Basildon Borough Council (202204250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204250

Basildon Borough Council

11 March 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following her reports of leaks to the property, and subsequent reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor flat. The building type is an apartment block. The landlord is aware that the resident has members of her household who suffer from respiratory vulnerabilities.
The resident reported an uncontainable leak under the kitchen sink on 16 May 2021. She reported further leaks on 17 May, 3 and 6 June 2021 causing water penetration into the kitchen, reporting damaged kitchen units under the sink and cupboards. She later reported damp and mould form behind the kitchen unit, back wall of the kitchen and behind the kitchen cupboards.
The landlord attended the property on various occasions throughout May, June, and July 2021, but was unable to find the source of the leak. It attributed this to being unable to gain access to the properties above the resident’s property on 10 September. It reattended and gained access on 23 September 2021, but was unable to determine the source of the leak.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 October 2021. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s progress as the leak repairs to the kitchen remained outstanding and that damp and mould had begun to grow which was affecting the household’s respiratory health.
The landlord issued its stage one formal complaint response on 18 October 2021. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, providing a timeline of events to the resident and explained that it would look to rebook a roofer’s appointment for the same day. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response due to the outstanding works, requesting an escalation of her complaint on 19 October 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two formal complaint response on 19 November 2021. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, explaining that due to circumstances outside of its control, it had difficulties in conducting a thorough investigation into the properties above the resident. Upon investigation on 11 November 2021, it had identified the source of the leak to a damaged water pipe that had affected multiple properties within the building. It attended the following day to complete the repairs but identified this had caused water penetration into the property through the waste stack. It booked a mould wash for the kitchen on 26 November 2021.
At that visit, the landlord advised that follow-on works were required as it would need to remove the kitchen sink units and cupboards to treat the damp and mould. The resident requested escalation of her complaint, as the landlord’s contractor did not attend the follow-on works and they remained outstanding. She raised concerns over the health of her and her household, providing medical evidence to the landlord and stating that the kitchen cupboards and units were now damaged from damp and mould.
The landlord issued its final stage three complaint response on 19 May 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint acknowledging that the repair delays and “poor communication” were not within its service standards, apologising to the resident and offered £200 compensation. It also highlighted that it would be carrying out staff training on the importance of communication during repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service, as the kitchen repairs remained outstanding and she remained unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord. Upon attending the property on 10 November 2022, the landlord’s contractors noted that the kitchen units were damaged and recommended replacing and renewing where possible. However, to the resident’s dissatisfaction the kitchen units were not replaced, but reinstalled following a stain block and mould wash to the property on 12 January 2023 with all works being completed on 16 January 2023. The resident would like the landlord to consider replacing the kitchen units affected by the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident attributed that a member of her household’s respiratory health was affected because of the landlord’s delays to treat the damp and mould in the kitchen following the leak. The Ombudsman cannot order compensation for any poor health that a resident claims they have experienced because he is not qualified to establish a causal link between the health effects that the resident says are linked to the landlord’s failures.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her household’s health has been affected or damaged by its actions or inactions. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Our role is to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident which can include distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and what is fair.
The resident told this Service that the sink pipe in the kitchen had burst causing a further uncontainable leak to the property on 9 February 2023. While this Service understands that this will be distressing for the resident, this is a repair matter for the landlord in the first instance. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must be given an opportunity to formally respond to any dissatisfaction with its handling of this repair through its formal complaints procedure before the matter can be brought to the Ombudsman. This matter has not been considered as part of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs and subsequent reports of damp and mould following reported leaks to the property

