Westminster City Council (202117364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117364

Westminster City Council

18 May 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, damage to the front and back doors of the property, and electrical issues.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 17 April 2017. The property is a one-bed basement flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has rheumatoid arthritis and mobility issues.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has not provided a full copy of the tenancy agreement including each party’s rights and responsibilities related to the tenancy. However, it has provided a copy of its tenant handbook, which says:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good working order. The structure and exterior includes external doors.
2. Repairs should be carried out in the following timeframes:
  1. Immediate jobs – those which give rise to an immediate safety risk – will be attended within two hours and made safe within 24 hours.
  2. Urgent repairs such as plumbing works or blockages will be attended and completed within three days.
  3. Non-urgent repairs, including structural repairs, will be attended and completed within 28 days.
3. The landlord may pay a decoration allowance after it has completed repairs such as replastering, or if the decorations are damaged by a repair the landlord is responsible for.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation, and how that compensation is calculated. It says the landlord will pay the following:
1. £500 per year for minor repairs outstanding or incomplete for more than a year;
2. £1,000 per year for repairs which cause a significant impact on daily life;
3. £2,000 per year for properties which are unsuitable or unfit for a resident;
4. £500-£2,000 per year for distress and inconvenience, depending on the severity, impact, and risk to health and safety;
5. £250 per year for time and trouble in pursuing a complaint.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. It must provide a stage one response within ten working days, and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request. The policy says the landlord will not consider complaints which are more than 12 months old if the resident was aware of the issue but did not report it to the landlord, unless there was a good reason for the delay.

