Tower Hamlets Council (202232573)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232573

Tower Hamlets Council

14 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of damp and mould in her property;
   2. associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a flat within a block of flats that are owned by the landlord. The resident has health conditions that affect her respiratory system. The landlord has said it does not have any record of the resident’s health conditions.
3. On 7 December 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s home in response to a report from the resident that she was experiencing damp and mould on the walls and ceiling. On 5 January 2023, a decorator attended the resident’s home and identified that a leak was making the bedroom ceiling wet. A plumber attended the resident’s home on 17 January 2023 and confirmed that the flat’s plumbing was not causing the leak.
4. On 17 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that her bedroom ceiling had been badly damaged by a leak coming from the flat above. A decorator and a plumber had attended her flat but had not carried out the intended works. The resident had taken time off for these appointments. She had also asked on multiple occasions for a repair inspector to attend her property, but these requests had been refused.
5. The resident informed the landlord on 20 January 2023 that mould was now appearing in her second bedroom as well. The landlord explained it needed to identify the cause of the leak and resolve it before any remedial works such as mould washes could be more than temporarily effective. It stated that it was necessary for different types of contractors to assess the issue and that a repairs inspector attending her home would not speed up the process.
6. On 31 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed it had now identifiedwhat was causing the leak and the landlord would be arranging an appointment with the resident for it to be fixed. A member of the landlord’s staff would oversee the work and they would update the resident by 3 February 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident was experiencing.
7. The resident indicated to the landlord on 6 February 2023 that she was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. She stated she had not received the promised update by 3 February 2023. She explained how the mouldy conditions in her home were affecting her health and that her home was unsuitable for her disabled son to sleep in. The landlord apologised for the delay in updating the resident. The resident stated to the landlord on 14 February 2023 that she wished for her complaint to be escalated as she believed a visit from the repairs inspector could have resulted in all jobs being completed in one appointment. On 21 February 2023, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
8. The landlord completed the works to resolve the leak at the resident’s building on 28 February 2023. It contacted the resident on 3 March 2023 to inform her that it was experiencing a shortage of staff and complaint response times were approximately 30 working days. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 30 March 2023. It confirmed it had arranged to carry out remedial works to the resident’s flat following it successfully resolving the leak. The landlord explained it had attempted to resolve the resident’s concerns informally before actioning her request to escalate her complaint. On 26 April 2023, the landlord completed the remedial works to the resident’s home. A repairs inspector attended her property the following day and confirmed they were satisfied with the quality of the works and that the resident’s concerns had now been addressed.
9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She stated that she has asthma and had to take additional medication as a result of the damp and mould in her home. While the issues were resolved, she expects that the damp and mould will affect her home again this winter and believes that there is a structural issue with her block of flats. The resident has indicated that she would like a refund of a proportion of the rent she paid to the landlord while her home was affected by the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has explained to the landlord and this service how these events have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in her home, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

11. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which means the landlord is legally and contractually obliged to carry out most repairs that may be required to the resident’s home. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the building, “where disrepair (or failure to maintain in working order) affects the use of [her] home”. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to carry out routine repairs (repairs that are not emergencies) within 20 working days. Examples given of routine repairs include repairing minor leaks. This service understands that complex repairs may take longer to diagnose and resolve. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays to completing repairs within a reasonable timescale were unavoidable.
12. The landlord first inspected the resident’s home on 7 December 2022 following her report of damp and mould affecting the walls and bedroom ceiling. When the follow-on appointment was made for 5 January 2023, the landlord’s records showed that the resident had requested that appointment took place after Christmas 2022. The landlord met the resident’s request and still attended again within 20 working days. This was the appropriate response from the landlord.
13. The resident was dissatisfied because contractors kept visiting her home but would leave without carrying out any work to resolve the issues. A contractor attended on 5 January 2023 and applied mould wash to a wall, however he identified that the wet ceiling was likely to have been caused by a leak. Therefore, any works that they carried out to the ceiling would be unlikely to be effective. In response to the contractor’s finding, the landlord arranged for a plumber to complete a plumbing check at the resident’s home. The plumber attended the resident’s home eight working days later on 17 January 2023 and ruled out the flat’s plumbing as being responsible for the leak. This was the appropriate response from the landlord. It followed up each appointment without unreasonable delay, in line with its published timescales for routine repairs.
