London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202010229)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010229

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 July 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns from April 2019.
2. Handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
3. Complaint handling.
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and her current tenancy began in October 2020. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted building. The resident occupies the property with her 2 young children. She has several vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. They include a chronic pain condition exacerbated by cold conditions. Her concerns span 3 tenancies with the landlord. For readability, this report referred to them as property 1 (9 July 2018 – 7 April 2019), property 2 (8 April 2019 – 25 October 2020) and property 3 (26 October 2020 – current).
The current tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes keeping all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and the supply of water gas, electricity and heating in working order. The resident is responsible for keeping her home clean and in good condition. This includes redecorating as needed to keep it in a good decorative state. It was assumed the resident’s previous tenancy terms were similar.
The landlord provided a table showing the resident’s address history and the associated weekly rent. It shows the rent was: £122.75 between April 2019 and March 2020, and £123.68 between April 2020 and March 2021. This suggests the total rent linked to property 2 was around £9,919.34. In relation to property 3, it suggests the weekly rent was: £153.28 between July 2020 and March 2022, £157.92 between April 2022 and March 2023 and £169.36 thereafter. This suggests the total rent, until the end of November 2022, was around £16,891.98.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. A further 10 working days is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

On 22 January 2019 the resident emailed the landlord about an energy bill. She said it concerned the period between July and December 2018, and amounted to £884.04. The email wording suggests she attached a price plan confirming her estimated annual bill was only £480. She said the landlord should pay the excess charge which related to outstanding repairs. Further, a bailiff was due to attend the property and the repair issues were affecting the family’s health. The timeline shows the bill was linked to property 1. There was a gap in the evidence following this email. However, the landlord’s table confirms the resident move to property 2 in April 2019.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 28 January and 10 February 2020:
1. An MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said she had been rehoused following domestic violence (DV) at a previous address. Further, the level of violence she faced left her with chronic health conditions that were difficult to manage day-to-day. The MP enquired whether the resident could be moved closer to her support network and asked the landlord to check the property’s heaters.
2. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it spoke to the resident around a week later. It said she reported moving through a management transfer. Further, she had been given “blow” heaters because there was no central heating in her current property. In addition, no repair timescale had been given and the situation was affecting her Fibromyalgia. It also said she reported experiencing racism in the area and feeling unsafe. It suggests the landlord added the resident to a home exchange scheme in response to her safety concerns.
3. In an update to her MP, the resident said she was desperate to move closer to her support network. In addition, she was struggling to feed her children and pay bills because the landlord was taking funds out of her benefits without her permission. She also said the property was unsafe given the family’s circumstances. Further, she was seeking a Debt Relief Order (DRO) to clear her debts.
In April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord a doctor’s letter. She said her inhaler usage had increased because a vent due to be repaired in February 2020 had fully broken down. Further, based on conditions in the property, the landlord didn’t care about the family’s health. She also said she had accumulated a £5k energy debt and the landlord was responsible. This was on the basis it failed to repair faulty heating equipment at a previous address. She reported damp and mould in her current property and again asked to move.
In an email to the landlord on 7 July 2020, the resident complained about the landlord’s “unethical” treatment and overall services. She said: its staff lacked understanding, it never wanted carry-out repairs, it left her in debt and her family’s health had been impacted. She said doctors, an MP and Environmental Health (EH) had all been involved. The resident provided more detail in a further email the same day. Her main points were:
1. The landlord reached a repayment arrangement with Universal Credit (UC) behind the resident’s back. It then began deducting benefit funds when her rent account was not in arrears. The situation arose due to an administrative error linked to her change of address. Given her limited income, this caused the family distress and financial hardship. The resident questioned whether her ethnicity was a motivating factor.
2. The resident’s application for a DRO had been impacted by the pandemic. Similar to her previous experience, broken “essential equipment” in her current property had not been fixed. The resident had been left with only 2 electric heaters since she moved in. The heaters were bad for the resident’s health and they were contributing to her accumulating energy debt.
3. Over a year later, despite a recent promise to resolve all the repair issues, the landlord had only repaired 1 of the property’s 2 air vents. As a result, the resident was “stuck” in a property impacted by damp and mould issues with health problems and young children. The doctor’s letter confirmed her health had deteriorated. Still, the resident’s repeated reports and the MP’s involvement failed to change her situation.
4. The landlord should refund her benefit money and clear the energy debt, which now stood at around £6K. Since her credit rating had been impacted, the resident was unable to resolve the situation by obtaining a personal loan. In addition, she felt harassed by the energy provider, which kept sending payment reminders and dispatched an agent to her home. The situation was stressful, and the landlord should be mindful she had young children.
EH emailed the landlord on 22 July 2020. It confirmed a recent inspection had identified the following hazards: damp and mould due to penetrating damp from an external drainpipe, excess cold due broken electric and fan heaters, position and operability of amenities from windows stuck with paint and electrical hazards from broken switches and sockets. 3 of these hazards were categorised as 1(A) risks under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The damp and mould was categorised as 1(B+). EH said an included list of repairs should begin by 27 July and be completed by 7 September 2020.
Several accompanying images were attached to the EH email. They included images that appeared to show: windows painted shut, heavy staining to a large area of brickwork around an external drain pipe, staining to brickwork around a window, waste water pooling around a drain outlet and a loose switch at a low-level on an internal wall.
The resident restated her concerns to the landlord by email on 17 and 26 August 2020. Her 1st email was sent to an individual member of staff. The 2nd was sent to the landlord’s complaints team. She initially asked the landlord to contact her as soon as possible, and then to review her information. No information was seen to suggest the landlord responded at this point. In contrast, the events below indicate it took a further complaint email to ultimately prompt a response.
The resident’s medical records show she was discharged from hospital on 4 September 2020. Her later correspondence to the landlord suggests she was hospitalised after collapsing outside the property. Her correspondence said various parties warned the landlord to move the resident prior to her collapse.
On 26 October 2020 the resident moved to another of the landlord’s properties. 2 days later, a contractor told the landlord it was not informed she was moving, and it had not been sent a works order to recommission the boiler at her new address. However, since an order had now been sent, the contractor would attend the same day. The landlord’s repair history shows the works were completed the following day.
An undated email from the resident to the landlord relates to this period. The resident said she had been calling about a boiler fault since 26 October 2020. However, despite an assurance from the landlord, it failed to attend within 24 hours. Further, she wanted to complain about the landlord’s call handler, who “hissed”, “moaned” and ended a call abruptly. She said she wanted to complain about the landlord’s handling of this situation and “every situation prior”. Her main points were:
1. The resident should be a priority given her medical conditions and young children. However, the landlord failed to comply with its basic repairing obligations. Given the situation, she should not be charged her 1st week’s rent.
