Eastbourne Borough Council (202112042)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112042

Eastbourne Borough Council

1 September 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering at the resident’s property and its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the installation of a kitchen extractor fan.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a flat, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident suffers from a medical condition affecting his lungs.
  2. A job was raised for a contractor to attend the resident’s property to address damp above the windows in his living room and bedroom. The target completion date was 18 January 2021. The contractor reported that this job was attended on 2 February 2021, but follow-on works were required to the property’s guttering. The landlord’s surveyor then attended to inspect reports of mould and identified that an extractor fan should be fitted in the kitchen. The resident later reported mould in his bedroom, which he believed was related to the leaking guttering.
  3. On 24 January 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that its contractor had failed to attend the job raised for 18 January 2021. The resident had difficulty contacting the contractor by phone to discuss the missed appointment, as his calls kept being cut off. He asked that a different contractor be appointed to complete the repairs to his property. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 March 2021 having received the landlord’s initial response, as works to the guttering were still outstanding and he was concerned the mould was affecting his health. He confirmed that no one attended an appointment to clear the gutters on 22 March 2021 and he was again unable to contact the contractor.
  4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, recognising that he had faced difficulties in contacting its contractor, that there had been confusion about the target completion and appointment dates, and that there had been delays in completing the guttering works. The landlord noted that the guttering was cleared on 22 March 2021, and it had raised repairs to install a kitchen extractor and to repoint the walls around the main entrance. As planned works, these jobs had a target completion date of 01 July 2021.
  5. On 20 August 2021 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He noted that the extractor fan had not been installed and works to address the leaking guttering and failing repointing had not been completed. The resident stated that he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and, if possible, to arrange a temporary repair to the guttering to prevent further damage whilst the major works were awaited. A temporary repair was completed on in October 2021 but the resident reports that this failed, and he is still experiencing overflow from the guttering during rainfall. As of 21 February 2022, the extractor fan, guttering, and repointing works remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Guttering repairs, damp, and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. The Tenancy Handbook clarifies that this includes the property’s guttering and walls. The landlord will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days and planned works, which include “non urgent external brick works”, within 85 days.
  2. Where the landlord has identified that there has been an “avoidable delay” in completing repairs compensation may be appropriate, in line with its Compensation Policy. The landlord provides guidelines for the calculation of compensation, which state that £10 will be awarded for a missed appointment, up to £100 in recognition of “severe” or “prolonged” distress and between £100 and £300 for the time and trouble taken to bring a complaint. The landlord may also consider a payment of up to £500 where it identifies that a complainant was exposed to a risk of harm through the fault of the landlord or its contractor.
  3. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported the leak around his windows and raised concerns about damp and mould. Without this information the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord responded in line with its repairs timescales. The landlord is reminded of the need to keep clear and accurate records of all reports of repairs and any action taken in response.
  4. On 13 January 2021, the resident received notice from the landlord that a job order had been raised for its contractor to attend the leak. The resident was given a “target date” of 18 January 2021 at 11:10AM, however, the landlord later stated that this was not the appointment date. In its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that providing the resident with the target completion date and time had caused confusion, as it indicated that the contractor would attend that day. The landlord apologised for the lack of clarity, which was an appropriate and proportionate response.
  5. The landlord explained to the resident that it had been experiencing problems with its phonelines when the resident tried to contact it to discuss the appointment. The landlord confirmed that this had now been resolved and apologised for the inconvenience, which demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns, investigated the matter thoroughly and provided a reasonable response.
  6. The contractor attended on 2 February 2021 and advised the landlord that a further appointment would be needed to clear the gutters. The landlord requested an appointment date from its contractor on 10 February 2021 and again on 17 February 2021. It then chased the contractor for an update on 22 February 2021, 3 March 2021, 11 March 2021 and 12 March 2021. Its contractor responded on 16 March 2021, confirming an appointment date for either the 22 or 23 March 2021. The guttering was then cleared on 22 March 2021.
  7. The landlord was actively seeking to progress the works with its contractor during this time, although it received no response to its enquiries between 10 February 2021 and 11 March 2021. It was only when the landlord emailed the contractor’s complaints department, noting that the job had been cancelled in error, that a response was received. Whilst the landlord’s efforts to obtain a response from its contractor are to be commended, it is worth noting that it ultimately retained the responsibility for resolving the substantive issue here, irrespective of any difficulties it encountered with its appointed contractor.
  8. As the landlord did not have in place effective processes for communicating with its contractor, the guttering clearance works were delayed beyond its 28-day target timeframe. A delay of 8 working days did not, however, cause significant detriment to the resident and the Ombudsman recognises the efforts the landlord made to obtain an appointment date, and to keep the resident updated by phone on 26 February 2021 and 12 March 2021.
  9.  On 26 February 2021, the resident reported that an operative from the landlord’s contractor had attended the previous week and advised that repointing works were required, to prevent ongoing water penetration. These further works were not referred to in the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord did not appear to be aware that this appointment had taken place, which again raises concerns about the landlord’s communication with its contractor and its record keeping.
  10. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he noted that he had communicated directly with the contractor and been told that further works were required to the guttering and brickwork. As there is no record of the contractor’s visit in February 2021 and its findings, the landlord was unable to verify what advice had been provided to the resident. The landlord arranged a further site visit on 30 March 2021 to assess whether any additional works were required, which was the best means of resolving the issues in the absence of reports from its contractor.
  11. Following the site visit of 30 March 2021, a job was raised to repoint the external walls of the building. As planned works, the resident was advised that the target completion date was 1 July 2021. The works did not go ahead prior to that date and the landlord’s contractor later advised that the appointment had always been booked for 10 August 2021. Neither the landlord nor its contractor could explain why the resident had been provided with the date of 1 July 2021.
  12. Sometime around 16 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor reattended and reported that the works were more extensive than originally thought. Scaffolding was required to remove and refit soffits, facias, and guttering, together with considerable repointing to the front elevation. The contractor advised a new job should be raised and the landlord asked that the works be booked in to avoid further escalation of the complaint. The works were still outstanding in February 2022.
  13. The promise to complete the guttering and repointing works formed part of the landlord’s resolution to the complaint and the landlord failed to arrange these works within a reasonable timeframe. Almost a year after the required works had been identified, the repairs had still not been completed. The landlord also failed to accurately identify the extent of the required works in March 2021, leading to further delays. Although a temporary repair was arranged in October 2021, this was only after a request from the resident and he subsequently reported that the works did not stop the water penetration. It is also noted that the resident was sent a customer repairs questionnaire on 24 June 2021, even though the works referred to having not been completed. This further undermined the resident’s faith in the landlord’s repairs processes and increased his frustration.
  14. In terms of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould, which he believed to be related to the faulty guttering and pointing, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether any alternative action could be taken to reduce the mould, such as applying a mould wash. The landlord has not evidenced that it listened to the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould on his health, or that it assessed whether there was any action it could take to assist him whilst the planned works were awaited. This lack of customer focus is of concern, particularly in light of the resident’s reported vulnerability.
  15. There was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractor in relation to the repairs and its record keeping was poor. The delays in completing the required works were unreasonable. The Ombudsman consider that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the guttering repairs. The Ombudsman makes an award of compensation in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
  16. In addition, a recommendation has been included for the landlord to proactively monitor the condition of this property. This will ensure that any recurrence of mould growth or water ingress are identified early and will provide some measure of reassurance for the resident. His approach is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on damp and mould issues in the social housing sector.

