The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Nottingham City Homes (202016013)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016013

Nottingham City Homes

26 July 2021


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

 

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:-

 

  1. Repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.

 

  1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident entered into a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord dated 8 May 2017. In May 2018 she moved, by way of an exchange, to another of the landlord’s properties. The tenancy was assigned to that new property accordingly. The resident resides in the property with her four young children.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show a complaint was logged on 23 February 2021. The resident complained that there had been ongoing problems with the roof to her property for some time and a full replacement was anticipated. Unfortunately, the problem had resulted in the property becoming damp and mould had formed in the upstairs bedroom. The resident reported she had four children under five years old and they were having to live in one room due to the extent of the problem. She stated it was having an adverse effect on the health of her children and she had had to stop using their bedroom. In addition, the situation was affecting her own mental health.

 

  1. The resident had spoken to the landlord about the mould two weeks prior to her complaint (on our around 9 February 2021) and been told a surveyor would attend but not until 23 March 2021. She requested that the situation be sorted out sooner than that, or alternatively the family be moved to another property.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 February 2021 confirming its understanding that it was about delays to the repairs to the roof and concerns about damp in a bedroom. It stated it would provide its response by 16 March 2021.

 

  1. However, the same day, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response as follows: –

 

  1. It confirmed that in July 2019 it had attended the property to carry out repairs to the roof and had identified that scaffolding would be required to do the work. Unfortunately, that request had been closed in error and the work was not carried out.

 

  1. In November 2020, the landlord had attended the property again to fix loose tiles and as a result of that had identified further work was required and that the property should be included in the landlord’s roofing replacement programme for financial year 2021/22. 

 

  1. Also at that attendance, it was noted that the chimney stack was in poor condition allowing water to permeate the property and the resident would be contacted “as a matter of urgency” by the repairs team.

 

  1. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s request to bring forward a damp inspection (not due to be carried out until 23 March 2021) could not be accommodated due to that team’s current workload.

 

  1. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. 

 

  1. On 1 March 2021, the landlord attended the property to deal with the scaffolding issue – and again on 9 March 2021 to carry out work to the roofing tiles.

 

  1. On 16 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its “investigation into the above complaint is now complete” and repeating the contents of its letter of 26 February 2021.

 

  1. On 19 March 2021, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf explaining she did not consider she had received an adequate response and asking them to contact her about her complaint. The landlord’s internal records show it did not consider it had had an escalation request and needed to contact the resident to find out why she remained dissatisfied.

 

  1. In an internal email dated 22 March 2021 the landlord noted that the chimney at the property was in poor condition, holding repairs had been carried out (9 March 2021) but there was nothing further that could be done pending the roof replacement, which had been brought forward from 2024. The resident was aware of the situation.

 

  1. The landlord’s staff member attended the property on 23 March 2021 as planned. The resident has reported to this Service that the outcome was that she was advised the damp and mould was due to condensation and she should keep the heating on but with four children she could not afford to do so. The landlord’s record of this visit reflects its view that “roof and stack not causing any internal issues”.

 

  1. On 29 March 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, having discussed the matter with the resident direct during the previous week:

 

  1. The landlord admitted that the resident had been offered a poor level of service in connection with the roof repairs and in connection with damp and mould “in the living room”. It acknowledged the resident had raised these issues “with us on numerous occasions”.

 

  1. The landlord recognised it should have handled the roof repairs in a more proactive way, keeping the resident updated about the situation and with a timescale for resolution.

 

  1. It confirmed its intention to replace the roof and that it had started on the process of actioning this work. It needed to serve party wall notices on neighbours and was to do that “this week”.

 

  1. The landlord stated it would be in touch with the resident during week commencing 19 April 2021 to discuss the works with her (that is carry out a “customer induction”), with a start date for 10 May 2021 and a completion date in June 2021.

 

  1. In the meantime, the landlord agreed to carry out redecoration works to the living room in the property, which was scheduled to take place on 6 and 7 April 2021. It was aiming to treat the mould which had appeared first. Moving forward, the landlord advised the resident that good ventilation and heating were needed to prevent a recurrence.

