London Borough of Newham (202112331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112331

Newham Council

28 June 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 handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority landlord. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat, and the tenancy started on 9 November 2009.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 August 2021, and stated that there had been a leak at the property since 2012/2013, which had resulted in the property becoming damp and mouldy, and that the repairs had only been completed earlier that year. He explained that his health had been impacted by the damp caused by the leak. In addition, he explained that he had raised multiple complaints with the landlord, but had not received an apology.
The landlord has shown that there are repairs relating to water ingress dating back as far as 2011. In 2017 the landlord completed extensive repairs to the resident’s bathroom, which included:
1. Identifying and remedying a leak which was affecting the flat below.
2. Repairing the extractor fan.
3. Repairing a blocked and overflowing toilet and repairing the toilet basin.
4. Repairing floor boards and floor tiles.
5. Repairing the bathroom ceiling, including skimming and a full redecoration of the bathroom.
At the same time the landlord also repaired a leak in the kitchen.

Scope of investigation

Whilst the resident has explained that the leaks and associated issues have been ongoing for many years. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to the investigation of historical issues, as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. As such the investigation is focused solely on the events that progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure that commenced on or shortly before 16 November 2019, and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 7 October 2021. The landlord has shown that it carried out works in the property in 2017 and the resident didn’t report any further water related repairs at the property until 16 November 2019, when he reported a leak in the kitchen ceiling.
The resident has stated that the landlord’s failure to carry out the necessary repairs in a timely manner has impacted on his mental and physical health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on causation or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health. This is because assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that this Service is unable to provide.

