Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202200356)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200356

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

24 August 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
2. The amount of redress offered by the landlord.
The report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 2 May 2016. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord has stated it is aware the resident has restricted mobility.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay a home loss and disturbance payment if the resident it decanted temporarily. The amount of decant was £100 per week and it was payable for up to 12 weeks. If the decant was more than this the landlord would review the situation.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property which includes amongst other things the roof, the internal walls, floors and ceilings.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one sets out that the landlord in the first instance will aim to resolve the complaint there and then, when it is initially raised. If it is unable to do so it will refer the matter to be investigated. The landlord aims to respond back on the matter within 10 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex it may need longer than 10 days to be resolved. In those cases the landlord will keep the resident informed and updated on the matter.
2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, it will be passed to stage two. The landlord will aim to provide a response within 15 working days, however if the complaint investigation or resolution is particularly complex it may need a longer time to resolve. No upper limit in terms of timescale has been provided however the landlord will keep the resident informed and regularly updated in this event.
The landlord’s maintenance policy explains that it has two types of prioritisation for repairs. Severe roof leaks, no hot water, and a total loss of heating between October and March are classified as emergency works in which the landlord aims to attend and make safe within four hours and rectify the matter within 24 hours. Blocked drains, plasterwork and heating faults and breakdowns are considered as non-emergency repairs by the landlord and repair works are to be carried out within 15 working days.
The landlord’s maintenance policy adds that specialist or major works within the home, which typically require multiple visits, using multi trade skills are variable timescale repairs. These usually cost over £1,000 and are raised following a visit from the landlord’s technical team. The landlord states that if it needs to carry out extensive repairs it will talk through what needs to be done. It will project manage the work and carry out a post work inspection to check the quality of the repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy set out that that it would pay discretionary compensation if it failed to meet own service targets. The amount of compensation is linked to the impact to the resident which ranges from £20 for low impact up to £500 for high impact.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where it provides a dehumidifier it will meet the running costs.

