of the quality of records provided to this Service, it is possible that the landlord’s complaint investigation was hampered by poor record keeping. However, this was not identified or acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses.
Without providing a chronology of the matter, any detail around identified failings, or a breakdown of the compensation, it is not evident that the landlord identified exactly what had gone wrong in its handling of the matter, or that the compensation was proportionate to the failings. Furthermore, the matter was still ongoing at that time, and the resident continued to be inconvenienced. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to indicate whether it would keep the matter under review, and whether it would consider a further offer of compensation if resolution remained outstanding.
Within the stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that it had struggled to locate the source of the leak. While this is not disputed, the evidence does not demonstrate what investigations had been undertaken prior to 2021, and that the landlord had taken reasonable and proportionate efforts to locate and resolve the leak.
The landlord has provided evidence to show that a full block roof survey was completed in November 2020. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took actions to try to locate the source of the leak before November 2020. While the Ombudsman cannot speculate about what may have happened if investigations had been undertaken sooner, it is clear that the landlord’s handling of the situation resulted in the matter becoming protracted. As a result, the resident had to endure the damp patch to his living room ceiling, albeit intermittently, for over four years.
It is also noted that the landlord had failed to meet the timescales in its complaints policy. While the exact date that the resident raised his complaint is unclear, it was logged by the landlord on 1 February. Despite this, the stage one response was not issued until 25 March – 38 working days later. This was 28 working days outside of the landlord’s target response time. While it is noted that the landlord and the resident continued to communicate during this period, the landlord did not advise that its response to the complaint would be delayed, or when the resident could expect to receive a response. This was a further departure from its complaints policy, and unreasonable.
At the time of the landlord’s stage two response of 15 June 2021, it considered that works to repair the source of the leak had been completed but advised that further works would be required if water continued to enter the property. While it was reasonable to detail the actions that had been taken recently to remedy the leak, the resident had requested the escalation of his complaint as he was unhappy with how the situation had been handled overall, and the duration of the leak. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the actions it had taken in the past, what it had done most recently and what its intentions were if the repairs were not successful.
It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to comment on its previous compensation offer, and whether it considered this to remain fair and proportionate given the circumstances of the complaint. That the landlord did not demonstrates that it had not fully understood how the situation had been affecting the resident, or that it was necessary for it to take further action to try to put things right.
The works undertaken in May 2021 were unsuccessful and in August 2021, the resident entered into discussion with a senior member of landlord staff (Mr J). Mr J had asked to visit the property and he and the resident began to exchange emails directly. On 9 August, Mr J advised that he would attend the property on 12 August at approximately 6pm. The resident confirmed that he would be at home to provide access. However, on 12 August, the resident emailed Mr J at 4.36pm to advise that he would be unable to provide access owing to a family matter. The resident was apologetic, and asked if the meeting could be rearranged. The next day, Mr J emailed the resident in the morning to advise that he had attended the property at 6pm the previous evening. Mr J said that he had only just seen the residents email, “yet [he] did have the telephone contact details”.
While it is noted that the late cancellation of the appointment would have been the cause of inconvenience for Mr J, the resident had provided some notice that he would be unavailable, together with the reason why. The resident had been exchanging emails with Mr J in the days leading up to the appointment, and as such, it was reasonable for him to use the same method of communication.
Mr J and the resident continued to exchange emails and the resident advised that he was considering instructing a solicitor, as he was concerned that the matter would be “left for another four years”. In response, Mr J said that the resident could make a claim for disrepair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. However, he added, “we defend cases successfully when appointments are made and broken”. Mr J continued by explaining that within his role, he rarely made calls to addresses, but had made the resident’s case a priority.
The response in this instance was inappropriate and heavy-handed. While it is acknowledged that Mr J may have been frustrated by the missed appointment, internal correspondence which was exchanged between landlord staff at the same time, and which Mr J was party to, indicated a view that the resident may have been successful in the event that he pursued legal action. Ultimately, Mr J’s advice to the resident did not reflect the landlord’s internal assessment of the situation. It was not appropriate for the landlord to suggest that the resident would be unsuccessful if the matter progressed to trial, dissuading the resident from taking legal action, based on the missed appointment.
The landlord should now apologise to the resident for the comments that were made, and consider whether staff training is required in the provision of advice and information to residents about disrepair claims.
From September 2021 onwards, the resident and landlord staff continued to discuss the possibility of moving to a new property. Internal correspondence that was exchanged between landlord staff in September 2021 shows that while the roof was going to be renewed in the next 12 months, a Management Transfer was recommended as it did not “seem able to address” the leaks. Given that the landlord was unsure when the leak would be remedied, it was not unreasonable for it to offer the resident move to a new property as this would bring an end to the adverse effect caused by the leak/s. However, it is not apparent that exhaustive efforts had been made by the landlord to identify and resolve the leak, which may have similarly brought an end to the adverse effect.
It is also noted that the landlord discussed this with the resident, as well as the possibility of carrying out internal decorations to bring the new property to the same standard as the existing property. This was a pragmatic approach by the landlord given how long the problem had been ongoing. However, the resident’s reasons for wishing to remain at the property are noted.