Summary of events

According to the landlord’s repairs record, on 16 November 2019 the resident reported a leak from the kitchen ceiling. It is not clear to this Service whether the landlord actioned this repair.
On 28 February 2020, the resident reported that the kitchen units were worn out and suggested that they were unrepairable, In addition he stated that there was a major mould issue in the property.
On 30 July 2020, the resident reported that the pipe from the kitchen sink was leaking into the neighbours property even when the sink wasn’t in use.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 10 February 2021, via the landlord’s online portal. He explained that there was excessive mould and mildew in the property which had affected his health. He added that the issues had been ongoing since 2013 and that it had become intolerable. He stated that he had made several requests for a surveyor to inspect the property and that on one occasion when a surveyor did attend they did not acknowledge his concerns regarding the fungi which he stated was growing in the bathroom.
The resident also explained that he had been harassed and victimised by the neighbour below who appeared to believe that he was to blame for the water damage that was also affecting his flat. The resident requested that the landlord take his concerns seriously and take action to resolve the issues he was experiencing.
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 12 February 2021. It stated that it was sorry that the resident had concerns about outstanding repairs, but that it had checked its record and could not see any reference to repairs relating to damp and mould. It added that under normal circumstances, the resident’s concerns would have been passed to technical services to investigate, but that due to the pandemic the landlord was only undertaking emergency inspections. The landlord asked the resident to make contact again after four weeks so that it could arrange an inspection of the property.
As part of potential legal proceedings, the resident commissioned a survey of the property on 16 February 2021. The survey was accompanied by photographs of the inside and outside of the property and evidenced signs of damp and mould in each of the rooms. It noted that whilst both the bathroom and kitchen had an extractor fan, they were not working. It stated that there was a leak under the kitchen sink. In addition damp readings were taken in the entrance hallway, the kitchen, the living room, the bedroom and the bathroom. The readings were above 20% in all rooms and registered 33% in the bedroom and 49% in the bathroom. The survey stated that the cause of the damp and mould was from a flood from the flat above.
On 22 February 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and stated that its claim that there had been no references to repairs related to damp and mould were disrespectful, disappointing and an insult. He highlighted that the landlord had failed to address his concerns regarding abuse from the neighbour and added that he did not feel the landlord gave his concerns enough importance. He stated that the pandemic should not be given as a reason for the landlord’s lack of action over the previous eight years. The resident concluded that whilst major work had been carried out in the bathroom on 2017, as he had previously reported the work was not of an acceptable standard.
The landlord responded on 4 March 2021, it apologised for having offended the resident and stated that it was arranging for a surveyor to visit the property, and that it would notify the resident when an appointment was available.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for not having contacted him sooner. It advised that as previously outlined it would be decanting him temporarily for four weeks in order to complete the works required to the property. It added that it was pleased that some progress had been made.
This Service has seen evidence that extensive works were completed at the property sometime between March 2021 and April 2021. The works included kitchen renewal including new work tops, fire door, extractor fan and electric oven and hob. The bathroom was renewed and repairs carried out in the living room. The carpet was renewed in the domestic areas and repairs were carried out in the hallway. The resident moved back into the property on 28 April 2021.
On 21 May 2021, the anti–social behaviour and nuisance investigations team wrote to the resident acknowledging his complaint about excessive noise from a neighbouring property. It advised the resident that it would write to the alleged perpetrator about the excessive noise, which it did on the same day.
The landlord’s database showed that on 3 June 2021, the resident reported loud music, banging and slamming of doors since 29 May 2021. Records showed that an advisory letter was sent to both the resident and the alleged perpetrator on the same day. This Service has not seen a copy of the letters sent.
The resident reported further noise nuisance on 4 August 2021.
On 1 September 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to stage two. He explained that he was disappointed with the way he had been treated by the landlord and felt that it had mishandled the repairs. He recounted an incident in 2017, when his flat was flooded and the landlord failed to act in a timely manner. He also stated that surveyors who had visited the property in 2014 and 2016 failed to notice the seriousness of the mould that was present in the property.
The resident stated that since having moved back into the property on 28 April 2021, the property had not been inspected. Nor had he received an apology from the landlord for the years the property was left in a state of disrepair
In addition he stated that whilst the landlord may not have been aware that relations between himself and his neighbour had been difficult for many years, he had tried to resolve the matter amicably. Nevertheless, he continued to feel harassed. The resident added that the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to the issues he was experiencing with his neighbour and recounted an incident that occurred between himself and the neighbour in 2014.
By way of resolution, the resident requested:
1. A formal written apology.
2. A final health and safety inspection and findings report.
3. Appropriate compensation, reflective of the situation and circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on the same day and advised the resident to expect a response by 22 September 2021.
On 7 September 2021, the anti–social behaviour and nuisance investigations team wrote to the resident’s neighbour again regarding excessive noise.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 7 October 2021. It stated that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. The time it took to complete repairs at the property.
2. The lack of support provided by the landlord regarding antisocial behaviour from his neighbour.
3. Incorrect information provided as part of the stage one response and the landlord’s delay responding at stage two of its complaints process.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s stage two complaint. It acknowledged that it should have completed repairs within a reasonable time frame and stated that whilst Government imposed restrictions during the pandemic limited the repairs it was able to do in 2020 and 2021, it should have resolved the issues when the resident first raised them. The landlord noted that the resident had first reported a leak in the property in 2011 and whilst several repairs had been carried out at the property from that date, it took too long to identify the underlying cause of the leaks. It added that the repairs were completed in April 2021.
With reference to the resident’s complaint regarding the lack of support provided for the anti–social behaviour (ASB) he experienced. The landlord stated that its records showed that the resident had reported 3 incidents of loud noise on 20 May 2021, 29 July 2021 and 26 August 2021, and that it had sent advisory letters as per its policy.
In response to its complaints handling, it acknowledged that it failed to provide the resident with the correct information or fully address his concerns when it responded to his stage one complaint. It also acknowledged that whilst it had been communicating with the resident, it failed to formally respond to the stage two complaint within its agreed timescale.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the service failures and offered £4000 in compensation, which it broke down as follows:
1. £3000 for the time it took between 2011 and 2021 to identify and repair the leak. This also included the time and trouble to the resident.
2. £250 for its failure to respond fully to the residents complaint at stage one and for its delay in responding at stage two of the complaints process.
3. £750 for the distress and inconvenience for the delay in repairing the leak.