Summary of events

On 27 April 2018, the resident asked the landlord to attend and inspect the interior and exterior walls of the property, and the condition of the front entrance door. The landlord has provided no evidence of any action being taken in response until 4 September 2018.
On 4 September 2018, the landlord tried to contact the resident, but was unable to get through. On 5 September 2018, the landlord contacted the resident and booked an appointment for 21 September 2018.
The landlord’s repair logs state that it attended on 21 September 2018, but no access was given.
On 16 October 2018, the resident reported water damage at ceiling level in the entrance to the flat and the adjacent hallway. The landlord’s repair logs say it attended but could not get access to the flat above, so a trace and access appointment was possibly needed.
On 1 November 2018, the landlord visited the property. Its contractor reported the following:
1. Leak water stains were evident in the hallway, which was directly below the communal walkway above the flat.
2. There were noticeable cracks in the tarmac on the walkway, which lined up with the leak stains in the flat below.
3. The contractor wanted to carry out a dye test, but was unable to do so as the resident was leaving. They booked another appointment for 5 November 2018, but said in their opinion the tarmac walkway above the entrance needed to be repaired.
On 5 November 2018, the contractor returned to the property and carried out a dye test. The contractor reported that the dye test was inconclusive, but they were positive the leak damage was from the communal walkway above. They said they advised the resident to tell the landlord if the area leaked again during rain.
On 10 December 2018, the resident told the landlord that she was unable to open her front door. The landlord’s repair logs show it attended the property on 13 December 2018. The contractor reported that the front door was binding on the threshold, so they needed to ease and adjust the door, as well as replacing the draught excluder which prevented the door closing all the way. The records show the repair was completed that day.
On 11 February 2019, the resident reported damaged walls from a suspected leak in the communal walkway. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 20 February 2019, but was unsuccessful. The landlord attended the property on 11 March 2019. The notes from that visit say the contractor identified damp and mould throughout the hallway and external steps, and a crack in the ceiling. The landlord instructed a structural surveyor that day.
Around 2 April 2019, the surveyor carried out a structural survey of the building. The survey report said the following:
1. The inspection was in response to reports from residents of significant cracking at the front of the property. There was a ceiling crack in the basement flat, but the surveyor was not given access to the other flats in the building.
2. The communal walkway was covered with asphalt which had cracks and was beginning to slump on both sides of the path.
3. There was wall staining from overhead leaks, areas of rising damp, and internal wall cracks in the lobby and hallway of the basement flat. This was in the area under the communal walkway.
4. There was widespread cracking along the full height of the building. This was at the front of the building, along the party wall. It could be seen from the opposite side of the road, and the crack widened as it got higher up the building. The crack matched the cracking between the asphalt and masonry walls and was allowing water into the basement flat.
5. The cracks and water ingress appeared to be the result of building movement.
The landlord has provided no evidence of any action taken in response to the surveyor’s report.
On 19 December 2019, the resident reported that she was trapped inside the property as the front door would not open. A contractor was booked in but did not attend. On 20 December 2019, the resident reported that she was still stuck inside the property and had an appointment she would miss if she was not able to get out. A contractor attended that day and planed off part of the door frame.
On 11 November 2020, the resident told the landlord she was trapped in the property again as the door had warped and jammed shut. She told the landlord this happened frequently when it was raining outside. A contractor attended that day and adjusted the front door. They told the landlord a new front door was needed as the existing door had swollen beyond repair.
On 4 December 2020, the contractor emailed the landlord. They said the works had been completed and the property was safe and secure, but they strongly recommended a replacement door. They also told the landlord there were issues with damp in the property.
On 6 December 2020, the landlord booked an inspection for damp and replacement of the door. On 13 January 2021, the landlord’s surveyor reported the door “appears fine” and did not need replacement. They said they did not go inside the property or inspect the damp. The landlord cancelled the repair job and recorded it as “no work required”.
On 28 January 2021, the resident reported she was trapped in the property again and the front door would not open from the inside. A contractor attended the same day. The repair logs say the contractor shaved the frame and applied a base coat to the door to prevent extreme swelling. They highlighted water damage on both the exterior and interior base of the door, as well as water collecting on the laminate flooring from a recess above the doorway. They said a new door was required.