14. It was necessary for the landlord to identify and resolve the leak first, so that any works carried out to treat the mould in the resident’s home would be successful in the long term. The landlord has a duty to protect its resources and it could not reasonably have carried out multiple mould washes at the resident’s home to treat a problem that would have constantly reoccurred if the root cause was not resolved first. This service appreciates that it may have appeared to the resident that the plumber was being unhelpful when he suggested that it was not his job to carry out the necessary repairs. However, the plumber had ruled out plumbing as the cause of the leak and this meant that the landlord did not spend any further time unnecessarily carrying out works to the plumbing in the flat. The landlord responded by raising a works order two days later for a roofer to attend the property. This was appropriate handling by the landlord. Leak detection can be complex and it was necessary for the landlord to eliminate likely potential causes of the leak affecting the resident’s home. The visits to the resident’s home in January 2023 identified the existence of the leak, as well as the likely cause of it. The landlord explained its position to the resident on 20 January 2023 and in its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2023. Its explanations were reasonable and there is no evidence that the landlord had mishandled the repairs process.
15. The roofer attended the resident’s property on 28 February 2023. This was slightly delayed as the landlord worked to arrange a date with the roofer. The landlord kept the resident reasonably updated and communicated with her on 6 February 2023, 14 February 2023 and 20 February 2023. The roofing job was successfully completed by the contractor as had been arranged. This was appropriately handled by the landlord, in line with its repairs policy and this service has seen no evidence that there was an avoidable delay in arranging for this repair to take place.
16. The landlord’s records show that an order for remedial works to be carried out to the resident’s home that would resolve the damp and mould had been raised within three working days of the roofing job being completed. On 28 March 2023, the landlord recorded that the works had been booked in for 26 April 2023. The landlord noted that it had attempted to book them for 25 March 2023, but the resident unfortunately was unwell and could not be available on that date. A short delay between resolving a leak and carrying out remedial works is often necessary while the affected area dries out. The remedial works were successfully carried out as arranged. There is no evidence of any service failure or maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these works. The landlord acted appropriately at each stage and resolved the leak and the damp and mould in the resident’s flat within a reasonable timescale.
17. The resident made repeated requests to the landlord to have a repairs inspector attend her flat, as she believed that this would enable all repairs to be completed in one appointment. The landlord denied these requests as it said that a repairs inspector attending would not speed up progress of the works. The landlord was entitled to send the operatives that were most appropriate for the type of work that was required at each appointment. It would be unlikely that the repairs could have been completed in one appointment as this would have relied on different contractors having availability at the same time. The landlord also did not know which contractor would need to attend the resident’s home until the previous contractor had completed their assessment. It was necessary for the areas affected by the leak to dry out before remedial works were carried out. However, the landlord did arrange for a repairs inspector to attend the resident’s home on 27 April 2023, which was the day after the remedial works were completed. The repairs inspector confirmed they were satisfied with the quality of the works that had been completed and that all the resident’s issues had been successfully resolved. The landlord handled this appropriately and ensured it met the resident’s request for repairs inspector to attend as soon it was appropriate for one to do so.
18. The resident expressed disagreement with the landlord over the cause of the damp and mould in her home. She disagreed that it was being caused by a leak allowing water to enter the structure of her home. She has told this service she believes there is a wider structural issue with the building that will be likely to cause the damp and mould to reoccur this winter. The landlord was entitled to act on the opinions of qualified professionals concerning the cause of the leak and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence from similarly qualified professionals which suggests these opinions were incorrect and there was a structural issue which caused the leak. However, the landlord should be aware of the resident’s concerns and respond appropriately to any further reports of damp and mould affecting her home this winter.
19. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction with having to take time off work in order to give access to the landlord’s contractors on multiple occasions. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she must provide access to the landlord for repairs to be carried out. There is no evidence that the landlord missed any appointments or that it arranged appointments unnecessarily. This service accepts that being present to give access to the landlord caused inconvenience for the resident, however such inconvenience was unavoidable and necessary for the repairs to be completed.
20. The landlord indicated to this service when it provided information to aid this investigation that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. This was concerning as it had provided evidence of the resident informing the landlord of her own respiratory health conditions. The resident had also referred to her disabled son when highlighting the damp conditions in her home. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to record any relevant information that it may have been appropriate for it to consider when assessing how to respond to the resident’s reports of repairs and her complaint. While this service does not find that the landlord could have reasonably completed the required works in a shorter timescale than it had done, it should be able to demonstrate that it has considered all necessary information when responding to the resident’s communications with it. The landlord should ensure it has appropriately recorded all relevant health information, with the resident’s agreement. This would enable the landlord to continue to ensure it appropriately prioritises the resident’s reports of repairs and that it gives full consideration to all relevant factors that may affect how severely the resident or her household is impacted by different housing conditions or circumstances.