2. The resident was recently hospitalised due to the landlord’s “wrong doings and neglect”. It was therefore “ridiculous” she was now in this situation. She wished she was not the landlord’s tenant.
During an email on 27 October 2020, the resident restated there was no heating or hot water. She said her health was “extremely affected” by the cold. She also mentioned the energy debt and conditions in property 2.
During internal correspondence on 4 and 6 November 2020, the landlord said it recognised some of the resident’s concerns from a previous case. Further, it previously awarded her around £1k in related compensation. It subsequently said its records confirmed the amount awarded was £1.3K. However, the original complaint and its response letter were not recoverable due to a loss of electronic files the previous year. We asked the landlord to search for the information again in 2023. It said it could not retrieve the records but the compensation was issued by its gas leader. Again, the timeline indicates the compensation was linked to property 1.
On 17 November 2020 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was around 19 weeks after the resident’s initial complaint email. It addressed a loss of heating and hot water in property 3, along with the landlord’s related customer service. The landlord said it should have recommissioned the boiler before the resident’s current tenancy began. However, due to a communication breakdown, it did not instruct the works for 2 days following her move. The landlord apologised and said feedback was given to its relevant team. It did not attempt to: award proportionate compensation, respond to the resident’s report of poor service in detail or engage with her concerns about prior events.
On 7 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team following contact from her energy provider. She said the energy bill needed paying and she was unable to switch suppliers or obtain loans to feed the family. Further, she was again using heaters having been without heating and hot water for a week. As a result, she should be refunded 2 week’s rent. She also said the property was not cleaned or decorated before the family arrived. She felt conditions in her current and previous properties were contrary to regulations.
In contrast, the repair history shows a leaking kitchen radiator was reported and repaired on 3 and 4 of December 2020 respectively. It shows no further heating issues were recorded until March 2022.
From the landlord’s correspondence and the Ombudsman’s records, the following events occurred between 8 and 22 December 2020:
1. The landlord told the resident it had raised a formal complaint and would respond within 10 working days.
2. The resident reported the landlord’s contractor failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 9 December 2020. She said the cold was exacerbating several conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and nerve damage. Further, the landlord had: left her in debt, impacted the family’s health and caused the resident to miss out on childminding work due to its lack of repairs. Our records show the resident approached the Ombudsman around this time.
3. In a follow up email, the resident said, after missed and delayed appointments, her lost earnings amounted to £100 in total. Further, central heating problems were ongoing and replacement fan heaters cost £5-6 per day to run. As a result, the landlord now owed her over £7K in combined heater costs. Further, strong smells in the property prompted the resident the resident to use reliever and preventer inhalers.
4. She also said the contractor: ordered the wrong pipe fittings, failed to isolate a leak, rung out leaked water over her cutlery and left a mess including an open boiler unit. Though it fashioned a make-shift water heater out of the boiler, the resident said she was advised to use it sparingly for safety reasons. Overall, she had safety concerns given the property’s numerous faults. She said, a surveyor should inspect it as soon as possible.
5. During a call on 14 December 2020, the resident told us: the property was uninhabitable, the family lacked heating and hot water for 19 days in total, toilet and garden repairs were outstanding and the landlord failed to complete repairs despite the resident’s disabilities.
6. The landlord issued the resident another complaint acknowledgement. It was issued around 10 working days after the landlord’s previous acknowledgement. It again confirmed the landlord would respond within 10 days.
The parties exchanged emails on 31 December 2020. The exchange began when the landlord asked if the resident’s rent account concerns were resolved. This was on the basis its records showed the parties reached an arrangement during a phone call on 22 December 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen further details of this call. The resident replied her concerns were unresolved. She referenced issues including: a 3-week rent refund, stopped UC payments, a positive balance in her previous property’s rent account and the energy debt.
On 5 January 2021 the landlord issued the resident another acknowledgement. It referenced the landlord’s handling of: reported anti-social behaviour (ASB), outstanding repairs, “garden handles”, a loss of heating and hot water and the resident’s energy bill. It said the landlord had received her complaint from the Ombudsman. In addition, more information was needed because there were no live ASB cases or records relating to garden handles. In relation to the energy debt, the landlord would not investigate issues that were over 6 months old.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 January 2021. This was around 27 working days after the resident’s December 2020 complaint. It only addressed the loss of heating and hot water. This was on the basis the landlord had no record of the other issues and the resident failed to provide more information. The resident was awarded £50 in compensation to address a total of 12 days, between October and December 2020, without heating and hot water. This was based on the second boiler issue being reported on 3 December 2020. The main points were:
1. The resident should provide evidence she incurred additional heating costs. This would allow the landlord to consider a refund.
2. The landlord was sorry for its identified failings. Details of its repair handling had been passed to the landlord’s complaints learning team.
The landlord’s contact records suggest the resident responded 3 days later. Call notes said she disputed the landlord’s timeline and level of compensation. This was on the basis the property lacked heating and hot water for 1 week when the family moved in, and the recent issue lasted a further 2 weeks. The resident wanted a 3 week rent refund.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord issued a follow up response. The wording suggests it was prompted by further contact with the resident. The landlord said it had doubled its previous award to £100. This was to recognise the resident’s increased electricity costs over a 3 week period. It said the compensation would be offset against her rent arrears. Further, the resident was still in arrears despite a £953.65 payment in December 2020. The information seen suggests this was transferred from her previous rent account. The landlord also addressed several other issues. The main points were:
1. The resident had said the property’s front door and windows were insecure. This was worrying given it was on the ground floor. The matter had been referred to the landlord’s surveyor.
2. Insurance and liability claims were outside the landlord’s complaints process. The resident could contact its insurance team to pursue a claim about health impacts.
3. The landlord was grateful for the resident’s report of ladders left in communal areas. Its property manager would investigate the issue.
4. The resident said the family had no heating for 1.5 years at a previous address (This is understood to refer to the period between 8 April 2019 and 26 October 2020, which was around 19 months). The landlord would check its records and award compensation if necessary.
5. The landlord was sorry to hear the resident’s reports of “nuisance” were “not handled properly”. However, because since she had now moved, little action could be taken. As agreed, a complaint had been logged against the landlord’s case management team. The landlord would update the resident in due course.
The resident replied the same day. She disputed being in arrears and said it was unfair to offset her compensation. She reiterated her concerns about the energy debt, referenced her previous hospitalisation and alleged the landlord was unethical. The landlord’s internal notes suggest its local manager attended the property the following day. Its subsequent internal correspondence said no ladders were found during the visit.