On the same day, the landlord made a note on its system. It said a surveyor was needed to inspect from the inside of the property, not just the outside. It said the door needed to be urgently replaced as the resident kept getting stuck inside the property, and while an inspection had been carried out previously, nothing had been done. It said there were a lot of cracks in the property causing damage to the door, and the job should be re-raised when Covid-19 restrictions were lifted. The landlord cancelled the job on 10 February 2021. It provided no explanation for this.
On 7 June 2021, the resident reported the wooden door frame at the rear of the property had swollen due to a leak from the flat above. She said she was unable to close the door properly, creating a security risk. A contractor attended that day and overhauled the door and lock, shaved the base, and applied a base coat to the door.
On 25 October 2021, the resident reported that the front door had warped again.
On 28 October 2021, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. There had been ongoing repair issues to the property since she had moved in.
2. The building had a crack open from the ground floor to the top of the building, and the building looked derelict with smaller cracks all over the building.
3. The crack at the front of the building was causing floods and the destruction of her front door and hallway, leading to her door warping and trapping her inside the property when it rained. The door warped every few weeks.
4. Every time the landlord sent contractors, they inspected the area, said the door would be replaced, and then never replaced it.
5. The garden door had a similar issue caused by a leak from a neighbour’s property, and that issue had not been fixed either.
6. She had reported a broken electrical switch in the bathroom but it had not been fixed a week later. It had broken several times but never been replaced with a wall switch.
On 1 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said she had been complaining for the last three years but the issues were not resolved. She said the landlord’s only response to the large crack in the building and the water ingress had been to send a carpenter to shave the door. She said lots of wind had been coming through the shaved door and she had lost a lot of heat from the property as a result. She asked the landlord to carry out the works.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord inspected the property. Its contractors reported that:
1. The front entrance door had prominent damage and had peeled, warped, and split.
2. The wall area had visible water damage and penetrative damp. The water ingress would need to be fixed first, and then a whole day would be needed to fix the door.
3. There were no issues with the rear door itself. Some paintwork was peeling in that area due to penetrative damp.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It would not look at matters more than 12 months old under its complaints process.
2. It had arranged several visits from November 2020 to January 2021 to repair the door. While the contractors recommended that the door be replaced, the surveyor had said it was unnecessary.
3. An inspection scheduled for February 2021 was put on hold until Covid-19 restrictions eased, but no further inspection had taken place.
4. When its contractors attended on 2 November 2021, they said the door needed to be replaced but the wall appeared damp and that would need to be rectified first.
5. It had no record of water ingress from the façade of the building having been reported previously. A surveyor would need to investigate, and when that issue was resolved the contractors would contact the resident to arrange repairs to the door.
6. It had previously inspected the rear door and repaired damage from a leak. When the resident reported the issue again on 25 October 2021, a contractor attended and reported that the door itself was not in need of repair, but there was damp in the wall around the door. The landlord said a surveyor would need to inspect the damp.
7. Damage to the laminate flooring had never previously been reported. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect that damage.
8. It accepted there were some service failures as multiple follow-on jobs or inspections had not been raised. It offered a total of £152 compensation for delays in repairs, a missed appointment, and distress and inconvenience.
On 22 November 2021, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She repeated her previous comments about the condition of the property and disputed that the crack in the building and subsequent water ingress had not been reported. She also said the landlord took more than a month to fix the bathroom light.
On 29 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. That response largely repeatedly the comments made in the stage one response. It added that it would take increased heating costs, incurred because of draughts from the door, into consideration and that it wanted to arrange for a senior surveyor to carry out a detailed inspection and assessment of the outstanding repairs.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 8 May 2023, during the course of this investigation, the resident told the Ombudsman that the building was crumbling. She said part of the wall had fallen from the building and nearly landed on her head. She raised concerns that the building is now in a dangerous condition.

