Haringey London Borough Council (202222923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222923

Haringey London Borough Council

22 September 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s concern that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the health of members of her household, and caused injury.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concern that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the health of members of her household, and caused injury, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 December 2022 to express dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response, and its handling of the damp, mould and associated repairs. The resident said that the damp in the property meant her son had “developed breathing issues”, and the conditions had caused an “effect to health”. The resident raised a similar concern in an email to this Service on 26 July 2023 and said the “constant mould” had a “direct impact” on her son’s health.
The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. It follows that the resident’s complaints that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the her son’s health and caused injury falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her son’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The resident may wish to contact the landlord for its insurers details, should she wish to make a claim via its insurer. This Service has not sought to reach a determination on liability or injury. However, consideration has been given to any adverse effect, including distress and inconvenience, which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3 bedroom maisonette in a block. The resident’s tenancy started in August 2008, and the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for her.

Summary of events

The resident reported a concern about water penetration “from above” on 26 October 2020. In response, the landlord logged a job to “inspect and remedy” the source of water penetration. It is unclear when the landlord attended, or whether any repairs were carried out.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord logged a repair to inspect damp and mould in the resident’s property. The job was categorised as “painting” within the repairs logs. It is unclear whether the job raised in November 2020 went ahead, and if so what works were carried out. It is also unclear what transpired immediately after this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2022 and reported that her property was in “very bad disrepair” and reported that “major works” were needed to resolve the issues. A surveyor from the landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 May 2022 to inspect the issues. It is unclear from the report provided, what repairs, if any, the surveyor identified or what happened following this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 November 2022 to make a complaint and said:
1. She had many visits from surveyors to inspect the leak and associated damage, and had not received a response when she contacted it for an update;
2. There was damp, blown plaster and a hole in the bathroom wall;
3. The landlord’s last visit had not resulted in any works being actioned.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022, and said:
1. It had inspected the resident’s property on 20 May 2022 and found that a leak was coming from the ‘soil stack’, and once the leak was resolved it had planned to reattend to repair the ceilings;
2. The repair to the soil stack was not booked following the inspection, and it had now booked the repair for 6 December 2022;
3. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair, and the inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 November 2022 and asked if the works it planned to do were inside her property, and who it had booked to complete the works. It is unclear if the landlord responded to this email.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 6 December 2022 to complete the repair to the soil stack. The operative in attendance stated that he was unable to complete the repair as it was “beyond his remit”. He said there was a “major” problem with the soil stack that needed “major works”, as the stack itself might be made of material containing asbestos.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 and 19 December 2022 to ask what was happening with the repair. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to the emails. The resident sent a further email on 27 December 2022, and said:
1. The problem had been ongoing for “many years” and the landlord had not responded to her requests for action;
2. It had previously removed the tiles and made a hole in the wall, and found that the leaking soil stack was the cause of the problem;
3. The operative who attended on 6 December 2022 was unable to complete the repair and had told her it was “beyond his remit”. However, the landlord had not been in contact following the failed repair;
4. She had contacted it on 12 and 16 December to ask to speak to someone about the repair, and not received a call back;
5. The damp had spread to 3 rooms of her property and she had been left with a “gaping hole in the bathroom” which during cold weather made it “unbearable”;
6. Her experience had been “very trying and stressful”;
7. The damp had caused damage to the carpets and wood in the property, and she had experienced “falling debris” from the ceilings.
The landlord opened a new complaint investigation on 5 January 2023, and set itself a target of responding by 12 January 2023. It does not appear that the landlord sent a complaint response within this timeframe.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 20 January 2023 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. This Service asked the landlord to provide a response within 5 working days. The landlord failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response within the timeframe set out. As such, we issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 3 February 2022, and asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response by 3 March 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 16 March 2023 and said that the landlord had not issued a stage 2 complaint response, and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint.