 

  1. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for the delay in resolving the roof repairs and for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show the customer induction was carried out on 22 April 2021 and a start date for the roof works of 3 May 2021 was agreed with the resident.  Further, works were undertaken to the bedroom ceiling, and also in the living room in late March/early April 2021.

 

  1. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and has referred the matter to this Service for investigation.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for internal decoration at the property.

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards (“the Repair Standards”) categorise repairs according to how urgent they are. It aims to deal with “emergency repairs” within 24 hours. It gives examples of what constitutes “an emergency” and this includes a leaking roof.

 

  1. The policy then separates repairs between those that are a priority, and those that are planned, giving target completion times of 30 working days and 90 working days respectively. 

 

  1. The policy sets out the landlord’s approach to damp, mould and condensation. It states that condensation is the likely cause of dampness and mould, and sets out how the resident might combat it with ventilation and heating. The landlord makes the following commitment: –

 

  1. “If we think your home may be suffering with damp, mould or condensation we will send someone out to have a look at it within 4 weeks of you contacting us”; and

 

  1. “If we approve any remedial works these will be carried out within 3 months of you reporting the issue to us”.

 

  1. The landlord operates a Discretionary Compensation Policy which explains its approach to offering compensation where there has been a failure in the service it offers. It gives examples of situations where it will consider such a payment and one of them is where “we have failed to meet our own service targets”.

 

  1. When calculating the level of compensation, the policy states regard must be had to the impact the service failing has had on the resident – offering three categories, low, medium and high impact. The policy does not state what amounts will be awarded according to which category is deemed applicable.

 

Assessment

 

Repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.

 

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the roof at the property. It has accepted that, having identified repairs in July 2019, it then closed the case in error. This was not discovered until November 2020, some 16 months later, when the landlord attended the property due to a report of loose roof tiles.  

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Standards provide for a faster response than this, which the landlord has accepted. The landlord’s delay, between July 2019 and November 2020, represented a service failing and was inappropriate. 

 

  1. At the attendance in November 2020 the landlord’s operative reported that the roof needed replacing and that the chimneystack was allowing “water ingression”. Only temporary measures could be taken until the replacement was completed. According to the landlord’s standards, as a leak to the roof, that temporary fix should have been dealt with urgently. However, there is no evidence of any action being taken after November 2020 until the resident complained (23 February 2021), and then temporary works were still not done until 9 March 2021. Even if this element of the work had been treated as a priority repair, rather than an emergency one, the landlord still did not achieve the timescale its standards provided for.

 

  1. The landlord’s delays in undertaking these temporary measures represented a further service failing on its behalf. It failed to comply with its own standards which was inappropriate.

 

  1. According to the landlord’s records it put in motion its procedure to replace the roof after that March 2021 attendance.

 

  1. All residential properties need maintenance and from time to time this might include major work and disruption. The fact the roof needed replacing does not necessarily mean the landlord failed in its obligations to the resident. There is no evidence that was the case here.

 

  1. In terms of the resolution offered by the landlord to this dispute, it acted reasonably in acknowledging its failings early in the complaints process. It also offered the resident compensation which was appropriate, albeit this was in its stage two complaint response, rather than the first one. When considering the level of that compensation it is necessary to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident.

 

  1. There has been a significant delay in dealing with the roof and the landlord accepted, in its complaint response, that the resident had chased it “numerous times”, putting her to inconvenience. Whilst there is no evidence of any impact on the resident between July 2019 and November 2020 in terms of further repair problems, the landlord still had a responsibility to deal with the issue and should have still acted in accordance with its policy and without being reminded to do so. There is evidence of a separate damp and mould report in early 2020, that is during the delay, but no evidence to confirm it was caused by the state of the roof to categorise it as being as a result of that delay.

 

  1. The evidence does, however, demonstrate inconvenience to the resident between November 2020 and March 2021 which is shorter in duration. The resident had further contact with the landlord and had to complain to get it to take action. The delay in conducting the damp survey also took place during this time (see below for details). Looked at on this time basis, the impact on the resident might reasonably be categorised as low according to the landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy.