The resident updated the Ombudsman by email on 30 January 2021. She said she had been complaining to her landlord since 2018 about various ongoing issues. She reiterated her concerns around the daily cost of fan heaters and said their continual use was dangerous in unventilated conditions. Further, she had spent 18 months in a property with no (central) heating or ventilation, which was affected by damp, mould and disrepair. She provided a detailed list of issues spanning 3 separate properties, which she said were all uninhabitable. Her new points were:
1. The resident’s most recent move was prompted by the local authority which, having called the landlord upon her discharge from hospital, said her home was uninhabitable. Further, previous interventions from various parties were not sufficient for the landlord to act. The Ombudsman has seen a letter from September 2020 that shows a local authority placed the resident in temporary accommodation around this time.
2. The resident was considering legal action having tired of complaining. Regardless, a surveyor should inspect the property and the landlord’s actions should be investigated for the duration of her time as its tenant.
3. The landlord previously offered the resident £120 of decorating vouchers in relation to her current property. However, it failed to follow up on its agreement.
The resident updated us again on 1 and 8 February 2021. She said she had been placed in an unsafe property and the issue should be added to her complaint. This was on the basis its previous tenant had a violent ex-partner, who was seen loitering by a neighbour. She said there was a recent attempt to force entry and the situation was making her anxious. The resident provided a supporting crime reference number. She felt she was placed in the property because the landlord ran out of time to source suitable ground floor accommodation with a garden.
In her second email, the resident said the landlord had surveyed the windows and found the wood was rotten. Further, its surveyor stated the building lacked any insulation. She also said the cold was affecting her pain condition among other ailments. Further, although she was taking a variety of medication, the pain prevented her sleeping and she had nearly died in hospital. She confirmed the landlord recently completed repairs to a rear door.
The resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord’s complaints team during a detailed email around 16 March 2021. She said her preferred solution was to move the family. However, the landlord failed to respond to her request for an internal transfer. She also said her current property had: damp and mould, old sinks and pipework and stained walls and carpets. The information seen indicates her correspondence may have been prompted by the landlord issuing a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) in respect of arrears. The landlord later confirmed this was an error.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord issued another informal response at stage 1. It said, given the time that had passed, it would not consider issues involving the resident’s first 2 addresses. However, it would award a further £120 in compensation in relation to the reported lack of heating across the resident’s previous tenancy. This was on the basis her concerns were upheld and the figure was the maximum allowed under its compensation policy. “Together with the payment for (her) current address” this brought the landlord’s total compensation to £320, which was offset against the resident’s arrears. The main points were:
1. No ladders were found in communal areas.
2. The resident was previously advised how to submit a claim to the landlord’s insurance team.
3. Following the resident’s security concerns, a carpenter had assessed the property’s windows and door. A further appointment was now scheduled to overhaul and draught proof several units. These works would take place on 23 February 2021.
4. If she remained dissatisfied, the resident could escalate her complaint.
In a same day reply, the resident said the landlord overlooked multiple issues. They included the lack of insulation, cracked walls and ceilings and a drain blockage. She also said it failed to respond to her request for a surveyor. Further, it should view the living conditions that were affecting her health on a daily basis. The resident emphasised her disabilities and young children.
Contact records from 8 April 2021 show the resident called the landlord asking to move. The notes said she was concerned about major repair issues including damp and mould, pests and falling plaster from the ceiling. The call handler noted she was breathless on the phone and expressed concern for her welfare. The notes said the property had not been checked prior to the family’s arrival and the resident had not viewed it in advance. This wording likely reflected the resident’s report.
The parties exchanged several emails the following day. The landlord said any new repair issues, not raised during the original complaint, should be reported to its repairs team in the first instance. It also asked the resident to explain why she was unhappy with its stage 1 responses. The resident replied the repairs scheduled for 23 February 2021 remained outstanding. The landlord subsequently agreed a surveyor’s inspection and provided a link to the local authority’s medical assessment process.
Within days, the landlord asked the resident to provide images of the property’s issues. The Ombudsman has seen multiple seemingly related images. They include undated images that appear to show: cracked window frames, ceilings and skirting boards; dirty marks on walls and switches and mould spots on a bathroom ceiling. The images we have seen did not appear to show any significant issues.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 16 and 20 April 2021:
1. The resident reported mouse droppings in the property. She said she had wondered about a strange smell and the family feeling unwell. Further, the droppings suggested mice had been active for some time.
2. The resident requested an EH inspection by email with the landlord copied in. No information was seen to suggest EH intervened at this stage.
3. During a subsequent email, the landlord told the resident it had already raised works orders to address cracks, damaged plaster and skirting boards. Further, a plumber would be recalled, and the window repairs had been rescheduled.
4. A pest control specialist confirmed there was “low-level” mouse activity. The inspection report said droppings were evident throughout the property and bait had been placed.
5. The resident told the landlord’s repairing operative she was expecting a surveyor/supervisor’s inspection. Corresponding records also said entry holes would be filled once the mice were eradicated.
6. Further, notes said sections of soil and kitchen waste pipe needed replacing and an appointment was booked for 17 May 2021.
Contact records from 8 May 2021 show the resident called to report a smell of sewage in the property. Corresponding notes said she requested temporary accommodation on the basis the drains were leaking internally, and the smell was affecting her breathing. The notes suggest the landlord’s operative initially said they were unable to help out of hours before agreeing to arrange a plumber. Further, the resident was told the repair would be chargeable if no leak was found. They said the resident asked for: the representative’s name, their manager’s details and a copy of the call recording.
The landlord updated the resident’s MP about various repairs on 13 May 2021. It said its pest control contractor was unable to contact the resident and she should call it to arrange an appointment. Further, the landlord had been unable to gain access to assess cracks and falling plaster. Similarly, skirting boards had not been repaired because the resident said she was expecting a surveyor. In addition, scheduled window works were postponed because she declined access. The main points were:
1. Decorating vouchers had been issued to address “minor” decorating to the property, which was a resident responsibility.
2. The carpet was cleaned and left in a suitable condition prior to the resident’s arrival.
3. Engineers would return within days to complete repairs to an external soil pipe.
4. A surveyor would inspect the property early the following month.
On 25 May 2021 the resident told us the landlord failed to escalate her complaint. Further, it had taken money from her UC payments “behind (her) back” and its previous responses were incomplete. She also said she had been diagnosed at the highest possible pain index since moving to the property. We subsequently told the landlord to respond to the complaint by 23 June 2021. It issued the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 10 June 2021. The acknowledgement confirmed the response would also address the resident’s security and insulation concerns.