The landlord is responsible for, among other things, the buildings structure and outside of the property home; drains, gutters and external pipes; electric wiring, water pipes; walls and kitchen fixtures.
The landlord classifies an emergency repair as a repair that puts anyone’s health, safety or security at risk, or which affects the structure of the building, such as burst pipes. It describes a routine repair as a repair or defect which may cause some inconvenience but does not pose any risk to health, safety, or security, such as a blocked gully drain or gutter. It is noted the landlord does not specify repair timeframes for these.
The landlord has not provided confirmation of its repair timeframes, or repair policy obligations. In line with the best practice across the sector, the Ombudsman would expect emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs to be completed within four weeks. When a repair proves to be complex, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident informed of progress while endeavouring to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
While neither party disputes that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to the kitchen, as well as the damp and mould within the property, the landlord did not submit a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Therefore, this Service has referred to best sector practice and this Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to determine the landlord’s repair obligations and timescales in regard to this issue.
It was appropriate that the landlord attended the property within 24 hours following the resident’s reports of an uncontainable leak as this was an emergency repair. This is in line with best sector practice.
It is understood that repairs involving leaks may take longer due to the nature of the repair, and that in some instances this may take time to identify the cause of the leak and resolve it. While the landlord informed the resident that it had difficulties in locating the source of the leak due to factors beyond its control – in this case difficulties gaining access to the above properties above the resident – the onus was on the landlord to communicate and show the resident how it had satisfied itself that all necessary steps had been taken to actively identify and resolve the leak.
Ultimately, it took the landlord several visits to the property to identify the source of the leak. The resident had first reported leaks to the property on 16 May 2021, yet according to the landlord’s repair records, it was unable to identify the source until 12 November 2021, some six months later. This was not reasonable, particularly given that the landlord would be expected to complete the repairs within one calendar month.
While some of the repair delays to the piping were beyond the landlord’s control, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and did not look to keep the resident informed or updated throughout the repairs process. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for the repairs, causing additional distress and inconvenience.
When presented with reports of damp and mould, this Service would expect the landlord to take a proactive approach and take appropriate steps to identify and address damp and mould, and its removal, at the earliest opportunity where possible. This is in accordance with this Service’s Damp and Mould Spotlight report.
The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould by booking an inspection on 25 August 2021. However, it is of some concern that the landlord was unable to inspect the property fully on this date, as a further inspection was required. It is noted that the landlord had not explained to the resident, or evidenced to this Service its reasoning behind this. As such, the landlord had missed an earlier opportunity to appropriately respond and address the damp and mould within the resident’s kitchen.
The landlord had looked to address this in its stage two formal complaint response, by booking its next available appointment. However, according to its final complaint response the landlord did not complete a mould wash to the property until 25 May 2022, nine months after it was first reported. This was not appropriate.
Given this lengthy delay, it would have been appropriate had the landlord considered interim or temporary measures, such as dehumidifiers or information and necessary steps on how to reduce the impact of damp and mould on a resident’s property. In accordance with this Service’s Damp and Mould Spotlight report, landlords would be expected to regularly communicate with residents in a clear and concise manner regarding actions taken, or otherwise, to resolve reports of damp and mould, setting a resident’s expectations along the way.
However, the landlord has not evidenced how it communicated, or provided any assistance to the resident on this matter. It is of notable concern that the landlord did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns over her claims that its delays had led to the detriment of a member of her household’s respiratory health. This Service considers this have would been deeply frustrating and upsetting for the resident, particularly given the lengthy amount of time the mould remained in the property before being treated.
It is of considerable concern that the landlord did not address this issue within its stage three formal complaint response, and did not provide a copy of the medical evidence it had received from the resident as part of this investigation. The landlord would have been expected to respond to the resident’s claims regarding the reports of the damp and mould affecting a member of her household’s health, and it should have provided the resident with a copy of its liability and medical insurers contact details in order to submit a claim, yet it had not done so in this case. An order has been made, below, in relation to this.
The resident had reported to the landlord that the kitchen units and cupboards were damaged from the damp mould. She had requested replacement of these items as she was concerned that a block stain and mould wash would not sufficiently restore them.
It was therefore appropriate the landlord conducted a physical inspection of the property on 26 November 2021. Upon inspection, the landlord’s contractors advised the resident that it would not look to install new kitchen units and cupboards as they were in an acceptable condition.
Although disputed by the resident, this was a reasonable action to take, The landlord has no obligation to replace the kitchen units and cupboards unless it was evidenced they were beyond economical repair. However, as this was not the case, its refusal to install new units and cupboards was reasonable.
The impact of the delays in the repairs and the mould wash was further exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. The landlord had looked to put things right by acknowledging that the delays and lack of communication throughout the repairs was “unacceptable” in its stage three reply, and it had offered £200 compensation as a result of the impact its delays and poor communication had had on the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is evident that the resident and her household were caused great inconvenience and distress by the landlord’s delays in remedying the leak, the delays in taking action to resolve the mould as well as its acknowledged poor communication. The compensation offered by the landlord does not adequately reflect that impact.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £200 offered is adequate for the acknowledged communication failures in this case. An additional sum an offer of £468 would be suitable redress for the resident having to live with a kitchen in a poor state of repair for a long period of time. This additional was calculated using 10% of an approximate rent of £90 a week and takes into account that it took one year (52 weeks) from the date of the leak being reported in May 2021 until the mould wash was carried out in May 2022.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a three-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy says that it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days on receipt of a complaint. Where this is not achievable due to the complexity of the complaint, the landlord will inform the resident of any delays and an expected response time.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. The Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord strongly believes it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self‑assessment. This is to prevent the complaint process from becoming unduly long and helps to manage resident expectations. The landlord’s self-assessment does not appear to set out clear reasons for the three stages and an order has been made, below, for the landlord to review its complaints procedure.
According to its records, the resident had raised a stage zero complaint on 17 August 2021, following several unresolved leaks to the property. The landlord had acknowledged the complaint the following day, but did not offer a formal complaint response. This resulted in the resident raising a stage one complaint escalation on 6 October 2021, to which the landlord issued its response on 18 October 2021.
This resulted in a complaint response delay to the resident of approximately one month. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two on 19 October 2021 with the landlord responding on 19 November 2021, one calendar month later. Additionally, the resident requested escalation to stage three on 29 November 2021, yet the landlord only offered its final complaint response on 9 May 2022, some five months later, offering no explanation for these delays.
This was an unreasonably long complaint response, and a clear indication that the landlord had failed to meet its policy stipulated timescales of ten working days at each complaint stage. These delays with no communication resulted in the resident chasing the landlord throughout her complaint on multiple occasions through the complaints process.
This would have been distressing for the resident, causing additional frustration and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble spent pursuing her complaint over this timeframe. As such, it would not appropriate for the landlord to consider compensating the resident for the distress, time, and trouble spent pursuing her complaint, yet it was not considered as part of formal complaint responses. Financial compensation of £250 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident. This sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of maladministration. This includes cases where there has been delays in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen and subsequent reports of damp and mould following the resident’s reports of uncontainable leaks to the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £928 made up of:
  1. £200 previously offered which reflects the impact on the resident of its poor communication (if this has not been paid already).
  2. £468 for the impact on the resident and her household for the delays in identifying and remedying the leak and the subsequent mould.
  3. £250 compensation in respect of the impact on the resident for its complaint handing failures.
2. Provide the resident with a copy of its liability and medical insurance contact details, in order to allow her to consider making a personal injury claim against the landlord and explain this process.
3. The landlord is to review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. More information is available at: www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords -info/complaint-handling-code.com
4. To review its staff training in relation to its complaints, compliments, and comments policy to ensure that all complaints, and delays, are responded to within a timely and appropriate manner moving forwards.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews this Service’s Damp and Mould Spotlight report and conduct a self-assessment against this. It is also to review it staff training in relation to this, in order to ensure that all reports of damp and mould are reported to in a timely manner moving forwards.