Meanwhile, the landlord attended the resident’s property on 21 March 2023 to “board over the exposed stack and seal [the] hole between the wall”. Notes made by the operative who attended show he was unable to complete the job due to “major issues”. He said issues needed to be rectified before he could cover the soil stack, as it was leaking.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023 and said it:
1. Apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repair, and for its “slowness” to react;
2. Understood the delay in completing the repair was caused by a failure to progress the works, and the need to ensure there was no asbestos in the area;
3. Wanted to resolve the issue “urgently” and had arranged for a priority surveyor inspection to be completed on 21 June 2023. This was to identify action it needed to take in relation to the damp and mould;
4. Was unable to confirm whether the leak in the soil stack was connected to the damp and mould issue, but the survey would establish this;
5. Offered a total of £942 compensation. This included £542 in compensation for the delay in completing the “category A” repair, in line with its compensation guidance. It offered a further £200 in recognition of the “distress and inconvenience” caused by the issue;
6. Apologised for the delay in sending its stage 2 response, and offered the resident £200 in compensation. This was for the “time and trouble” in needing to seek assistance from the Ombudsman;
7. Was unable to consider its liability for damage to her personal property through its complaint process, and said how the resident could make a claim through its insurance service.
The landlord completed the survey on 14 June 2023, and produced a scheme of works in order to resolve the leak, and remedy the damp and mould. The landlord told this Service on 16 August 2023 that it had contacted the resident in early August 2023 to book an appointment for the works to be completed. The resident had said she was unavailable until 14 August, due to being away. The landlord said that it planned to book the works when the resident returned and would complete an “interim damp and mould” wash to reduce mould growth.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2023 and said that the works had still not been booked in. The landlord responded on 6 September 2023 and said that in order for the works to take place, some asbestos needed removing. It said that it had made an urgent referral to its asbestos team, and would update the resident as soon as it had more information.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that ‘agreed appointment’ repairs will be attended within 28 days. For ‘planned repairs’, which it categorises as repairs that require a pre inspection it will inspect within 28 days, and at the inspection it will tell the resident when the repair will be carried out.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says if a priority “A” repair is not resolved it can offer a £10 one off payment plus £2 per day up to 3 weeks and £10 per week after that, until the matter is resolved. The compensation procedure states that the landlord can award between £10 and £40 per week in exceptional circumstances or for “compassionate reasons”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs

It is evident, from the repair log, that the resident had experienced issues with damp and mould in property since 2020. However, it is not clear if the initial reports of damp and mould in 2020 were related to the cause of damp and mould at the time of her complaint in November 2022. It is also noted that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it was unable to establish whether the leak in the soil stack was causing the damp and mould within the property. However, it is clear from the evidence that the landlord was on notice about the repair to the soil stack, from May 2022.
The landlord’s repair log provided for this investigation lacks detail, and does not setout the dates that repairs were completed. It would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it kept a clear audit trail of all repairs raised, what works were completed and when. That the landlord did not is a failing in its record keeping. As part of its explanation about the complaint to this Service, the landlord referred to jobs that were raised in 2021 for an inspection, and an offer of a mould wash. Neither were present within the evidence provided, which is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The lack of detail contained within the repair log, and lack records of inspections, can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the landlord’s overall poor handling of the matter.
It is of particular concern that, on its repair log, the landlord categorised a repair to investigate damp and mould in the property as a “painting repair”. The job the landlord raised did not match the categorisation it gave, and it is unclear why. It may have been the case that the incorrect categorisation affected how the landlord approached and dealt with the repair. The landlord told this Service that the resident refused and asked it instead to investigate the cause of damp and mould. It is unclear why the landlord did not carry out further investigations at this point. However, that it did not was a missed opportunity in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord has since developed a ‘damp, mould and condensation policy’ that places greater emphasis on meaningful investigations of the causes of damp and mould.
When the resident raised her concern about damp and mould on 12 May 2022, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend 8 days later. This was within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs guidance, and reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to book any works or further investigations following the survey, which was a further failing in its handling of the mater. The resident was experiencing the distress of living in a property with damp and mould. The landlord caused further inconvenience by agreeing to take action on the matter, but then failed to follow up on its initial inspection, which must have been distressing for the resident.
The report from the surveyor visit on 20 May 2022 lacks detail and does not indicate what actions the landlord proposed to take at that time. The landlord’s repair log does not show the outcome of the inspection,or any planned action the landlord wanted to take. This was a further failing in its record keeping. The landlord later accepted that it had not booked the required works following this inspection. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping in relation to the inspection impacted on its overall handling of the matter. Had its records been more accurate and thorough, this may have assisted it in raising the appropriate follow up works.