The landlord’s records show the following events occurred around 14 June 2021:
1. A further pest control inspection was completed. The report said there was “high sign” of rodent activity, in the form of mouse droppings, across several rooms and in the kitchen area. It identified a gap around a waste pipe through which mice were entering the property. A rat burrow was also identified in the garden. The report said the kitchen should be fully removed to ensure entry holes could be filled.
2. The landlord’s internal notes said it had not agreed to rehouse the resident. They referred to the property’s issues as minor crack filling. They also said the lack of insulation was due to its age.
3. The landlord asked its ASB case manager to contact the resident about an open case. Its internal email said the resident mentioned DV, along with threats and harassment from an ex-partner.
4. A solicitor acting for the resident wrote to the landlord’s legal team. Its letter of claim said the property was in disrepair. It listed 8 defects including: spalled external brickwork; defective pointing, pipes and drains; damp in 2 bedrooms, infestation and damp and mould in the bathroom. It said the resident had alerted the landlord in October 2020.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was around 5 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for a delay allocating the resident’s case and awarded an additional £40 in related compensation. It also said, though the matter was not part of the original complaint, arrangements had been made to remove the mess left following a boiler repair. Previous comments around new repairs and the investigation’s scope were reiterated. The main points were:
1. Delays and failures relating to boiler repairs at the resident’s current address, and a lack of heating at a previous address were acknowledged. Nevertheless, these issues were addressed by the compensation previously awarded.
2. Carpentry works to overhaul doors and windows were now scheduled for 23 June 2021. The landlord was unable to gain access for its initial appointment and the resident had postponed a subsequent visit.
3. In relation to the insulation, an inspection had already taken place. It resulted in a works order for draught proofing to the windows. The landlord hoped the resident could keep the above appointment so the works could be completed.
The resident replied the same day. Her email confirmed she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. It broadly restated her previous concerns around health impacts, the scope of the investigation and the level of compensation. Having confirmed its internal complaints process was exhausted, the landlord subsequently referred her to the Ombudsman.
Internal notes on 5 July 2021 said a sink blockage was cleared. Around 1 week later, the resident updated her MP. She said the property was infested ants and silver fish that were entering near pipework. Further, mice were still active and damp was affecting walls and carpets. She said her conditions were “inhumane” and a faulty waste pipe prevented her having a washing machine. She also said she was unable to hand-wash clothing for health reasons or use a laundrette.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 July 2021 with her solicitor copied in. She said drainage works took place the previous day. However, the sink blocked around an hour later and the blockage remained when she woke that morning. Further, since the toilet was also blocked, she had used the bathtub to: bathe, wash dishes and go to the toilet. The resident provided a number of images to support her comments. Around the same time, a works order to eradicate rodents at the property was marked complete. The repair records show no further pest control orders were raised.
On 28 July 2021 the landlord raised an internal safeguarding concern. Its operative referenced the resident’s health and wellbeing due to the condition of the property. Their email said the resident collapsed at the property while caring for her children. Further, it was fortunate someone else was with them at the time. It said she was suffering from a high level of pain and had several conditions including severe kidney damage. In addition, she had medical references to support her concerns about the property’s condition.
In a further update on 2 August 2021, the resident told the landlord sewage smells were permeating the property from pipes and drains in the garden. She said the smells were now occurring every day and were particularly bad when neighbours used their toilet. Further, a drainage expert, who attended the last 2 days, had advised a CCTV survey was necessary. The resident said the “toxicity” was bad for her asthma and the children.
The landlord’s notes show it made several internal enquiries on 3 August 2021 before exchanging emails with the resident. One of its emails said her recent correspondence would be added to her existing complaint. Later notes, from 23 August 2021, said the safeguarding concern was closed on 3 August 2021 because the resident did not want “ss involvement”. This was understood to refer to social services. Additional records from 11 August 2021 said a safeguarding referral was unnecessary because the resident was not a risk to herself or her children. They noted she primarily wanted rehousing.
On 17 August 2021 the resident’s solicitor advised her she was legally expected to pay rent despite the condition of the property. Further, the landlord was entitled to chase arrears payments and it could ultimately take legal action. It also said it was awaiting the landlord’s survey report.
The landlord’s disrepair survey was dated 27 August 2021. Internally, it said there was no evidence of degraded plaster, structural cracks, damp or insects. Further, identified hairline cracks were not structural and should be made good when the resident decorated. However, minor cracking “to the head of the rear elevation window” should be repaired. Externally, cosmetic cracks around a bay window should be repointed. Similarly, though they were not causing water ingress, spalled brickwork and defective pointing to the front of the property should also be repaired. The key points were:
1. There was evidence of blockages affecting the sink and an external waste pipe. The waste pipe’s joints were also leaking externally. They should be repaired, and a CCTV drain survey was required.
2. There was no evidence of damp or mould to the bathroom ceiling, walls or skirting boards. While there was evidence of staining to the ceiling, it was caused by moisture which had dried and discoloured. The surveyor was unable to confirm whether the extractor fan was working during the inspection, and the windows did not have restrictors. Nevertheless, the landlord should wash, seal and decorate the bathroom ceiling. It should also overhaul or replace the extractor fan and fix a restrictor to the bathroom window.
3. The was evidence of mouse activity around the kitchen. Whilst there was no evidence rodents were entering through defective fencing in the garden, there was evidence of burrowing under the fence. The landlord should continue baiting and carry out proofing works in respect of both issues.
4. Overall the estimated cost of repairs was around £700 and the works could be completed with the resident in situ.
The resident exchanged emails with the landlord on 13 October 2021. She said she hadn’t been updated since submitting a medical assessment and a surveyor never attended. The landlord replied there was an inspection backlog due to the pandemic. It asked if the local authority had responded to her medical assessment. It attached a blank medical assessment form and said its relevant team could “take a look”.
In November 2021 the landlord issued a NOSP in respect of the resident’s arrears. In response, the resident queried the arrears balance and raised the energy debt among other issues. The landlord replied it was waiting for information from its energy department. However, the resident could contact a disability support service, that specialised in energy matters, for advice. The resident subsequently restated her key concerns in a follow up email.
In January 2022 the resident reported her daughter had suffered a head injury in the property. She said her daughter “dropped off a mattress” and hit her head on a skirting board. She attributed the injury to the landlord’s outstanding repairs. This was on the basis a previous survey said the property’s skirting boards should be removed to treat the rodent infestation. She said the issue should be added to her ongoing complaint. She provided supporting images to show the severity of the injury. She also said the landlord failed to comply with a police recommendation to move the family following the attempted break-in.
The resident updated the landlord by email in February 2022. She said she received a letter relating to disrepair and appointments. Further, she understood repairs would be delayed by several weeks owing to a backlog. She said drain repairs, outstanding since October 2020, had prevented her from connecting a washing machine. The landlord should therefore reimburse her laundry expenses. The resident’s subsequent correspondence shows she was seeking £316. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s response.