Post complaints process

The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response on 13 October 2021 and maintained that despite his communication with the landlord, his property was left in a state of disrepair for 10 years and that it had taken its toll on his health. He maintained that he did not believe £750 accounted for the impact on his health or his loss of earnings due to stress and damp related illness.
The resident stated that the issue of anti–social behaviour remained unresolved. He also added that not all of the issues identified in the property had been satisfactorily resolved.
He explained that signs of damp had returned in the kitchen and the bathroom, and that some of the work was substandard. In particular he noted that the new cooker that had been fitted no longer worked and that door handles had fallen off. He requested that the landlord inspect the property.
The resident added that he believed the communal entrance to be insecure and stated that he wanted to claim for a refund on the service charges paid between 2011 and 2021.
In addition the resident requested clarity on how the landlord had calculated the £250 compensation for the failings associated with the complaint handling.
On 16 November 2021, in its response to this Service, the landlord advised that the reports of noise nuisance suggested that they were isolated incidents and that there were no reports of noise nuisance from other residents. In addition it stated that no interviews or meetings took place with either the resident or the alleged perpetrator and that it did not hold any inspection notes regarding visits to neighbouring properties. The landlord provided copies of advisory (warning letters) that it sent out as per its procedure.
In addition the landlord acknowledged that there had been failings and provided this Service with details of actions it had taken to improve its service in relation to:
1. Reports of damp and mould
2. Repairs
3. Resident engagement
4. ASB approach and handling, with particular focus on noise investigations
On 31 December 2022, the resident provided this Service with an update of the issues complained about. He maintained that the works completed in April 2021, were not carried out to a good standard and that in particular the bath tub was not installed correctly, which resulted in the landlord installing a new bath on 27 October 2022. In addition the resident stated that the cooker had been installed incorrectly and did not allow for the fire door to be opened fully. He also explained that mould and mildew had returned to the bathroom and hallway and that the extractor fan was not working correctly. The resident stated that he wanted to be rehoused and maintained that the compensation offered did not reflect the failures identified.

Assessment and findings

Policies procedures and legal obligations

Section 4d of the tenancy terms and conditions sets out that the landlord will carry out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time of the resident reporting it. The landlord’s website lists the repairs that both it and its residents are responsible for. Included within its responsibilities are repairs to, or replacement of:
1. Plumbing in the bathroom
2. Water service pipes.
3. Overflow pipes.
4. Water tanks.
5. Sink units.
6. Kitchen cupboards and worktops that are beyond repair
7. Major plasterwork
The landlord advised that all non-emergency repairs are carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord’s website provides advice and guidance for dealing with anti–social behaviour and noise nuisance. It states that part of the action it could take includes sending an advisory (warning) letter. The landlord has advised that its noise investigations focus on monitoring and assessing the volume, frequency, nature and impact of noise nuisance. It’s policy is to close cases where there have been no further complaints within a 28 day period.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process and allows for early resolution. It states that it will acknowledge complaints within two working days and will aim to respond at stage one within 20 working days and at stage two within 15 working days.

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

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

• Be fair

• Put things right

• Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident maintained that he had experienced issues with damp and mould for several years. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to the investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. Nevertheless, the landlord has acknowledged and admitted its failings in regard to the length of time it took to resolve the damp and mould in the property.
On 16 November 2019, the resident reported a leak from his kitchen ceiling, on 28 February 2020 he reported a major issue with mould in the property and then on 30 July 2020, reported that his kitchen sink was leaking even when not in use. It would have been appropriate to expect the landlord to have dealt with the leaks in line with its repairs policy. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to react to the resident’s report of mould in the property. However, it is not clear to this Service what action the landlord took in regards the resident’s reports.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 10 February 2021 and subsequently instructed a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property. The surveyor’s report highlighted damp and mould in every room of the property originating from a leak from the flat above. It should not have been the responsibility of the resident to investigate the issues he highlighted. Given that the there was a history of water ingress, damp and mould in the property, the landlord should have been more proactive in its approach to dealing with the resident’s reports in 2019 and 2020. The landlord failed in its repairing obligations and should have taken steps to inspect the property at the earliest opportunity. In addition the landlord has not provided any evidence or offered any indication of how it arrived at the decision to carry out the repairs eventually completed in April 2021. This demonstrates poor record-keeping.
The landlord eventually took steps to resolve the damp and mould in April 2021 and carried out an extensive refurbishment of the property. It took the landlord approximately 18 months from the date the resident reported a leak from the kitchen ceiling in November 2019, to carry out repairs to the property and identify the source of the leak.
This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlords handling of damp and mould in the property. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord took steps to remedy the situation and offered compensation by way of apology, the compensation offered does not go far enough to reflect the impact the issues and delays had on the resident. The landlord offered a total of £3000 for the delays to repairs over a ten year period, which equates to £300 per year that the leak remained unresolved. This Service does not feel that this is an adequate amount to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore in considering an appropriate amount of redress for the period considered in this report, this Service has awarded an additional £1500 to reflect the 18 month delay highlighted in this report.
The landlord offered no mitigation for the delay in carrying out the repairs, other than the Government imposed lockdown. Whilst this may have accounted for a short delay, it does not account for the prolonged delay experienced by the resident, leaving him distressed and frustrated and with no prospect of a resolution.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