Assessment and findings

Repair issues – water ingress at the front door

The resident said she had been reporting water ingress and the damage it had caused for three years. She said there was a large crack in the exterior of the building which led to water ingress, which in turn caused damage to the front entrance and hallway of the property. She said she had been trapped in the property on multiple occasions as the water ingress caused the door to warp, but the landlord had taken no action beyond carrying out inspections and sending a carpenter to plane the door.
The landlord accepted there were a small number of delays and a missed appointment around November and December 2020, and offered £152 in compensation. It said it had carried out a number of repairs but that the resident had never reported a crack in the building, water ingress, damage to the laminate flooring, or damp. It said it would need to instruct a surveyor to investigate.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it was aware of water ingress since at least April 2018. The resident contacted the landlord and asked it to inspect the interior and exterior walls, as well as the condition of the front entrance door. The landlord’s repair logs show no action being taken in response for over five months. This is a significant delay that the landlord has provided no explanation for. There is also no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident during that time. This is neither good practice nor in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which required the repair to be completed within 28 days.
The landlord attended on 21 September 2018. Its logs state no access was given. However, it has not recorded whether the resident refused access or was not home. It has also not recorded how long the contractor waited for the resident to answer the door, and has not recorded any evidence of any further attempts to contact the resident on arrival. Given the landlord’s significant delay in acting on the resident’s report, and that it was aware of the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been appropriate and important for the landlord to make further attempts to gain access, or to make further attempts to contact the resident. There are no records of it doing so. If the resident refused access, the landlord should have recorded that. As such, the landlord has not kept adequate records of its visit, and has therefore not shown that it made sufficient efforts to inspect and carry out any repairs on that day, taking account of the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord attended the property again on 16 October 2018, 1 November 2018, and 5 November 2018. The landlord’s logs do not indicate whether the first of those visits was a follow-up appointment or in response to another report from the resident.
The contractors who attended in October and November 2018 both identified water stains from leaks in the hallway ceiling. The latter contractor noted cracks in the communal walkway which was directly above the leak, and concluded on a follow-up visit that the leak was from that walkway. It was reasonable to carry out investigations into the cause of the leak, as a lasting repair can only be carried out when the cause has been correctly identified. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it carried out repairs or communicated any planned repairs to the resident at that point. It therefore did not act appropriately at that stage.
When the resident reported that the front door would not open on 10 December 2018, the landlord attended three days later. This was a security issue, with the resident locked in her property. Under the landlord’s repair policy, this would be an immediate repair which must be completed within 24 hours. The landlord did not complete it within that time, and has not shown it took account of the resident’s vulnerability when arranging the repair. It therefore did not act appropriately on that occasion.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the leak on 11 March 2019. The contractor reported damp and mould throughout the hallway and external steps, with a crack in the ceiling. The landlord arranged for a structural survey in April 2019, which was a reasonable step to take. However, as the landlord had been aware that there was an issue for at least ten months, this should have been arranged sooner. There is then no evidence of the landlord taking action in response to the survey report, despite the surveyor having identified significant structural defects, as well as both rising and penetrating damp in the resident’s property. This was not in line with its repairs policy or good practice, and was not appropriate.
When the resident reported being trapped in the property again on 10 November 2020, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on the same day, which was in line with its repairs policy. The contractor reported that a new door was needed as the existing door was swollen beyond repair, and that there was damp in the property. The photos from that visit show signs of significant water ingress in the entrance hallway, as well as visible damage to both the interior and exterior of the front door.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend on 13 January 2021. When its surveyor attended, they reported that the door appeared in good condition, so the landlord closed the job and marked it as “no work required”. While a landlord is generally entitled to rely on the opinions of its experts, the survey report in this case was a one line summary based only on the exterior of the door, and the landlord was aware the surveyor had chosen not to inspect either the interior of the door or the damp, despite having been instructed to do so. The report was also entirely at odds with the previous report which was accompanied by multiple photos of visible damage to the door.
Given the repairs history of the property, the findings of the structural survey in April 2019, the limits of the 13 January 2021 survey, the report from the contractors that the door was beyond repair, the photos of the door showing visible damage, and the fact that the resident had reported being trapped in her property on multiple occasions, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take further action to resolve the issue rather than closing the case. It did not do so, and so did not act appropriately at that stage.