It is evident that the cause of the issue was more complex the landlord first thought. The operative who attended on 6 December 2022 was unable complete a repair to avoid a repetition of the issue. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not follow up on the unsuccessful repair visit, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. This failing contributed the overall delay in resolving the issue. The landlord’s own timeline, created for its complaint investigation, suggests that it did not respond to contact from the resident on 6 and 12 December 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in rebooking a repair to follow up on its failed repair visit. Instead, the resident experienced a further inconvenience of having to contact it to ask what was happening. The fact it did not respond increased the detriment experienced by the resident.
Notes on the landlord’s repair log indicate that it should have made a referral for an asbestos survey following the comments made by the operative in December 2022. However, a note on 16 March 2023 shows that this was not actioned until much later. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter and contributed to the delay in identifying the cause of the issue. Given the landlord accepted internally that it had not actioned the survey when it should have, its comments in its stage 2 complaint response were inappropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appeared to suggest that the need to conduct an asbestos survey contributed to the overall delay. It is evident that a survey needed to be done, but attributing all of the delay to the need for a survey was not appropriate, and is not supported by the evidence. The landlord’s own inaction in making a referral for the survey significantly contributed to the delay, on which its stage 2 response was silent. This approach lacked transparency and was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
It is unclear why the landlord sought to box over the soil pipe on 21 March 2023, before it had rectified the leak. However, this repair visit is indicative of the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping in relation to the repair. Had the landlord kept better records about the repair and its progress, as well as communicated more effectively internally, it may have avoided such issues. This in turn may have avoided causing the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble in attending to repairs appointments it was unable to complete.
As part of her complaint, the resident raised a concern that the damp and mould present within her property had caused damage to her personal property. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately explained to the resident that it could not consider liability for damage to personal property, as part of its complaint procedure. It gave details of how the resident could make a claim through its insurer, which was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
The landlord appropriately produced a scheme of works aimed at identifying and repairing the leak in soil stack, as well as rectifying the damp and mould. However, this was well over a year after it first identified that the soil stack was leaking, and was the possible cause of damp and mould. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repair procedure of completing an appropriate survey within 28 days. It is apparent that it did conduct surveys before this, but its survey of June 2023 was the first time an appropriate plan for works was created. It was evidently a complex issue, complicated by the potential presence of asbestos. But, the complicating factors do not mitigate the year delay in proposing works to seek to rectify the problem.
The landlord’s complaint response stated that the repair was urgent, and it was seeking to rectify the issue as soon as possible. It is therefore unclear why, after identifying the proposed works in June 2023, it was not until August 2023 that it sought to book the repair with the resident. It is evident that the landlord had still not progressed with the repair in September 2023. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that for planned repairs it will conduct a survey within 28 days and agree with the resident, at the visit, when it will complete the repair. It is unclear why the landlord deviated from its repairs guidance in this case. Considering the delay up to that point, another 2 month delay was unreasonable, and suggests that the landlord was not treating it with urgency.Given the complexity of the repair, it may well have needed more time to identify an appropriate contractor. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it sought to clarify this with the resident to manage her expectations, which was a further failing.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it had offered compensation of £542, in line with its policy, due to the delay in completing a category A repair. This was an appropriate application of its compensation policy and was reflective of the delay up to that point. However, the issue remained unresolved, at the time of issuing the complaint response. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have stated it would revise its compensation offer when it had resolved the issue. This would have sought to put things right for the entire delay the resident had experienced. That it did not do so, was a further failing in its handling of the matter. As such, the compensation the landlord offered did not fully put things right for the resident, as the issue remained unresolved.