Extractor fan installation

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the resident’s property on 5 February 2021 and raising a job to install an extractor fan in the kitchen window  to improve ventilation. The landlord’s repairs records note that an operative attended on 28 April 2021 to measure up for new glass to accommodate the extractor fan. An order was placed for the glass on 8 May 2021, and it was delivered on 16 July 2021. The landlord experienced difficulties arranging an appointment date with the resident, and the job was eventually booked for 18 January 2022. The landlord then realised that it had not ordered the extractor fan and the job could not go ahead.
  2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the installation of the extractor fan. The Ombudsman accepts that as a specialist job and an improvement, the landlord’s routine repairs timeframes did not apply. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about the progress of the job. Notwithstanding the access issues the landlord experienced, a delay of over a year to organise the installation of the fan was unreasonable and it was only at the point of installation that the landlord realised not all parts had been ordered, causing further delays

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states that it will aim to provide a substantive response to a complaint within 10 working days. In this case, the formal complaint was raised on 24 January 2021 but a written response confirming whether the complaint was upheld was not provided until 22 March 2021.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord sought to confirm when the guttering clearance would be carried out before responding to the complaint. However, paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code reminds landlords that a complaint response should be provided when the outcome of a complaint is known, and not when all outstanding actions have been completed. The landlord did provide the stage 2 response in a timely manner and so as the impact of the delay at stage 1 was minimal, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure.
  3. At the time of the final response, the landlord had only recently identified that additional works to the guttering and brickwork were required, and so it was reasonable that it did not offer compensation for delays in carrying out the repairs. As progression and completion of the repairs formed part of the landlord’s resolution to the complaint, the Ombudsman awards compensation to reflect the significant delays that occurred after the final complaint response, as set out below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property’s guttering and its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of an extractor fan in the property’s kitchen.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £550 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £400 in recognition of the unreasonable delay in completing effective repairs to the resident’s guttering and repointing of the external wall.
  2. £150 in recognition of the unreasonable delay in installing an extractor fan.
  1. The landlord to confirm to this Service that the above compensation has been paid within 28 days of this report.
  2. The landlord to arrange for any outstanding works to the brickwork and guttering at the property, together with any associated remedial works, be completed within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service that the above order has been completed by the same date (within 6 weeks of this report).

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its processes for communicating with its contractor and for recording information from contractor visits on its system, to ensure that clear and accurate records are kept of all actions in relation to repairs.
  2. The landlord to monitor the condition of this property on a regular basis so that any recurrence of water ingress or mould issues can be identified early.