 

  1. Whilst the resident considers the compensation offer of £150 to be inadequate, this Service must take account of remedial work carried out by the landlord in respect of damp and mould in the living room at the property (again, see below). The resident is responsible for internal decoration but the landlord did this work on her behalf. Those actions represent part of the remedy provided to the resident. On that basis, and coupled with the shorter duration of impact, the Ombudsman’s view is that the compensation offered is fair and that reasonable redress has therefore been offered by the landlord to the resident for the failings in service which have been identified above.

 

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

 

  1. The resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage one complaint response referred to damp and mould issues in the bedroom. The stage two response referred to it affecting the downstairs living area. The landlord has explained to this Service that with regard to the upstairs report, its investigations had found that the resident had been decorating and had exposed a hole(s) in the ceiling and which it considered to be the cause of her problems. It states rectification works were completed as part of its stage one response – hence its stage two response did not refer to it.

 

  1. By the time the landlord provided its stage two response at the end of March 2021, the landlord asserts the resident was now complaining of issues downstairs, with mould in the living room, and this was addressed in that later response.

 

  1. The resident draws a link between the damp and mould in the property and the state of repair of the roof. It is understandable that she should reach such a conclusion, especially given the suggestion that the chimney stack was not watertight. The landlord disputes this, stating the roof is not causing the internal problems, but rather it attaches them to lifestyle. This Service cannot offer an expert opinion as to what the cause is, and neither can it make assumptions in the absence of evidence to prove the situation one way or the other.

 

  1. What is apparent, however, is that dealing with redecoration issues is the resident’s responsibility, according to a combination of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s Repairs Standards. Taking lifestyle steps to avoid condensation is also a responsibility of the resident. Were there evidence, however, that the issues complained of were being caused by a lack of maintenance of the roof, then this Service could attach responsibility to the landlord to deal with them. As stated above, however, that confirmatory evidence is not available in this case.

 

  1. Notwithstanding that, the Repair Standards state the landlord will visit and assess the situation for the resident and might agree to carry out work. The resident contacted the landlord about the upstairs damp in early February 2021 but it did not attend the property until 23 March 2021. Its Repairs Standards provide for a maximum four week wait. This represented a further delay in the landlord’s response to this resident which was inappropriate, and amounts to a further service failing on its behalf.

 

  1. However, once the landlord had inspected the property it carried out a damp and mould wash followed by redecoration when it might reasonably have asserted this was the resident’s responsibility to complete (and fund). Accordingly, when looked at in conjunction with the compensation offered for the roof delays, this represented a fair resolution being offered by the landlord.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of

 

  1. repairs to the roof at the resident’s property; and

 

  1. the damp and mould in the property

 

prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.  

 

Reasons

 

  1. In the absence of any evidence showing a link between the roof and the damp and mould issues, the two must be looked at separately.

 

  1. Whilst there was a delay in the roof being dealt with, this Service is unable to determine the extent of the impact this had and cannot see that the resident made any reports of issues between July 2019 and November 2020. Still it was inappropriate that the landlord overlooked this matter, and failed to return to it for 16 months.

 

  1. With this, the landlord identified an urgent need to address the resident’s chimney stack however this Service cannot see that any steps were taken until March 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay was inappropriate.

 

  1. While the landlord should have recognised this with an offer of compensation within its stage one complaint, it is still reasonable that it did so at stage two. The Ombudsman is therefore content that reasonable redress was offered.

 

  1. In respect of the damp and mould, the Ombudsman can see that there was a further delay following the resident’s contact in early February 2021. Contrary to its policy, the landlord failed to survey the reported issue for several weeks and this was inappropriate (and also resulted in a complaint from the resident when given the date of the inspection). With this said, the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord carried out remedial work and redecorations despite satisfying itself that the damp/mould was caused by inadequate ventilation. This was fair and reasonable. 

 

Orders and/or Recommendations

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The landlord to re-offer the £150 compensation to the resident, if this has not already been paid, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the above findings are made on that basis.