Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202105218)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105218

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

14 December 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
The associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a basement flat of a terraced house. A mutual exchange was completed on 29 June 2009.
According to the landlord’s repair records there was a surveyor visit on 5 April 2019 (while it is not explicitly stated, from the context of the records this is presumably for a leak/ damp). A work order was raised on 28 June 2019 to “trace and remedy leak in bedroom and kitchen”. There were further appointments throughout 2019 and the beginning of 2020, mainly for leaks but damp is also referred to in some of the records.
The repairs records show on 30 July 2020 the landlord emailed its surveyor asking them to call the resident regarding “damp proofing a room”.
The resident called the landlord to make a complaint on 12 October 2020. He stated it had taken over eighteen months to resolve a leak and as a result, the small room at the end of his hallway was full of damp. He said that in 2019 a surveyor had advised the room needed lagging and damp proofing, and a contractor had given a quote (we have not been provided with a copy of these reports). However, the works were delayed until August 2020 due to the Covid-19 lockdown, and despite since having made several attempts to contact the landlord he had not been provided with a timeframe or confirmation that the works were still going ahead.
The resident called the landlord on 14 October 2020, it confirmed it had received the complaint.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising that due to the demand on its repair service and a change in contractors, there would be a delay in the complaint response.
The landlord issued the stage one complaint response on 4 January 2021. It explained that:

A second surveyor attended the property on 16 October 2020 and concluded that the small room at the end of the hallway was previously a “coal bunker/ storage bunker” (storeroom) so the landlord did not consider it to be part of the living area (this Service does not have a copy of this survey). This meant it would not complete the works the previous surveyor had recommended.
The surveyor had advised that the damp (in the storeroom) did not affect any other parts of the home.
It apologised that he was misinformed by the previous surveyor and that further training for contractors would be provided to avoid similar errors.
It explained how he could escalate the complaint to stage two if he remained unsatisfied with the response.

The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 13 January 2021. He reiterated the issues with damp in the storeroom, disputed the claim that it was not part of his living space and said it was causing damp to other areas of the property. He requested the issues to be reviewed. He explained that as the floor in the storeroom was soil, it offered no protection from the rain and water was able to enter the hall; he claimed this led to the skirting board rotting and damage near the front door. He also said the smell in the storeroom was “terrible”. Due to the level of damp, the storeroom door expanded meaning it often couldn’t be closed.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate his complaint to stage two and said it would respond no later than 10 February 2021.
The resident requested a complaint update on 24 February 2021. The following day, the landlord sent an email apologising for the delay, explaining there was a delay in repairs due to a backlog caused by the lockdown and a change in contractors.
On 7 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting an update on the complaint. An internal note on 12 April 2021 stated, “further review of details required to aid assessment/decision/close”. As he did not receive a response, he sent further requests on 19 April 2021 and 14 May 2021.
A work order was raised on 18 May 2021 to resolve the issue of the “rising damp causing mould in the property”, it was reported as complete on 3 June 2021.

On 25 May 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response. It reiterated that the initial surveyor did not provide him with the correct information and “unfortunately raised your expectations regarding the works to be done”.
The additional information the resident had provided (photos and videos) supported the surveyor’s findings that the storeroom was an old coal bunker and therefore not considered as part of his living area, this meant the landlord would not complete any works on it.
It apologised for the delay in the complaint response and acknowledged his follow up emails had not been responded to.
It explained how his complaint could be escalated to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

The landlord’s repair records show a work order was raised on 3 June 2021, stating “water ingress through brickwork – find root cause of issue”. It also noted that the previous contractor said the wall did not need repointing; a contractor was scheduled for 9 July 2021 to reassess that decision.
On 9 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He explained:

He was escalating his complaint to this Service.
His water provider had attended to attempt to stop the leaking in the property but informed him that it was the landlord’s responsibility.
An emergency gas engineer had attended to replace a gas pipe as it was leaking. The engineer informed him the pipe had corroded as a result of the damp walls and condensation in the storeroom and it could have led to an explosion; he expressed his safety concerns due to the landlord’s inaction.