The resident exchanged emails with her solicitor in March 2022. The solicitor asked whether she agreed with the surveyor’s report. Its email included a surveyor’s quote attributing the bathroom mould to resident’s behaviour. It said, “The level of mould found within this room was trivial and could be managed easily enough if the extractor fan and window were correctly used during showers and the ceiling is regularly cleaned…”. Following a dissatisfied response from the resident, the solicitor said the claim could not proceed unless she accepted the inspection results and the resulting schedule of works.
Within days, the resident told the landlord the boiler had broken down over the weekend and the property was without heating and hot water. The landlord’s complaints and repairs teams were copied into the email along with her solicitor.
During internal correspondence on 28 April 2022, the landlord asked whether anyone was working on the resident’s stage 1 energy complaint. It said there had been no activity on the case for several months. Further, the case handler had left the organisation several weeks prior. No information was seen to show how this complaint was ultimately resolved.
On 14 June 2022 the resident told the landlord its heating engineer had just resolved the pressure and water levels. Around a week later, she reported the boiler had broken down again. She said, in total, the property lacked heating and hot water for around 10 weeks since she moved in. Further, conditions were inhumane, and she was tired of complaining. Whilst the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this timescale, the repair history shows the resident reported a lack of heating and hot water on 9 separate occasions between 14 March and 28 June 2022. They suggest repairs were largely completed within 24 hours.
Internal notes indicate the landlord replied to an arrears/tenancy complaint on 30 June 2022. They show the landlord was corresponding with the DWP around the same time. Additional notes said the complaint was later closed because the resident did not respond. We haven’t seen a copy of the landlord’s response.
The following events occurred between 17 and 28 July 2022:
1. The resident withdrew her local authority housing application. She accepted she had declined 3 properties for different reasons.
2. The landlord issued the resident a combined stage 1 acknowledgement and response. It recognised a delay in responding and issued the resident a £25 voucher. It referred to the resident’s living conditions and said her complaint was upheld. The response did not include the resident’s original complaint issue. It confirmed a disrepair case was ongoing and said its contractor would arrange the works in due course. Further, the resident’s rehousing request had been referred to the relevant colleague.
3. The resident reported a leak in the kitchen. She said it related to a boiler problem that was ongoing since October 2020. Further, water was leaking from pipes within walls and under flooring throughout the property. However, the hallway, bathroom and toilet were especially impacted. She felt this was further evidence the property was uninhabitable.
4. The landlord’s legal representative told the resident’s solicitor she was not cooperating with its client’s contractors. It said she reported a decant was necessary but this was not the case. It said legal action would be taken in the event the resident failed to provide access.
In early September 2022 the resident reported there were mushrooms growing in the property. She attributed them to long term damp and mould issues. She restated there were leaks below the floor and the property was uninhabitable. She said the landlord should remove all the flooring to investigate. Further, it should remove “the skirting boards and boxes” in line with a previous surveyor’s comments. The below paragraph indicates the resident’s report prompted the landlord to undertake a further inspection.
The landlord’s “Healthy Homes Report” was dated 26 September 2022. It said there were no signs of excessive moisture in the property and external downpipes were in good condition. However, there were watermarks on the walls and mould was visible on the bathroom ceiling and toilet wall. Further, the bathroom door frame and skirting board were slightly damaged but repairing them may be the resident’s responsibility. It also said bathroom and toilet extractor fans were inadequate but there was no visible issue with the floors. It suggests mould cleaning and shielding works were completed.
Internal notes from 5 October 2022 said the resident reported receiving a letter stating the landlord was seeking an access injunction. Further, leaks through the kitchen walls, flooding to the bathroom and damp had been ongoing for more than 2 years. They suggest the resident disputed being contacted by any contractors.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 3 and of 21 November 2022:
1. The resident’s solicitor updated the resident by email. The email included a quote from the landlord. It said the resident was decanted on 28 October 2022 due to an alleged drainage issue. However, the landlord found no issues, so it ended her hotel stay. It said the property was ready for occupation, but the resident was demanding a further decant. It also said she should return to the property or risk a Notice To Quit and the loss of her security of tenure.
2. During internal notes the following day, the landlord said the decant related to a leaking soil stack. Further, it was previously extended for 1 night since the resident attributed the family’s ill health to the property’s condition and disputed its fitness to return. The notes said a further inspection confirmed the property was habitable and remaining works to the leaking stack could be completed around the resident. They also said her request for a medical move had been declined and there was no evidence to show she was being harassed by an ex-partner.
3. Several days later, a contractor’s note said a section of damaged stack had been replaced. It said the downpipe had been corroded for at least 2 years and wastewater would “splash everywhere” when the bath or kitchen were used. Further, the situation was exacerbated by the homes above. It said the problem had been ongoing “so long” it had caused mushrooms, and there was “so much water damage to wall” that water was seeping into the kitchen void. It said additional repairs were required and a “rat block” should be installed in a manhole.
4. Later, a GP wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said she was currently self-funding a hotel stay because the property was “inhospitable due to intractable mould and damp”. Further, there were mushrooms growing in the property and the situation was affecting the family’s physical and mental health. The GP said they would be grateful if the landlord would consider rehousing the family.
During a phone call on 1 December 2022, the resident told us she had been staying in various hotels away from the property. Further, a local authority had recently placed her in emergency accommodation (the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this from the information seen). Though she was still paying rent, the resident said she had not been residing at the property since 21 October 2022. In addition, the drainage issue was resolved but all her other concerns were still outstanding.
An independent surveyor’s report was issued on 7 December 2022. It said the report was prepared for court proceedings, and the inspection took place on 3 November 2022. It said the property was in “a reasonable state of repair generally”. It noted there was scaffolding around the building and said the contractor should be instructed to clear debris from the site. The key points were:
1. A gulley servicing the front pitched roof was blocked. The landlord should clear and rod the gully to leave it free flowing. A further 2 gullies at the rear were both blocked and required the same treatment.
2. Though there was evidence a soil stack was recently repaired, 2 separate leaks were identified during the inspection. Further, a drip was observed forming around the kitchen waste pipe when the kitchen tap was opened.
3. The external wall around the soil stack, which served the property and flats above, was saturated due to the leaks and water was collecting on the ground. The back door frame, which connected to the kitchen, had suffered water damage and was rotten in places. Further, moisture was “leaching” through the solid brick wall causing internal damp to the kitchen and bathroom.
4. A concrete plinth was running along the rear walls at a low level. The surveyor suspected it was breaching the damp proof course. Whilst it did not appear to present a current issue, the plinth should be hacked-off and the brickwork should be repaired as required. This would help dry the brickwork.