The landlord took no further action until the resident was trapped in the property again on 28 January 2021. Its contractors attended that day and told the landlord there was water damage on both sides of the door, as well as water collecting on the laminate flooring from a recess above the doorway. The photos from that visit show visible damage to the laminate flooring inside the door. The landlord then reviewed the case again and noted that a “surveyor needs to inspect from inside the property and not just the outside…[an] inspection was carried out previously and nothing has been done”. It recorded the repair as “urgent”, but made no attempt to book the repair, citing the Covid-19 restrictions. It cancelled the job on 10 February 2021. While the Ombudsman appreciates the need to comply with regulations, the landlord has neither explained nor evidenced why it thinks the Covid-19 restrictions prevented the works from going ahead, particularly when it carried out other repairs at the time. It has not therefore demonstrated that its actions were appropriate.
The resident reported the warped front door again on 25 October 2021, and on 28 October 2021 she made a complaint about the condition of the property and the landlord’s actions. When the landlord inspected the property on 2 November 2021, it noted the front entrance door had prominent damage and that there was water ingress and penetrative damp.
When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord accepted there had been some service failures with some follow-on jobs not raised and inspections not carried out within a timely manner. It offered the resident £152 in compensation. It did not accept any other failings, and stated that the resident had never reported the crack in the external wall and related water ingress, or the damage to the laminate flooring.
While a landlord’s repair obligations only arise when it is put on notice of a defect inside the property, it does not need to be put on notice of defects in communal areas or the exterior of the building, as it is expected to carry out routine inspections of those areas. In any event, the landlord’s repair logs show it was aware of the structural defects, water ingress and damp for a number of years before the resident raised her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident is vulnerable and should therefore be moved from the property at an early stage. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it took any of those steps.
There is also no evidence that the landlord had taken any steps to carry out repairs to remedy the building defects, water ingress or damp and mould in any way by the time the resident raised her complaint. This was despite the resident repeatedly reporting being trapped in the property as the water ingress had caused the door to swell. The landlord responded to the issue by planning the door on each occasion rather than carrying out a lasting repair to resolve the underlying issue. The resident said that this left a gap above the door which allowed water and cold air in, which is supported by the landlord’s repair logs – the contractors from 28 January 2021 referred to a recess above the door allowing water in to pool on the laminate flooring.
Instead of carrying out a lasting repair, or attempting to fix the underlying issues, the landlord repeatedly carried out the same repair, despite that repair not having been effective previously. There was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the issues, particularly given damp and mould is a potential category one hazard in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS); the landlord had left a vulnerable resident living with a potential category one hazard for three years by the time of the complaint. The resident was also repeatedly trapped inside the property as a result of the ongoing water ingress.
The landlord has also provided no evidence of carrying out any more substantial repairs to stop the water ingress and deal with the damp since the complaint was made, and only forwarded the 2019 survey report to its insurers in April 2022 when sending its file to the Ombudsman for investigation of this complaint. This demonstrates that the landlord has not taken the opportunity to learn from the situation. The £152 compensation offered is not adequate redress, and the landlord’s actions amount to severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman has assessed what an appropriate level of compensation would be, taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, and this Service’s remedies guidance. This has been calculated as follows:
1. The resident’s rent as stated in the tenancy agreement is £119.09 per week.
2. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of damp and water damage affecting the hallway and entrance to the property, which the landlord did not remedy. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that any bedrooms, bathrooms or living rooms were affected by the water ingress.
3. Although the hallway was not rendered unusable, the survey and contractor reports show the area was impacted by ongoing damp, and on multiple occasions the door was rendered unusable due to swelling.
4. At the time it issued its stage two response, the landlord had been aware of potential water ingress and problems with the front door for 191 weeks. The landlord’s repairs policy gives it 28 days to complete a structural repair, leaving 187 weeks of delays. The landlord should therefore pay the resident 10% of the rent for the 187 weeks of delays from 26 May 2018 (28 days after the potential water ingress was reported) up to the date of its stage two response.
5. The total compensation for the delayed repair to the structural defects, water ingress and related damp and water damage should be £2,226.98.
The Ombudsman has also considered the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation of £600 to £1,000 for failings which had a significant impact on the resident. The resident was trapped in the property on multiple occasions and lived with ongoing water ingress and damp in the hallway for three years. Taking both this and the resident’s vulnerability into account, the Ombudsman considers that an appropriate level of compensation for distress and inconvenience would be £800.