An internal email on 22 June 2021, detailed a conversation with the resident from that day, following a complaint he’d made that a contractor was “rude and argumentative” and had not been able to tell him the source of the water ingress/leak. During the phone call he repeated his earlier complaints regarding the damp in the storeroom area, and that it had caused electric cables and gas pipes to corrode.
On 28 June 2021, a work order was raised to “mould wash affected areas in kitchen walls, provide damp inspection report and request follow up repairs”. This was reported as completed on 23 July 2021; however, a further note on 29 July 2021 stated that an appointment couldn’t to be booked as there were no surveyors available, so it is unclear if the works were completed.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 July 2021, in reply to the complaint about the behaviour of the contractor.

It apologised for the behaviour of the contractor that attended on 13 June 2021 and assured him that feedback had been passed on for an investigation on the matter.
It also apologised that he had not been given information about the source of the water in the property. A follow-on appointment to investigate the cause of the leak and water ingress had been booked for 9 July 2021; it would contact the resident if any earlier appointments became available.
It acknowledged that the original surveyor said that concrete flooring and an air vent was required in the storeroom but he was later told “the cupboard is not part of the property”.
It had made a referral for a surveyor to inspect the damp in the storeroom and said it would inform them that the water provider suggested “tanking” to address the problem (a waterproof barrier to protect walls and floors from water ingress). The surveyor would be in contact “shortly” to arrange an appointment.

According to an email the resident sent to the landlord on 12 July 2021, on 9 July 2021, a workman attended the house regarding the damp in the kitchen but advised a surveyor would need to be arranged as he could not locate the source of the “wet”.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 23 July 2021 as a plumber had attended the property rather than a bricklayer (the appointment was apparently booked to replace part of the wall that had been knocked down to replace the gas pipe, but there is no clear reference to this in the repair records); he said this was the third contractor that had been incorrectly booked to attend the property. He was also still waiting to be contacted to arrange a surveyor appointment and he reiterated his safety concerns regarding the main electric cable located in the storeroom.
On 30 July 2021 a work order was raised to “repair mould wash affected areas in kitchen.” It was reported to be complete on 24 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that a water supplier had attended the property again to investigate the leak and concluded there was no leak on site and the landlord needed to “fix the back wall and tank the area” to stop the damp. He added that four separate contractors had attended but could not locate the source of the water, so he requested that another surveyor visit.
On 5 August 2021 internal emails between the landlord’s officer state the survey request was declined as work orders had already been raised for the damp. As the source of the leak was not known, a further request was sent to the survey team.
A survey was carried out on 10 August 2021. The areas inspected were the kitchen, rear left bedroom and below the front entrance steps, as requested by the resident. The report, which was sent on 19 August 2021, concluded that “the walls are suffering from rising dampness due to lack of an effective damp proof course, moisture ingress from external ground levels creating both rising and penetrating dampness, moisture ingress via defective rainwater goods to the rear wall of the upper ground floor rear left bedroom and possible defects to the internal water carrying systems above the kitchen has been a contributory factor to the dampness in the kitchen”. In addition, the moisture readings that were taken indicated “possible breakdown of any damp-proof membrane that may or may not exist.” A series of recommendations were made to remedy the issues.
The surveyor sent an email to the contractor on 28 September 2021, requesting it completes the works recommended on the specialist damp report; the repairs record states the target date for completion is 21 December 2021.
On 1 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as the damp issue still had not been resolved and was getting worse in the storeroom and kitchen; he said the landlord had informed him that works that should have commenced on 5 October 2021 had been cancelled. He was also still waiting to be contacted by the surveyor to discuss the damp report.
The resident told this Service on 3 November 2021 that “The council have agreed that all the works can be carried out. They will start on 29th November.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair guide states:

“We will maintain and repair the structure and the outside of your home”.
“We will carry out repairs we are responsible for within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.”
It is responsible for repairs to leaks, skirting boards, electric wiring,
Routine repairs have a response time of 20 working days.
It has an obligation to manage hazards, including “Damp and mould management (where this relates to an issue with the structure of the building).