Summary of Events

The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 23 June 2021. This had been because of the resident raising concerns about damp and mould at the property on 14 June 2021 as well as other issues such as rotting wood throughout. As a result of the inspection in June 2021 the landlord noted several works that needed to be done. This included unblocking the wall vent in the living room and replastering several rooms as well as resecuring the floorboards. In terms of the kitchen and bathroom a window needed to be renewed and fans needed to be installed. The landlord raised a work order for the works and also for a ventilation survey to be carried out.
The landlord’s contractor carried out a ventilation survey on 19 July 2021. This noted that there was a lack of extraction in the kitchen and bathroom and that mould had been noted in the lounge as well as throughout the property. The survey noted a few passive vents appeared to be blocked with paint and needed cleaning to improve efficiency.
The resident called the landlord on 17 August 2021 to ask when the plastering works would commence. The landlord checked with its contractor who confirmed that the radiators needed to be removed before the work could commence. In addition the cooker needed to be disconnected. The landlord’s notes noted that following the completion of the plastering the radiators and cooker would be reconnected.
A further survey was carried out by the landlord on 14 September 2021 in relation to the timber flooring which was observed to be sinking and would need to be removed so that an investigation could take place to determine what was causing the problem.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 4 October 2021. Whilst the landlord had offered to provide the resident with a portable cooker, he stated that it was difficult to remain in the property whilst the work was being carried out and tradesmen were coming and going. The resident suggested he would want to move out of the property to live with his father. The landlord agreed that it would pay the resident an amount of £100 per week for the period he was decanted whilst the work to the property was undertaken.
The resident called the landlord on 12 October 2021 to explain that his father had mobility issues and that he was looking at staying with other family members. The resident also informed the landlord that plastering at the property was not drying. He was informed by the landlord that the plaster would need to dry before it could be painted. As the contractors needed to paint the bedroom the landlord explained that the issue could be picked up at that point. The landlord also confirmed that it could assist the resident by putting his belongings into storage whilst the works were going on.
The landlord’s internal notes on 14 October 2021 noted that the painting was due to be finished on 26 October 2021 and that in terms of the bedroom that this would be plastered between 15 and 16 November 2021 and that it would be painted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 October 2021 to confirm that it would pay £100 per week whilst the resident stayed with his father. It also informed the resident that it needed the bedroom cleared so that its contractors could complete the works. It offered the resident the option to have the resident’s belongings put into storage and explained if the room was cleared it would undertake the plastering in the room over the weekend.
Following having spoken to the resident the landlord emailed him on 22 October 2021 to confirm that it would assist him on 2 November 2021 to move the last few items from the bedroom. The landlord added it had spoken to its contractors to ask if they could attend on 5 and 6 November 2021 to plaster the bedroom. It added it would update him once it received a response from the contractors.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2021 to explain it would arrange to fit a lock box for him so the resident was not required to travel to allow its contractors in. It added that the use of a dehumidifier would result in cracking the thinner parts of plaster. It therefore asked if the resident could pop in a few hours per week to air the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 October 2021. He explained the painter had arrived to finish the front room which had been plastered three weeks earlier however the plaster was not dry. The resident suggested there was rising damp in the property and asked for a surveyor to inspect. The resident sent a picture to show the landlord the issue.
The landlord noted on 10 November 2021 that it had spoken to the contractor to arrange for a supervisor to attend with the plasterer on 15 November 2021. This was as some of the plastering had yet to dry and the landlord wanted to determine if there was an underlying cause. The note also recorded that that adequate ventilation was due to be fitted to the property on 4 January 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 November 2021 to ask if he was still staying with his father. It also explained that having checked up plastering of the bedroom had taken place on 15 to 16 November 2021 and that the contractors were due to return on 25 November 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2021. It noted the resident had called in to make some changes to the dates the contractors were due to attend. It explained that the painting was scheduled to take place on 29 December 2021 and the ventilation had been scheduled for 4 January 2022.
The landlord also sent an internal email on 8 December 2021 asking if the resident was still being paid £100 per week whilst the work was being undertaken. It added that the property had a ventilation issue which had caused a delay in the plaster drying.
The landlord’s notes of 4 January 2022 noted that the bedroom was scheduled to be painted on 23 February 2022. It also stated that a repair had been raised to the drain on 28 January 2022. This was to determine whether it was the reason for the damp. The landlord also noted that the resident had not received any payments for the decant at that time. It sent an email to the finance team about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 January 2022. It stated that he could return to the property the following week. The email included work which was due to take place. This included painting scheduled on 24 January 2022 as well as reinstating the radiators which it had taken down during plastering works. A drain repair had also been booked for 28 January 2022 and the landlord arranged for the resident’s possessions to be returned on 31 January 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 January 2022. He explained that he had hospital appointments scheduled and unless the storage operatives could return and place the goods back themselves he proposed an appointment after 3 February 2022. The resident stated the decant payment should cover 17 weeks up to the end of January and referred to other outstanding jobs which needed to be done. This included the mould under the lino in the bathroom, plumbing issues and addressing issues with a window in the bedroom where one of the operatives had damaged the lock.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 20 January 2022. It added that the list of jobs it had provided were the repairs which had been discussed with the resident on the phone. It added the other jobs to the list and set these out with each relevant work order. The landlord added that in terms of compensation someone from the repairs team would contact him about it. It also provided details of the storage operatives and informed the resident that should he need them to deliver his belongings he needed to provide them with the safe code to access the keys.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2022 to explain that he was unable to move back in to the property. He explained he had attended it on 28 January 2022 and that no operatives had attended. He had contacted the landlord and been referred onto the heating team who had eventually told him that a qualified engineer was needed to drill holes to fit the brackets for the radiators. He added he was promised call backs which had not happened. The resident stated an operative had attended for the drainage issues and had informed him that the damage was due to rising damp.
The resident completed an online complaint form. He stated he had been decanted for a total of 19 weeks but he had not received any payments from the landlord. He added that there was rising damp in the living room and the bathroom needed some plumbing done directly from the mains supply as presently it was coming via the water tank in the loft and not through the combination boiler. He accepted some jobs had been done by the landlord however it had left others. He provided examples of these jobs such as there being mould under the lino in the bathroom and that the windows were sealed shut.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment email on 9 February confirming it would provide a response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s internal email of 10 February 2022 confirmed that jobs had been raised with its contractor. However it added that no discussion had been made concerning the resident’s decant.