The landlord offered the resident and additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter. The landlord’s compensation policy is silent on distress and inconvenience, but states that it can offer compensation of between £10 and £40 per week for “compassionate reasons”. Its offer of £200 was below the lower figure of £10 per week, outlined in its policy. The landlord did not seek to explain why it had offered a lower figure than stated in its policy. Given the evident distress its handling of the matter had caused, its offer was not reasonable in the circumstances, and did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the matter was poor, and sought to put things right by offering compensation to the resident. However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not show any learning it had done from its handling of the matter, which would have been appropriate. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to use its complaint responses to outline what learning it had done from its admitted failings. That it did not was a further failing in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued within the timeframes set out in its policy. Within it, the landlord appropriately apologised for failings it had identified. The complaint response sought to put right its failings by booking a surveyor inspection for the resident, which was appropriate. However, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to offer financial redress, in line with its compensation policy. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was cursory in how it assessed its handling of the matter up to that point. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained what it had learnt from its admitted failings, and how it would avoid similar failings happening again. The lack of learning evidenced in its stage 1 complaint response was a further failing in its complaint handling.
On receipt of the resident’s email of 27 December 2022, expressing disappointment at its handling of the matter, the landlord opened a new complaint rather than taking the complaint to stage 2. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, as had already issued a stage 1 complaint response about the substantive issue. It would therefore have been reasonable to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 at that point. The result was an unfair complaints process for the resident, that failed to escalate concerns appropriately.
In its response to the resident’s email of December 2022, the landlord said it would issue the resident with a response by 12 January 2023, which it did not, and was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced further disappointment of the landlord not doing something it had agreed to. The result was a protracted complaints process for the resident, and an inconvenience of a delay in getting answers to concerns she had raised as part of her complaint.
In order to get the landlord to respond to her stage 2 complaint, the resident was required to seek assistance from this Service which was an inconvenience and cost her time and trouble. Despite intervention from the Service, and the issuing a CHFO, the landlord did not open its stage 2 investigation until March 2023. This was 3 months after the resident had emailed expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of the matter and stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in June 2023, 6 months after the resident’s email of December 2022. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and was a further failing in its complaint handling. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord sought to explain the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, which was not compliant with the Code. The Code states stage 2 complaints must be responded to within 20 working days and “if an extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to agree an extension with the resident, as the Code requires. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord. It failed to have due regard for the Code and this again led to a prolonged complaints process for the resident. The landlord did not try to manage the resident’s expectations and say when it would respond to her complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £200 in recognition of the delays experienced in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, and the time and trouble of seeking assistance from the Ombudsman. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. However, as with the substantive issue of the complaint, the landlord failed to show what learning it had done about its handling of the complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to acknowledge the failings in its stage 1 response of not showing learning, or offering redress when it identified a failing. As such, the £200 it offered did not fully put things right for the resident, and relevant orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord initially attended to inspect the issue within the timeframes set out in its repairs guidance, but failed to follow up and book appropriate works. Its record keeping about the matter was poor and contributed to the delays and overall handling of the matter. The landlord did not follow up on things it said it would do, which cost the resident time and trouble in chasing it for action. The delay in identifying appropriate works of over a year was unreasonable, and there was a further 2 month delay in seeking to book the works with the resident. At the time of its offer of compensation the matter remained outstanding, and it failed to show adequate learning about its handling of the situation. As such, its offer of redress did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to show what it had learnt from its admitted failings, or offer redress for said failings. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. It did not respond within the timeframe stated when it, inappropriately, opened a new complaint. There was an unreasonable delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, for which it did not agree an extension with the resident. When it did issue its response, it failed to show what learning it had done.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor, which contributed to the delays in identifying appropriate works for the substantive issue of the complaint. The landlord’s records did not reflect all of the visits it had completed, and the outcomes and planned actions were not adequately recorded. Its poor record keeping led to inappropriate repair visits being booked, which further inconvenienced the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Agree a date with the resident for the works to commence (if it has not already done so);
3. Pay the resident £1,742 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £742 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould and associated repairs (if it has not already done so);
  2. A further £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp, mould and associated repairs;
  3. The £200 it offered for its complaint handling;
  4. A further £200 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the damp and mould issue including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should give particular consideration to:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs;
  2. How its poor record keeping affected its ability to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks;
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in understanding the impact on a resident when responding to a complaint. It should also focus on the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and offer appropriate redress when failings are identified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord notifies this Service once the works are complete. The landlord may also wish to review its handling of the case from August 2023 until completion, and decide whether a further offer of compensation is warranted.