5. Elevated moisture readings were identified in the kitchen. The skirtings should be removed from the external and party walls to allow drying. Lifting the floor coverings and temporarily installing de-humidifiers would also help. New skirtings should then be installed and affected areas redecorated.
6. Moisture from the soil stack had leached into the bathroom and appeared to be trapped under the non-slip flooring. In addition, the skirtings were rotten and brown dust was present. The resident advised this was where mushrooms were growing but they had been removed and a fungicidal treatment was applied. The bathroom should be subject to the same treatment as the kitchen. Stain block should be used as necessary when the skirtings were replaced.
7. Water was observed pooling below the toilet cistern. The landlord should have a plumber check the connections given there appeared to be a small leak on the feed pipe.
8. Based on a visual inspection, no defects were identified in the living room or bedrooms. No mould or mushrooms were observed, and the defects noted were not considered sufficient to render the property generally unfit for habitation. However, the surveyor was not qualified to comment on the resident’s medical conditions and the landlord should take her personal circumstances into account. The landlord should complete the works within 28 days and no decant was required.
The landlord’s internal notes from 10 December 2022 indicate the resident asked EH to contact the landlord about the property. There was no further evidence of EH involvement at this stage. There was also another gap in the evidence at this point.
Between May and July 2023, the Ombudsman was unable to contact the resident by phone or email. During the same period, the landlord told us: it was unsure where the resident was, she hadn’t made any payments since November 2022, there were significant arrears on the account, her UC payments had been stopped, the surveyor’s recommended works were completed by early June 2023, court proceedings had not been issued in respect of the resident’s disrepair claim and there was an open case about anti-social behaviour issues.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It shows she has numerous concerns about the landlord’s actions across a number of tenancies. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any illness or injury.
It may help to explain that this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the timeline above. Whilst it is understood the resident has concerns going back even further, the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by the length of time that’s passed. As a result, we would need to see evidence the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any historic issues before we could consider extending the scope of the assessment. In other words, property 1 is beyond the scope of our investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns from April 2019

For readability, this aspect of the complaint was divided into 2 sections. They cover the resident’s tenancies in properties 2 and 3. Given the volume of interaction between the parties, it wasn’t possible to cover every event that occurred during the timeline. Instead, the assessment focussed on the key issues with a view to reaching a fair outcome overall.

Property 2 tenancy

In January 2021, the landlord agreed to investigate a reported of a lack of heating across the resident’s previous tenancy. Given the severity of the resident’s allegation, this was appropriate action. It subsequently accepted the resident had no heating in property 2. In other words, it did not dispute the resident’s description and timeline. It awarded her £100 in compensation to put things right. This was on the basis £100 was the maximum award permitted under its relevant compensation policy. As mentioned above, the tenancy spanned a period of around 19 months.
It was noted, in July 2020, the resident the resident reported she had been left with 2 fan heaters since moving in. It was also noted, later the same month, EH said the excess cold identified resulted from broken electric and fan heaters. This indicates the resident had limited heating facilities until the fan heaters broke. Nevertheless, this level of heating was not an appropriate long-term solution. The landlord should have promptly rectified any issues with the property’s main heating system.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
A direct comparison with the tenancy timeframe shows the landlord’s compensation was disproportionate given what happened. When the resident’s personal circumstances are also considered, it was highly inappropriate. For example, the resident repeatedly referred to the effect cold had on her chronic pain condition. EH’s July 2020 email to the landlord confirms excess cold was ultimately confirmed at property 2. The timeline suggests the resident also had other serious conditions that were difficult to manage.
Given the resident’s known medical conditions, it is likely a prolonged lack of adequate heating impacted her more severely. The evidence shows this impact stemmed from the landlord’s failure to fulfil its repairing obligations over an extended period of time. In addition, the information seen suggests the resident’s children were relatively young at the time. It is reasonable to conclude their vulnerability added to her overall distress. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
The EH email confirms there were other significant issues with the property. For example, serious damp and mould (sufficient to be classed as a category 1 hazard) which the resident had limited ability to mitigate since inoperable windows could not be used for ventilation. Further, there were serious electrical hazards from faulty sockets and switches. The information suggests other the potential hazards identified were categorised at the highest level of risk possible. It is reasonable to conclude the resident eventually approached her MP and EH because she felt unable to resolve matters through the landlord.
Given these dangerous conditions, and the family’s personal circumstances, it is likely the resident had limited respite from the above issues during the tenancy. On that basis, it is unlikely she was able to fully enjoy the property. Our redress calculation will therefore a include a 60% rent refund for the duration of this tenancy. This recognises a severe impact during winter months along with the other confirmed hazards. A separate compensation element will also be ordered to address the resident’s resulting distress and inconvenience. This will be based on a flat rate of £100 per month over the above identified period.
Overall, the above shows the landlord only made a superficial attempt to redress the resident. This was inappropriate given the circumstances. It was also noted, unlike the redress it offered in respect of the resident’s subsequent tenancy, the landlord did not attempt to address her energy usage during this period. This was both unfair, given her broader energy concerns, and inconsistent. The landlord should also reimburse any excess costs the resident incurred through using fan heaters at this property.

Property 3 (current) tenancy

The resident reported multiple repair concerns during her subsequent tenancy. The timeline suggests the severity of these concerns increased over time. It shows they were broadly linked to disrepair and the resident ultimately raised a disrepair claim. In contrast, the landlord awarded her £200 in March 2021 to acknowledge heating and hot water issues at the property. The timeline indicates it subsequently advised her report of sewage smells would be added to its existing complaint. A disrepair related complaint was also upheld at stage 1 in July 2022, no related compensation was awarded.
It is acknowledged the evidence suggests the landlord has not formally responded to a number of the key disrepair issues through its formal complaints process. For example, its final position concerning the leaking drainpipe or reported mould were unclear. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests the landlord had sufficient opportunity to address the majority of the resident’s concerns during the timeline. It could have reasonably broadened the scope of its investigation or raised a new complaint in respect of subsequent issues.
Given the above, we used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to include the key disrepair issues, such as infestation, leaking drainpipes and mould, within the scope of the assessment. This was primarily motivated by a desire to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity for a vulnerable resident. The timeline shows we have a considerable amount of evidence relating to the period following the landlord’s stage 2 response. This evidence made a fair assessment possible.
Still, it was more difficult to gauge the severity of the repair issues at the resident’s current property. This was largely due to contradictory information. For example, the resident’s April 2021 images did not appear to highlight any significant problems. Similarly, a surveyor described the mould as “trivial” in March 2022 and a subsequent Healthy Homes Report did not include any detailed, property specific concerns. Nevertheless, some of the resident’s concerns were eventually confirmed by the independent surveyor’s report in December 2022.