Further internal communication from the landlord on 16 February 2022 noted that all the works had been raised and the jobs were due to be completed by 10 March 2022. The communication noted that the delays to the jobs had been down to the resident changing appointments on the day the contractors were due to attend.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 22 February 2022 which followed on from a call with the resident. It explained:
1. The work in the bedroom had been completed.
2. Its contractor would visit to paint the living room wall and to assess what to do to repair the wall and eliminate the damp issues.
3. Works for the flooring had been booked for 10 March 2022.
4. In terms of the resident’s concerns about the gas boiler it stated it would forward the concerns to the gas manager. It would then arrange for an engineer to check the new boiler was functioning correctly.
5. Whilst the resident had mentioned about the decant process and that he had been in communication with an individual about it, it had no knowledge about this. It asked the resident to forward the email which the resident stated he had received about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 March 2022. This had followed on from another telephone call held with him on that day, details of which have not been provided. The landlord noted the resident was unhappy with multiple repairs in the property, which it did not expand on and that he had still to receive the compensation for the decant process. It escalated his complaint to stage two and confirmed a response would be provided within 15 working days.
The landlord sent internal emails on 16 March 2022 asking for comments on the boiler loosing pressure, radiators which had yet to be rehung at the property, the mould under the lino and the decant compensation. It noted a supervisor was due to attend the property the following day.
The landlord’s contractor sent it an email on 23 March 2022. This had followed on from the supervisor visit on 17 March 2022. This email noted the supervisor’s visit had identified damp, which was rising through the floor, which had not been due to pipes. The contractor wished to book an operative to attend with a damp proof membrane to seal the floor and then to lay flooring on top of it.
The resident called the landlord on 6 April 2022. He explained:
1. He had escalated the complaint to stage two the previous month and had yet to hear back from the landlord.
2. He had not been able to live in the property since October 2021 and there had been no heating since September 2021.
3. He had been living with his father and whilst he had been promised £100 a week for the temporary decant the landlord had reneged on it.
4. The mould in the property and repairs were still outstanding. The radiators still need hanging.
The landlord received an internal email on 7 April 2022 which explained that a referral had been received under a disabled facility grant for the installation of a level access shower. However it noted there was an ongoing complaint at the property and that the works could not be completed until the repairs had been completed. It asked for an update on the situation.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 14 April 2022. He explained that whilst some work was being carried out at the property not all the jobs had been completed. He added that the landlord’s contractors had informed him that the bathroom floor needed to be dug up and replaced yet the landlord had stated they would be painting over it. He added that it had been 20 days since he escalated the complaint to stage two but he had yet to hear back from it.
The landlord’s internal communication on 20 and 21 April 2022 confirmed that whilst the radiators had been removed for the plastering the contactors had been only able to refit one to date. It added that whilst the plastering had been competed there was an area which was not drying and which the contractor though could be rising damp. It requested a surveyor be arranged to assess the matter which related to the wall to the left of the chimney.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 25 April 2022. It stated:
1. There was an agreement for the decant and that it would pay for 17 weeks at £100 per week, which would cover the period from 4 October 2021 up to the end of January 2022. Whilst it understood some radiators were not functioning it stated there was sufficient heating in the property so it would not extend the decant past this date.
2. In terms of the outstanding work a surveyor had been booked and that a voicemail had been left for the resident on 22 April 2022. It explained the resident needed to contact the surveyor back to arrange a suitable appointment.
3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about rehanging the radiators it had arranged with the gas manager to issue work orders for this as well as the boiler’s low pressure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 April 2022 to explain he remained unhappy with the stage two response and he would be taking the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident contacted this Service on 25 April 2022 in terms of the complaint. He sent a further email on 5 May 2022 to explain an appointment had been made for the heating on 4 May 2022 in the afternoon but no one had turned up and he had not received any phone calls. He added the landlord was due to provide a dehumidifier on 11 May 2022 to resolve the damp, even though the damp had been ongoing for over a year.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 20 May 2022 noted that there had been no access for the heating repairs on 4 May 2022. The heating operative had attended on 20 May 2022 and heating works were due to take place on 27 May 2022. In addition to this the dehumidifier had been installed on 17 May 2022 and was due to be collected on 6 June 2022. Mould treatment had been booked on 6 June 2022.
The resident confirmed during a telephone call with this Service on 28 June 2022 that he had yet to move back to the property. He added that the heating had only been resolved on 8 June 2022 but damp issues persisted in the bedroom and mould was coming through the lino in the bathroom. There had also been concerns with “wood rot” which the resident believed was connected to damp issues. The resident added he wanted everything sorted before he moved back to the property and this should include compensation for the period he was away.
The landlord’s internal communication of 6 July 2022 noted that the resident had called it about the heating issue on 24 January 2022 but no access had been possible. On 21 April 2022 the resident had raised an emergency saying there was no hot water. Its operative had attended on this day and the resident was no at home. However he had confirmed that the boiler had been working. In terms of rehanging the radiators the landlord’s operative had not been able to gain access on 4 May, 19 May and 20 May 2022. The radiators had been rehung on 8 June 2022 although it noted thermostatic valves had to be fitted to the radiators. These had been fitted the following week.
The landlord emailed this Service on 9 August 2022 to explain it was willing to increase the decant offer to £2,200. It stated this was based on a move in date for the resident of 10 March 2022 as opposed to the end of January 2022. It added that throughout the decant it had to cancel work due to it not being able to access the property.
The resident confirmed to this Service that he would consider the revised offer on the basis however he wished an update on the living room wall repairs relating to damp and to the floorboards which the resident believed should have been taken up for inspection. This was relayed to the landlord on 22 August 2022.
The landlord confirmed to this Service on 21 September 2022 that a CCTV survey had been carried out on 14 September 2022 and that it was awaiting the outcome of this.
The resident emailed this Service on 2 October 2022 to reject the landlord’s offer. He stated:
1. He had been away from the property for 39 weeks and not 22 weeks.
2. The dehumidifier had cost £38 of additional electricity for one week and it had achieved nothing.
Following a request for further information by this Service in July 2023, the landlord has informed this Service it has proposed a revised decant payment of 38 weeks up to the end of June 2022. It added that in addition it would make an offer of a further £600 for the additional inconvenience suffered by the resident by the works which had taken place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