As further repairs were unsuccessful, the resident confirmed in December 2021 that he did wish to be moved. The landlord agreed, and the resident was moved to a new property in March 2022. Given the landlord’s assurance regarding internal decoration within a new property, this Service queried what action – if any – the landlord took in relation to the new property. In response, the landlord has advised that when the resident viewed the new property, he wanted the majority of the original fixtures and fittings to remain. This included floor coverings, light shades and chrome face plates to the switches and sockets. The landlord added that in addition to the £500 which was offered at stage one of its complaints process, it offered the resident a further £50 in respect of service failure. The resident has advised this Service that he was not offered any assistance during the move.
While the landlord’s actions in respect of the new property were reasonable, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took steps to put right all of the trouble and inconvenience the resident was caused as a result of its failure to address the ongoing leak and resultant damp in the property. Between 2017 and 2021, the landlord carried out some internal repairs; however, the damp continued to reappear. The resident agreed to move to a new flat within the same building in 2019; however, when redecorating he found damp affecting the walls and moved back to the original property. After further works were carried out by the landlord in January 2020, the resident redecorated again in August 2020 – only for this to be damaged by the ingress of water four months later. While the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in March 2021, this was not proportionate taking the above into account, and the inconvenience that the resident was caused.
Throughout 2021, the resident was in communication with the landlord about how the situation was affecting him. He advised that he was stressed – “on the brink of a nervous breakdown” – as he was unable to carry out any redecoration and bring the room up to a good standard again. The resident also advised that he was not spending much time at the property, as the situation was causing him upset and that he was becoming frustrated by the lack of action by the landlord in resolving the problem. In addition, while it was ultimately appropriate for the landlord to move the resident to a new property in 2021, this was the cause of further inconvenience and disruption to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this, and to provide him with some assistance. While the landlord has advised that a further £50 was offered, this was not a proportionate offer taking all of the circumstances into account.
This Service has considered the circumstances of the complaint as a whole including the landlord’s offers of compensation, the landlord’s response to the report of damp over the years, and the impact of the resident. In doing so, an appropriate sum of compensation aimed at putting things right has been ordered.
It is noted that when the resident moved to an alternative property in the building in 2019, damp was found to be affecting that property. It is not known whether the cause of any damp in that property was the same as the cause of damp in the resident’s property. It is also not known whether other properties in the building were affected by the cause of the leak into the resident’s property. This is because the cause of the leak and the effectiveness of any remedial work taken since the conclusion of the complaints procedure is not confirmed by records provided.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the effectiveness of remedial works which have been carried out to address the leak since the end of the complaints procedure, and that it considers the failings identified in this report to review its handling of any similar, current reports or complaints which may have been raised by other residents in the building.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water ingress and damp at the property.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord appropriately investigated and remedied the source of the leak for a significant period of time. The resident was affected by an ingress of water and damp for four years. The landlord’s repairs records are brief, and do not contain sufficient detail about what action the landlord took to try to investigate and remedy the source of the leak.
When the landlord investigated the complaint, it acknowledged that the issue was longstanding. However, it failed to explain the actions it had taken over the years, failed to identify its failings, and to set out what it intended to do to put things right. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation, but did not explain how this figure had been reached. After the complaints procedure was exhausted, the landlord offered the resident a further £50 for unspecified service failure. In addition, the resident was moved to a new property. The landlord did not provide the resident with any assistance during the move, and its offer of £50 was not proportionate to the inconvenience and trouble that the resident had been caused as a result of the ongoing ingress of water.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise to the resident, in person, for the failings identified by this investigation in relation to its:
  1. Response to reports of water ingress and damp at the property.
  2. Record keeping and complaint handling.
  3. Response to the resident’s query about pursuing legal action.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2350 compensation comprised of:
  1. £2000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of a water ingress and damp at the property.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
3. In addition to the above compensation, the landlord should reoffer the £500 compensation that was offered during the complaints process, and £50 that was offered prior to this Service’s investigation, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
4. Remind complaint handling staff of the timescales detailed in its Complaints policy, as well as Parts 4.10 and 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which require the landlord to keep residents updated during complaint investigations and when there are actions outstanding from the complaint.
5. Review its repairs record keeping in line with the failings identified in this report. The landlord should consider whether changes to practices or processes, including staff training, are required to mitigate the risk of similar failings happening again. The landlord should consider amending its repairs logging process to ensure repairs are cross-referenced across systems and the audit trail is clear. The landlord should relay the outcome of its review and consideration to the Ombudsman in writing, together with plans for improvement, if found necessary.
6. Considering the failings identified in this case, review whether staff guidance and/or training is needed in responding to enquiries from residents whose enquiries relate to legal action in repair cases. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman in writing.

Recommendations

The landlord should let the Ombudsman know of its intentions in relation to the following recommendations within the next four weeks:
1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the effectiveness of remedial works which have been carried out to address the leak since the end of the complaints procedure.
2. It is recommended that the landlord considers the failings identified in this report to review its handling of any similar, current reports or complaints which may have been raised by other residents in the building affected by the leak.