The landlord’s complaints handling policy states that complaints should be acknowledged within three days:

A full response should be issued within 15 working days for stage one complaints and 20 working days for stage two complaints.
If the timeframes need to be extended the complainant must be informed the reason why it cannot be met and an expected timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it has an obligation to manage hazards to health, explicitly referring to damp as one of its responsibilities. It also states that it will “maintain and repair the structure and the outside of your home”. The landlord therefore has a responsibility to investigate damp when it relates to an issue with the structure of the building. In April 2019 a surveyor attended the property to investigate the damp following a leak. Recommendations for the room to be lagged and damp proofed were made. This was then quoted and scheduled, before being cancelled due to the national lockdown. After chasing the landlord for an update, the resident raised a complaint, and the landlord completed a new survey on 16 October 2020, approximately 18 months after the first one. The new survey concluded the works were not needed as the storeroom was not considered a habitable area of the property. As the storeroom ground is soil, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. Because of that, installation of a concrete floor and plastering the walls, as suggested in the initial survey, would be considered an improvement to the property rather than a repair, effectively adding a new living area, which is not something a landlord would be obliged to do. Nonetheless, the time taken to confirm that work would not be done (contradicting the original survey), and the absence of updates or other information to the resident, was excessive and unreasonable, even in the context of the covid lockdowns.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to decide it would not improve the storeroom, it was still responsible for resolving the resident’s damp issues, which could include action with the storeroom if it was part of the problem. Its repair records do not provide a clear picture of what action it took to address the damp issues in 2019 or 2020 following the original survey, and there is no clear evidence of repair work for the damp until May 2021, after the resident had escalated his complaint on the issue.The stage two complaint response failed to address all the issues the resident had raised, including the corrosion of the gas pipes and the electric cables, the rotting of the skirting boards and the damp leading to the expansion of the storeroom door. While there is no evidence that the resident had previously raised these issues, the landlord should have acknowledged the reports and followed appropriate repairs procedures. Only after the resident complained again (about staff behaviour) in June 2021 did the landlord take action to address the damp issues he had been reporting since 2019. It raised several work orders to investigate and resolve water ingress, mould wash affected areas and complete a damp inspection. The resident has confirmed that works had been agreed and scheduled for November 2021.
Overall, the evidence shows excessive delay and lack of communication by the landlord in resolving the damp issues the resident had been reporting. The landlord’s complaint investigation did not attempt to resolve matters about the damp, and further chasing and complaint by the resident was needed before it eventually acted, and addressed the problems.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaint process; stage one should provide a resolution in 15 working days and stage two should provide a resolution within 20 working days. If the timeframe can’t be met, the resident will be informed the reason for the delay and given a new expected timeframe.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 12 October 2020, which the landlord acknowledged on 14 October 2020. The landlord advised the resident the response would be delayed on 12 November 2021, and it was issued on 4 January 2021, exceeding both the 15 working day response time and the amended timeframe. The resident then escalated his complaint on 13 January 2021 and the landlord acknowledged this on 19 January 2021 and said he’d receive the final response by 10 February 2021. The resident sent four follow up emails, only one was responded to, causing the resident additional time and effort. The landlord sent the stage two response on 25 May 2021, 94 working days since the complaint was escalated, therefore vastly exceeded the timeframe set out in its policy. It also failed to provide a new timeframe, again not adhering to the complaints policy. The landlord said the delayed responses were due to a delay in repairs resulting from the national lockdown and a change in its contractors; however, the survey that was referenced in both responses took place on 16 October 2020, four months prior to the stage one response being issued, so the delay appears unreasonable.
The stage two response did not address all the points raised by the resident. It did not discuss the resident’s safety concerns regarding corrosion to the gas pipe and electric cables in the storeroom, the issue with the storeroom door not closing due to the damp or the smell that was caused by the damp. The landlord did not therefore reasonably respond to all the resident’s complaints, and it would have been appropriate to inspect the level of damp at the property again before issuing the response, rather than relying on a survey report from seven months prior.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:

its handling of the reports to damp in the property.
its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord came to a reasonable conclusion that as the storeroom was not part of the resident’s habitable living space, it would not complete works to it. However, it failed to address his other damp concerns promptly and a new survey was not completed until the second, unrelated complaint was raised.
The complaints handling was poor as it failed to adhere to relevant policies and timeframes, did not respond to all the issues raised and signposted to this service incorrectly.

Orders

In light of the failings found in this investigation, and the inconvenience and frustration they will have caused the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300. This is comprised of:

£200 for its handling of his damp reports.
£100 for its poor complaint handling.

This payment must be made within four weeks of this report. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by that deadline.