Since making the initial complaint the resident has raised a number of other repairs to the property. These include the ongoing drainage issues and cracks in the bathroom. In terms of this matter these will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

Upon being made aware of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould at the property the landlord arranged a survey in June 2021. A ventilation survey also took place which identified a few vents in the property had been blocked up and needed unblocking. The landlord’s initial action in arranging the surveys was appropriate as it needed to determine what was causing the damp and mould in the property. Given the requirement of surveys to be undertaken by professionals in different fields, arranging these would have taken some time.
Following the surveys the landlord arranged for the extensive works throughout the property to be carried out. This involved removing plaster to the walls throughout the property before rendering them and finishing off with coats of plaster which were then to be painted. In addition to this the existing vents were due to be unblocked and new ventilation was meant to be fitted to the bathroom and kitchen. However it does appear that the work did not begin until October 2021 in terms of the plastering and for January 2022 in terms of the ventilation. The landlord has not provided clear notes for why it took over two months from after the ventilation survey being carried out for the work to start or why the ventilation issues were not due to be undertaken until after the proposed work had been completed.
The resident had contacted the landlord in August 2021 to ask about the start date for the work. Whilst the landlord’s contractor said it needed to wait until the radiators were disconnected before it could commence the plastering the resident was not provided with clear and regular updates on the matter. This would have caused the resident a degree of inconvenience in being unaware of the timetable of events.
The landlord had not stated that the resident the need to vacate the property whilst the works commenced and it had set out that it would provide a portable cooker for the period his main cooker was disconnected. However based on the concerns of the resident about the number of operatives and frequency of them attending the property he had proposed he would stay with family. The landlord acted reasonably in considering this and it agreed in line with its decant policy to make a payment of £100 per week whilst the resident stayed with his father. The landlord did keep in regular contact with the resident asking him whether he was still staying with family and it did provide him with updates on the ongoing works.
The landlord had initially informed the resident in the middle of October 2021 that the painting of the living room, which followed on from the plastering of it would be completed by 26 October 2021. Its contractors would then return to paint the bedroom the following month. However it conceded upon being informed by the resident that the plaster had yet to dry that its contractors could return at a later time to paint the property. The landlord was put on alert by the resident on 26 October 2021 that the plaster which had been completed three weeks earlier had still not dried. Despite being made aware of a need for a survey and by means of a photo that the resident had taken to show the matter, the landlord did not arrange a survey until 10 November 2021. The landlord has not provided any explanation why it took two weeks to arrange for an inspection to take place. The contemporaneous notes show that upon referring the matter to the ventilation surveyor, it had informed the landlord that the ventilation work was not scheduled to take place until the New Year.
The landlord was made aware of the need for the plaster to dry before it could be painted. Its notes show that it considered the need of a humidifier which it ultimately decided would cause the plaster to crack. It then proposed the resident aired the property for a few hours. However it did not act appropriately in asking the resident to do this. The landlord had understood that the resident was having to come back on occasions to let contractors into the property. It had then set up a lock box at the property for the resident to leave his key in for the operatives. This meant that the resident was no longer required to attend the property. It therefore seemed to be at odds with consideration for the resident to require him to attend the property to air it for a few hours per week. The drying out of the property was the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord has not provided details notes to show why the dates of the works to the bedroom and living room were changed on multiple occasions, from November 2021 to December 2021 and again through to February 2022. It cited that the resident had effected the changes to the dates however it has not provided call notes or emails which have confirmed that it was the resident and not it which delayed the work. Whilst the resident had explained he had been informed by contractors that there was rising damp in the property, the landlord did not arrange for another survey until after it had issued the stage two response and completed its internal complaints process. This was not appropriate. By doing this the landlord left the onus on the resident to chase up the surveyor instead of it doing this. It also meant that the issue was not resolved at that time and looking at the landlord’s notes it took until late 2022 to finally paint the living room and bedroom.