In his formal complaint on 10 February 2021, the resident reported that he was experiencing harassment from his neighbour. This Service has been provided with correspondence from the resident dated 28 May 2017 and 24 July 2017 in which the resident has explained the incidents that occurred between himself and the neighbour. The complaint submitted on 10 February 2021, reiterated those incidents. The ombudsman is unable to investigate historical issues as the resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and the Ombudsman in a timely manner. This Service has not seen any evidence of reported harassment after July 2017.
However, the resident reported incidents of noise nuisance between May 2021 and September 2021. The landlord has shown that it responded in line with its policy on ASB by sending an advisory note to the alleged perpetrator. The case was closed as there were no further reports of noise nuisance. This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord has taken steps to improve its procedures for dealing with noise nuisance . It has introduced a neighbourhood response team to carry out ASB/noise investigations in collaboration with borough wide ASB team, to further support its resident’s in these type of cases.
The landlord is advised to take note of the recommendations set out in the Spotlight on Noise report published by this Service in October 2022 and consider whether the changes it has made thus far meet the recommendations set out in the report.

The associated complaint

The resident raised two main issues in his formal complaint on 10 February 2021, the first was with regard the ongoing issues with damp and mould and the second was in relation to anti–social behaviour.
Whilst the landlord responded swiftly to the complaint, it failed to provide a full and reasoned response.
The landlord disregarded the resident’s concerns regarding the ongoing issues with damp and mould and stated that it could find no record of repairs relating to damp and mould. This was a serious oversight on the landlord’s part and would have compounded the resident’s despair. In addition it demonstrates poor record keeping. The landlord should have used the complaints process as an opportunity to learn from its mistakes and should have sought to put things right at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to actively listen to the resident and dismissed his concerns.
In addition the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding anti–social behaviour and completely ignored this aspect of his complaint. As set out in the complaint handling code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions.
Whilst the landlord issued a full and reasoned response to the complaint at stage two, it failed to respond within the timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord offered compensation by way of apology for its complaint handling failures. However, the compensation does not go far enough to reflect the distress caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This Service finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord has taken steps to remedy the situation, the landlord took too long to react to the resident’s concerns and the proposed remedy does not go far enough to reflect the detriment to the resident.
The landlord has shown that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in 2021.
The landlord failed to provide a full and reasoned response to the resident’s stage one complaint and compounded his distress by negating his reports of damp and mould. In addition the landlord failed to respond to the stage two complaint in a timely manner.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
Pay the resident a total of £6900, which includes:
1. The £3000 originally offered in recognition of the length of time taken to identify and rectify the leak, along with the resident’s time and trouble communicating with the landlord.
2. The £250 originally offered for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. The £750 originally offered for the resident’s distress and inconvenience during the time the landlord failed to remedy the leak at the property.
4. £1500 for the delay in completing repairs between November 2019 and April 2021.
5. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble.
6. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repairs.
7. £600 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
If the landlord has already paid to the resident the £4000 compensation it offered in its stage two response, then this should be deducted from the total.
Given that the resident has recently highlighted that the property is showing further signs of damp and mould, the landlord is ordered to instruct a surveyor to inspect the property. Any repairs required must be agreed within 20 working days and dates for completion set.
Provide advice and guidance regarding rehousing to the resident and if required support him to apply.
Review its repairs policy and procedures and make these easily available to its resident’s.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord has provided this Service with details of its service improvements, the landlord is ordered to review its damp and mould policy and self- assess against the Spotlight report on damp and mould
Provide complaint handling training to staff to ensure that complaint responses are detailed and accurate.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should self-assess against the recommendations set out in the spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management report, published by this Service in May 2023.