For example, from around December 2020, the resident reported strong smells in the property were affecting her breathing. The timeline shows she first requested a surveyor’s inspection around this time. It also shows she began to reference sewage smells from around May 2021. She subsequently said the smells were a daily occurrence. The December 2022 survey report suggests they were likely linked to leaking wastewater from the building’s stack pipe, which was seeping through property’s walls into the kitchen and bathroom.
It was noted a related contractor note emphasised the estimated duration of the leak in November 2022, along with the severity of the damage caused. It said the pipe had likely been corroded for at least 2 years. It was also noted the independent surveyor’s report confirmed there was moisture under the bathroom floor, several skirtings should be removed, and number of floor coverings lifted. These comments were broadly in line with concerns the resident previously raised. It also recommended the use of dehumidifiers. Ultimately, the evidence confirms the resident experienced serious issues over a prolonged period, including persistent boiler breakdowns, damp, mould, infestation, drainage problems and foul smells.
However, it also points to a number of mitigating factors. For example, it suggests a contractor fashioned a make-shift water heater in December 2020. It also indicates some repairs were delayed, from around mid-2021 onwards, because the resident disagreed with the landlord’s approach and became less cooperative. This was evidenced by the correspondence with her solicitor in March 2022. It was also noted the December 2022 survey said the property was in a reasonable state of repair overall. On the other hand, the timeline shows the landlord failed to diagnose the stack pipe until the independent surveyor’s involvement.
Overall, above shows the landlord’s previous award of £200 in related compensation was inappropriate given the circumstances. The limited scope of its investigation also points to a complaint handling failure. The landlord’s complaint handling will be considered further below. We will again order increased compensation to put things right for the resident. The timeline suggests a further loss of enjoyment in this property. In other words, the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay the full rent given the number of repair issues.
Our order will therefore include a 10% rent reduction for the period between October 2020 and November 2022. This recognises: the volume and severity of repair issues, the resident’s personal circumstances and the mitigating factors above. Since the timeline suggests she spent an unreasonable amount of time engaging with the landlord to progress matters, the order will also include a separate element to address her related distress and inconvenience.
In conclusion, the above shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns from April 2019. The timeline shows the resident and her family were impacted by multiple serious disrepair issues over a prolonged period. Further, interventions from 3rd parties such as EH and an independent surveyor were ultimately necessary before the landlord began taking sufficient remedial action. Across both tenancies, it made only a superficial attempt to redress the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

The timeline shows the landlord was mindful of the resident’s welfare at various points in the timeline. For example, in response to her safety concerns about the area, it signposted her to a home exchange scheme in early January 2020. Similarly, it later referred her to a disability support service specialising in energy matters. More significantly, it raised an internal safeguarding concern in July 2021 after becoming aware the resident had collapsed. These were appropriate actions given the circumstances. No information was seen to show it failed to comply with a police recommendation to move the resident.
Nevertheless, the timeline points to some concerning issues. For example, the landlord’s 8 May 2021 contact notes indicate a dismissive attitude towards the resident’s report of sewage smells and her health concerns. This lack of engagement was inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude a more cooperative approach may have hastened a resolution for the resident. It was noted, around October 2020, the resident raised concerns around an impatient and dismissive call handler. No information was seen to show the landlord investigated these concerns. It should be able to demonstrate such issues are taken seriously.
Similarly, the resident’s initial complaint, in July 2020, questioned the landlord’s motivation. At this point, she wondered whether various factors, including her ethnicity, were reflected in its approach. The timeline suggests the landlord overlooked her complaint at this stage, and no information was seen to suggest she raised similar concerns later. Nevertheless, we considered the evidence carefully with the resident’s concern in mind. However, no information was seen to suggest the landlord treated her differently based on her personal characteristics.
For clarity, the Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to concerns involving discrimination through their internal complaints procedure (ICP). On that basis, the landlord would have ideally responded accordingly to the resident’s initial complaint, and its response should have addressed her discrimination concerns. Its failure to respond altogether points to a general complaint handling failure rather than a specific welfare issue.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a surveyor was also an indication of its attitude. For example, the timeline suggests she first asked for a surveyor’s inspection, on safety grounds, in December 2020. Though an inspection was eventually agreed in April 2021, the landlord subsequently asked the resident to provide images of the repair issues. This suggests any corresponding assessment was only desk based. The timeline suggests a full inspection was not completed until May 2021 at the earliest.
Based on this timeframe, around 5 months, it is difficult to argue the landlord’s response to the resident’s request reflected a due level of concern for her safety, vulnerabilities or welfare. In other words, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have acted much quicker to establish the property’s overall condition given her personal circumstances. In contrast, the timeline suggests it acted promptly to assess the condition of windows and doors after the resident reported an attempted break-in.
In summary, though it displayed appropriate levels of concern at various points, the evidence suggests the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns was undermined by its tone and approach on a number of key occasions. For example, its May 2021 call notes suggested an impatient and dismissive tone. This is because the resident was initially told its representative could not help. She was then told a plumber could be arranged but she would be charged if no leak was found.
Given the resident subsequently requested the call recording and a manager’s details, the notes suggest she perceived the landlord’s inappropriate tone. The call notes indicate the call handler did not engage constructively with the resident’s health concerns or her request for temporary accommodation. It was noted the resident was ultimately decanted, in late October 2022, due to concerns about the soil stack.
In any case, the timeline points to an inappropriate disconnect between the landlord’s awareness and its actions. In other words, given its knowledge of her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have reasonably been capable of changing its approach to ensure a better outcome for the resident. Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, given the serious issues raised, the resident’s interactions with the landlord between January 2019 and April 2020 should have reasonably been treated as formal complaints. Her July 2020 email explicitly said her concerns amounted to a complaint. Still, the timeline suggests the landlord failed to respond to either the email or her chasers the following month. This was inappropriate. The timeline shows the landlord missed several opportunities to resolve matters relating to her previous tenancy.
Further, an EH intervention was ultimately necessary to address key repairs. This confirms the landlord was unable to resolve matters through its internal complaints procedure. This was concerning given the resident had raised potential safety issues. When the landlord did respond, there were numerous issues with its stage 1 handling. For example, though the resident’s undated email referenced broader concerns, the landlord’s initial stage 1 response was narrow in focus. This showed an inappropriate lack of engagement or proactivity.