The amount of redress offered by the landlord.

In terms of the redress offered by the landlord as part of the complaints process it limited this to a payment for the decant only. Whilst the landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it would consider paying discretionary compensation if it failed to meet its own service standards the landlord’s initial offer as well as its revised offer made in August 2022, did not do this.
In addition to failing to consider whether any discretionary payment should be made the landlord also failed to consider whether any payment should be made for the additional costs in running the dehumidifier. The landlord’s notes show that it provided a dehumidifier following on from the survey which took place after it issued the stage two response. The resident has stated the dehumidifier cost an extra £38 in electricity costs over a week and it was provided by the landlord for a total of 21 days. Despite the landlord having revised its offer of redress to the resident on two subsequent occasions there was no mentioning of it meeting these costs in line with its compensation policy. The resident was not asked for evidence of the additional electricity costs that had been incurred by the dehumidifier.
In terms of the redress offered the landlord had initially offered a decant payment for 17 weeks. This was based on the resident having been deemed ready to return to the property as at the end of January 2022. The resident had informed the landlord prior to this time that he was unable to return to the property. This was due to the lack of heating in the property. As the planned return for the resident coincided with winter, it was fair and reasonable for the resident to want the heating to be working, especially as the property was still experiencing damp conditions. The landlord subsequently appeared to accept that the resident would not be able to return to the property as at the end of January 2022. However whilst it did this, it failed to increase the decant payment which it was offering. It had even not accepted that a decant payment had been agreed with the resident until he was able to provide evidence of this in the form of emails from the landlord. The failure of the landlord to have clearly recorded that it had agreed a decant payment with the resident would have caused him a degree of inconvenience.
Even when the landlord had accepted that a decant payment was due to the resident it failed to ensure that the payments were being made to him. Whilst the landlord has provided evidence that it had contacted the finance team on occasion when informed by the resident he had yet to receive any payment, it did not take ownership of the matter and investigate why no payments had been made to the resident. The lack of payment for a prolonged period would have caused the resident a degree of inconvenience not least as the decant payment may have helped the resident to cover some of the additional costs incurred by his staying out of the property and with family.
After the resident’s complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that it had reviewed the complaint at the time it was preparing to provide the case documents to this Service. It explained that the original documents had ended in February 2022 however it had been confirmed by its repairs manager that the move in date for the resident would have been 10 March 2022. It therefore offered to increase the decant payment by a further £500 to a total of £2,200. In other words it was prepared to offer 22 weeks of decant payments to the resident.
The landlord’s subsequent decision to complete a further review of the resident’s complaint at the time did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes. However, in terms of the revised offer this had been based on an estimated date when the work in the property had been due to be completed. The date of 10 March 2022 had been set out in the landlord’s stage one response in February 2022.
However it was clear from the continued communication between the resident and the landlord that work remained outstanding after this time, and that the issue of dampness in the property remained. As a result it would have required the heating in the property to be working before the resident could realistically have been considered to return to the property. He had confirmed that the heating had been resolved on 8 June 2022 although some further work on the radiators were not completed until the following week. Despite this being the case it was not until July 2023 when the landlord accepted that it should have recalculated the decant payment up to June 2022. In addition at that time it had proposed a payment of £600 for the inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation for both the decant and the inconvenience would be within the range this Service would recommend for long-term failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, the offer was not made until over two years since the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore the landlord failed to effectively put things right and it missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and we have therefore found maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident initially raised his complaint on 8 February 2022. The landlord did adhere to its complaints policy with both the acknowledgement and the stage one response which it provided within 10 working days.
Following the resident escalating the complaint to stage two on 16 March 2022 it informed him that it would respond within 15 working days. However it did not issue its stage two response until 25 April 2022, some 28 working days later. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy. Although the complaints policy does allow a response to exceed 15 working days if it was complex the landlord failed to keep the resident duly updated on the matter. And whilst it did issue a stage two response, the landlord was aware that the matters which had caused the resident to raise the complaint in the first instance had yet to be resolved. It did not wait until the survey which was due to take place over the dampness identified in the living room, but rather explained to the resident that he needed to contact the surveyor to make the appointment.