Repair issues – water ingress at the kitchen door

The resident first reported issues with the kitchen door on 7 June 2021. She reported that it had swollen following a leak from the flat above and could not be securely closed as a result. The landlord’s repair logs show a contractor attended that day and overhauled the door and lock, shaved the base of the door and coated the door with base coat.
There is no evidence of the resident reporting any further issues with the door itself before she raised her complaint on 28 October 2021. The landlord’s notes show it inspected the door on 2 November 2021 and the contractor reported there were no issues with the door itself, but the paintwork around it was peeling due to penetrative damp. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show the repair in June 2021 was not an effective repair of the door, or that the landlord was made aware of damp around the kitchen door prior to the resident’s complaint. As such, the landlord had acted reasonably and in line with its repairs policy with regard to the kitchen door at the point the complaint was made.
If the resident believes the landlord did not act reasonably regarding the kitchen door after it was made aware of damp in October 2021, that would be a separate complaint which would need to go through the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could investigate.

Repair issues – bathroom light

On 28 October 2021, the resident said that the bathroom light had broken several times, but the landlord had not replaced it with a wall switch. She said she had been unable to turn the light off for a week and the landlord had taken no action. The landlord said the resident had reported an issue with the light on 17 March 2021 which had been fixed, and had reported the issue with the light cord for the first time on 28 October 2021.
The landlord’s repair logs show the resident reported a loss of electric in the bathroom on 17 March 2021, and that this was fixed on 18 March 2021 when the electrician renewed the lamp. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that the resident reported any further issues with the bathroom light before 28 October 2021. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on that day, and again three days later.
The landlord’s repair obligations for issues within the property only arise when it is made aware of the disrepair. The fault with the light in March 2021 was fixed within one day, which was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. A broken light cord, which prevented the resident switching the bathroom light off, would not be classed as an immediate repair under the landlord’s repairs policy. It would be classed as a non-urgent repair which must be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands the repair was completed on 18 November 2021, which is within 28 days of the report on 28 October 2021. As such, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy with regard to repairs to the bathroom light.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 28 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 November 2021. The resident sent an escalation request that day, and the landlord issued the stage two response on 29 December 2021. Both responses from the landlord were outside of the timeframe in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has provided no explanation for the delays in its responses.
When investigating the complaint, the landlord chose to only investigate the 12 months immediately before the date of the complaint. Its policy says complaints which are more than 12 months old will not fall under the complaints policy. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to use a common-sense approach and apply that part of the policy on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, the resident complained about issues which had been reported and ongoing for a number of years. Given that the issues were still ongoing, the nature of water ingress and damp is that it often progresses over time, and that the landlord’s contractors had put it on notice of damp and water ingress in the 12 months leading up to the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the full repairs history when looking into this complaint. Doing so would have given a full picture of the issues, and would have avoided the risk of providing inaccurate information such as the landlord’s statement that water ingress and damp had never been reported.
As a result of the above, there has been maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord acted reasonably with regard to the bathroom light fitting and the kitchen door, it failed to remedy the water ingress that had been causing a detriment to the resident for a significant length of time. Despite having had a structural survey carried out which identified structural defects, water ingress and both rising and penetrating damp, the landlord continued to send contractors to plane the front door when the resident became trapped in the property, rather than addressing the underlying issue. The landlord repeatedly failed in its management and oversight of the repair and only sent the survey from April 2019 to its insurers three years later, when sending its housing file to the Ombudsman. It has provided no information about repairs it has undertaken since then, despite this being requested by the Ombudsman, and has not shown it has learned any lessons from the complaint.
The landlord did not respond to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. When it did issue responses, they were inaccurate and stated that the resident had never reported issues the landlord’s repair logs show it had been aware of for a number of years.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a Director-level representative of the landlord. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3,126.98 in compensation (inclusive of the offer of £152 previously made), comprising:
  1. £2,226.98 for the delays in completing the repairs and the associated impact on the resident’s use of the property while paying full rent for it.
  2. £800 to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs to the property.
  3. £100 to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s maladministration in complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident setting out:
  1. what it has identified as the cause of the water ingress, damage to the door, and damp;
  1. what works have been carried out so far;
  2. what further works are required;
  3. when those further works will be carried out;
  4. what arrangements it will be making to repair flooring and walls damaged by the water ingress and leave the affected areas in good decorative order;
  5. whether it thinks it would be appropriate to move the resident to an alternative property while building works are carried out and, if not, what its reasons are.
4. Arrange refresher training for all repairs staff with regard to the importance of the following:
  1. keeping accurate and detailed records of residents’ reports and any related contact;
  1. ensuring that it acts on all reports within a reasonable timeframe;
  2. keeping detailed records of the inspections it carries out and any failed attempts to access the property for repairs;
  3. ensuring that any relevant works are scheduled and completed within a reasonable timeframe, and proactively checking that any completed works have resolved the reported issue.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the way it handled the repairs in this case to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight Report on damp and mould and the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs and ensure its staff are aware of them. The review should include consideration of:
1. the landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to repairs, including reports of damp and mould;
2. the processes it has in place for carrying out inspections of communal and external areas of properties;
3. the processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale;
4. the processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs it carries out are effective and lasting repairs which resolve the issue;
5. the processes and procedures it has in place for action to be taken when a survey report identifies necessary repairs;
6. how the landlord takes account of a resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to a repair report;
7. the processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping.

A copy of the action plan should be provided to the Ombudsman.

The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord urgently arrange a further structural survey of the building in light of the resident’s May 2023 report and provide her and the Ombudsman with the inspection outcome, including any assurances it can offer on building safety.
It is recommended that the landlord review any repairs carried out to address the water ingress, damp, front door and damaged flooring since its stage two response and assess whether any additional compensation should be paid to the resident in light of any further delays in carrying out the repairs after its complaint response. It should write to the resident to set out its decision in this regard.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.