The landlord’s approach was difficult to understand given its prior internal correspondence, in early November 2020, discussed the resident’s energy concerns. This suggests it was aware additional issues were involved in the resident’s complaint at this stage. Similar themes were evident during the timeline. For example, no information was seen to suggest the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns about an impatient call handler. Nor was there any indication it responded to her later concerns around lost earnings or laundry expenses.
As mentioned, the landlord’s approach to reimbursing the resident’s additional energy costs was inconsistent. Since it also failed to engage with key issues, such as conditions at her previous address, the evidence shows the landlord chose to respond to some issues and not others. Ultimately, the landlord’s inappropriate lack of engagement and proactivity meant: significant issues were overlooked, delays occurred, the resident had to repeat information and third party interventions, from the MP or the Ombudsman, were required to progress her concerns.
The above was both unfair to the resident and inappropriate. The timeline confirms she received multiple stage 1 acknowledgements and responses. It is reasonable to conclude this was confusing for both parties and made it more difficult to keep track of events. The number of informal follow-up responses also indicates a reluctance to escalate her complaint. These informal responses were contrary to the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The evidence points to more issues later in the timeline. For example, in August 2021 the resident was advised additional concerns would be added to her existing complaint. However, the timeline shows a stage 2 response had already been issued and no information was seen to show a new complaint was raised at this point. The landlord’s later stage 1 response, in July 2022, did not provide clear details about the issue being investigated. Though the complaint was upheld, no redress or rationale was offered in respect of the core issue. Overall, the response resembled an update rather than a resolution letter.
The above shows key aspects of landlord’s complaint handling were contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). For example, section 3.14 of the Code, as published in July 2020, said “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. Section 5.6 said, “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. As mentioned, the landlord’s compensation for the loss of heating over the resident’s previous tenancy was highly disproportionate.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate, unfair and contrary to the Code. The landlord overlooked key issues which, based on the timing of this assessment, resulted in delays of around 41 months. This was based on the period from February 2020 onwards. For example, no information was seen to show it fully engaged with conditions at the resident’s previous address. Its lack of engagement and proactivity meant the resident had to repeat information and 3rd party interventions were required to progress matters. It is reasonable to conclude this added to an already distressing situation.
Given the number and severity of the failures identified, along with the corresponding impact to the resident over a prolonged period. The above shows there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Ultimately, despite having numerous opportunities, the landlord was unable to fairly resolve matters through its ICP.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The timeline also points to issues with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, in January 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident was without heating and hot water for 12 days. This timeframe was not reflected in its repair history, which suggests the landlord completed the relevant repairs within 24 hours. Since there were no records relating to follow up appointments, the Ombudsman was unable to establish the correct overall timescale.
Since the loss of heating and hot water for an extended period is a significant issue, the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate. Later in the timeline, the resident said the property had been without heating and hot water for around 10 weeks. Again, we were unable to verify this information from the repair history. We only know there was a make-shift solution in place, for at least part of the timeline, due to the resident’s December 2020 correspondence. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s repair records should have captured this information.
More significantly, the evidence suggests the landlord’s record keeping prevented the resident from conclusively resolving her historic energy bill concerns. For example, the first timeline reference to these concerns was in early 2019. The landlord’s internal correspondence in November 2020 suggests the resident was awarded £1.3K in related compensation around this time. However, since it was unable to retrieve the key complaint details, we were unable to determine whether the resident’s linked complaint was handled appropriately.
Though the resident remains dissatisfied, it is unlikely the situation can be resolved unless she has kept her own copy of the relevant response letter. It was noted her concerns may be outside of our jurisdiction due to the time that’s passed. However, this was dependent on the landlord’s handling and not a foregone conclusion. In any case, the landlord’s own operations were hindered by its lack of relevant records, which likely compounded the resident’s negative experience. For example, the timeline indicates the landlord was investigating energy issues again around April 2022.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Given the above the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate and the failures identified amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns from April 2019.
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The timeline shows the resident and her family were impacted by multiple serious disrepair issues over a prolonged period. Interventions from 3rd parties such as EH and an independent surveyor were ultimately necessary before the landlord began taking sufficient remedial action. Across both tenancies, it made only a superficial attempt to redress the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate, unfair and contrary to the Code. It overlooked key issues resulting in delays of around 41 months. Its lack of engagement and proactivity meant the resident had to repeat information and 3rd party interventions were required to progress matters. It is reasonable to conclude this added to an already distressing situation. The landlord was unable to fairly resolve matters through its ICP despite numerous opportunities to put things right.
Though it displayed appropriate levels of concern at various points, the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns was undermined by its tone and approach on a number of key occasions. The evidence suggests it was impatient and dismissive at times. Given it knew about her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have been capable of changing its approach to reach a better outcome for the resident.
Key information about a loss of heating and hot water facilities was not reflected in the landlord’s repair history. As a result, we were unable to establish the correct overall timescale. More significantly, the evidence suggests the landlord’s record keeping prevented the resident from conclusively resolving her historic energy bill concerns. It hampered the landlord’s own operations and it’s unlikely the situation can be resolved unless the resident kept her own copy of the relevant response letter.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should recognise: the prolonged impact of multiple disrepair issues, the landlord’s inability to resolve matters without intervention from various parties, its superficial attempt to redress the resident, along with its inappropriate complaint handling and record keeping. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman evidence of the apology within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £10,940.80 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £5,951.60 for loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s identified failures at property 2. This figure is estimated to represent 60% of the rent. The landlord should provide us the correct figure if this is incorrect.
2. £1,900 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above. The landlord is free to deduct the £120 it previously credited to the resident’s rent account from this figure.
3. £1,689.20 rent reimbursement for loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s identified delays and failures at property 3.
4. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above. The landlord is free to deduct the £200 it previously awarded from this figure.
5. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
6. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is free to deduct the £40 it previously credited to the resident’s rent account.
The landlord to raise a formal complaint to address key issues that were overlooked during the timeline. These issues include: the resident’s excess energy costs during her previous tenancy, along with her concerns around lost earnings and laundry expenses. The landlord should contact the resident to ensure no other issues have been overlooked. It should share its new complaint reference with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to review the contact notes of from its 8 May 2021 call with the resident. If possible, it should also review the call recording. The information should be used to develop, or review its quality assurance processes, including call sampling, for monitoring customer contact. The landlord could also share the call details internally for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord to conduct an executive-level management review into the key issues highlighted during this report. Within 4 weeks, it should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: failure to recognise and raise complaints, its inability to resolve matters without 3rd party intervention, its capacity to act upon its knowledge of vulnerabilities, its call sampling/quality assurance measures for monitoring customer contact, its approach to redress, its ability to respond to all complaint points and its record keeping. The landlord is free to include other related issues.

Recommendations

The landlord to share a copy of the independent surveyor’s post-inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.