The record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided a repairs log and details of its email communication with the resident it has not provided clear details of the numerous telephone calls which both it and its contractors had with the resident. Whilst the landlord followed up on some of the calls with emails which reinforced the contents of the conversations with the resident, the absence of detailed call notes was a concern especially as the landlord stated that the resident had on a few occasions changed appointments at the last moment which contributed to the delay in the completion of work. The landlord’s contractor’s also referred to several occasions where they were unable to gain access to the property. Whilst it did provide dates of some of these occurrences it failed to provide evidence that appointments had been scheduled initially and agreed with the resident.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the amount of redress offered by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s recording keeping.

Reasons

There were significant delays in completing the work on the property. Whilst the landlord has stated this was because of the resident changing appointment dates it has not provided evidence to support this was the sole cause. Despite being made aware of the issue of the plaster in the front room not drying on numerous occasions the landlord did not instruct a survey to be undertaken to determine any underlying cause for several months. The landlord’s notes show that the work on painting the living room was not completed until several months after the end of the complaint process, a year after the work had initially commenced.
The landlord failed to consider the period that the property was without adequate working heating including hung radiators. This had prevented the resident from returning to the property following a decant whilst he stayed with family. Therefore it did not calculate the correct decant payment due to the resident. Although it did increase its offer from £1,700 to £2,200 at the time the matter had been referred to this Service the amount was based on a date which had been estimated at the time of the stage one response as to when the repairs were due to be completed. This date had been passed and it was not until a further three months had elapsed that the resident’s heating had been reconnected. It was only at this time that the resident could have returned to the property.
The landlord failed to meet the timescales in the complaints policy at stage two. It also failed to use the process as an opportunity to put things right and learn from the outcomes, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Whilst it may not have been possible for the landlord to fully meet the resident’s expectations, it failed to use this opportunity to appropriately respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord, its contractors and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits and during the numerous repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £4,500, which comprises:
  1. £500 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the repairs.
  2. £3,800 for the temporary decant relating to 38 weeks at a rate of £100 per week between 4 October 2021 to 26 June 2022. At this point whilst the resident stated he had not returned to the property as issues remained, he would have been able to do so. This amount includes the amounts previously offered by the landlord for the decant.
  3. £100 for its failure in its complaints handling.
  4. £100 for the failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should upon receiving evidence of the additional electricity costs for the period that a dehumidifier was provided to the resident meet those costs.