21. The resident has indicated that she would like the landlord to consider refunding a proportion of the rent she paid during the period of time that her home was affected by the damp and mould. This service understands the serious nature of damp and mould and the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely to have experienced as a result of her home being affected by it. However, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of this issue. This service would consider compensation based on rent where the landlord had unreasonably delayed in resolving the issues and where rooms had been so severely affected that they could not be used for their normal purpose for a significant period of time. This has not been found to be the case and we would consider it inappropriate to order the landlord to compensate the resident on the basis that the damp and mould had occurred in the first place. The landlord could not have reasonably foreseen the leak that occurred and caused damp conditions in the resident’s flat and it acted reasonably to address this as soon as possible once it became aware of the issue.
22. This service is aware that the resident has indicated that some of her belongings were damaged as a result of the damp and mould in her flat. This service has not seen evidence that the resident raised this issue directly with the landlord as part of her complaint so we would not criticise the landlord for not addressing this in its complaint responses. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “claims for damage to tenant or other third party possessions will only be considered where [the landlord] could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action or where there is a clear legal liability”. The resident may wish to discuss this issue with the landlord and the landlord should inform the resident of how to make a liability claim if she wishes to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to complaints from residents at stage one of its complaints procedure within 10 working days. It states that it will “generally” respond to complaints that are escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure within 20 working days. The policy also allows for extensions of up to a further 10 working days at each stage where cases are more complex to investigate and satisfactorily respond to.
24. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and issued its stage one response to the resident 10 working days later on 31 January 2023. The landlord’s response was detailed and adequately responded to the complaint issues raised. It also apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her while its investigations and repairs were ongoing. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately at stage one of the procedure, in line with its complaints policy.
25. On 6 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. She stated that the landlord had not provided her with an update by 3 February 2023, as it had said it would do. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and apologised for not updating the resident as it had promised. The reason for the delay was because the landlord did not yet have the information it needed from one of its contractors. While this was outside of its control, the landlord should have contacted the resident as promised and explained the situation. It was important that the landlord carried out the next steps that it had committed to in its complaint response to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for failing to do this. An apology represents appropriate redress for this error.
26. The resident did not specifically ask the landlord to escalate her complaint in her email of 6 February 2023. However, she had made it clear that she was unsatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. She challenged facts that the landlord had relied upon in its response and set out what she felt would adequately resolve her complaint, including a refund of a proportion of her rent. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint at this point. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have accepted that the resident’s response was a request for it to escalate her complaint or it could have asked her to clarify if she would like it to escalate the complaint based on her comments. The resident stated to the landlord on 14 February 2023 that she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaint procedure. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 21 February 2023 that it had escalated her complaint. There was therefore a delay in the landlord actioning the resident’s request. The landlord explained to the resident that it had hoped to resolve her complaint informally without the need for a stage two investigation. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two upon her request. Escalating the complaint and providing a stage two response would not have prevented the landlord from attempting to resolve the issues the resident had raised. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, the landlord’s delay to responding to the resident’s request was short and did not impact on the landlord’s action to resolve the leak. The landlord apologised to the resident on 24 March 2023 for the inconvenience caused by the delay to escalating her complaint, which was a reasonable remedy for its failing.
27. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 April 2023 to explain that it was experiencing staffing shortages and would therefore require more time to adequately respond to her complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. It stated that it would require approximately 30 working days and aimed to issue its stage two complaint response by 31 March 2023. This was within the landlord’s complaint policy as it was entitled to extend the response time from 20 working days to 30 working days. The landlord informed the resident of this in advance and gave a reason for the delay. It issued its stage two complaint response on 30 March 2023, which was 27 working days after it had escalated the complaint. This was appropriate complaint handling by the landlord as sometimes there may be unavoidable delays to complaint responses and the landlord should make the resident aware if there are delays to manage expectations.
28. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was brief but confirmed the steps the landlord had taken, and would be taking, to fully resolve the resident’s complaint. The outstanding actions went ahead as planned. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s request for a refund of a proportion of the rent she had paid during the time period where she had been affected by the damp and mould. This has been one of her desired outcomes from the complaint. The landlord should have addressed this request in its response. If the landlord did not feel it was appropriate to refund a proportion of the resident’s rent, it should have explained its reasons for this to the resident. However, as this service has not found that the landlord would be reasonably expected to refund a proportion of the resident’s rent, the landlord failing to address this in its stage two complaint response had a limited impact on the resident.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould affecting her property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

31. The landlord should review its procedures for recording relevant information it receives from the resident about any health conditions she or her family may have that may affect their vulnerability when experiencing various housing circumstances. The landlord should ensure that its staff understand how to appropriately record relevant information upon residents providing this to them.