East Devon District Council (202120868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120868

East Devon District Council

31 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a flexible tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy started in October 2019. The property is a two-bedroom second floor (top floor) flat and the resident lives there with her partner and four young children. The landlord is a local authority.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will repair and maintain:
1. The structure and exterior of the building including roofs, ceilings, gutters and insulation.
2. Kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
It says that it will carry out repairs in a reasonable time and splits them into two categories:
1. Emergencies – within four hours.
2. Routine – within 28 working days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out a two-stage process:
Stage one – responded to within 20 working days.
Stage two – responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 23 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that a wet patch on her son’s bedroom ceiling that had caused a hole to appear. It attended on 30 December 2020 to make this safe and identified the following works were required:
1. Fit a ventilation unit with a pre-heat facility in the loft. This was completed on 13 May 2021.
2. Carry out mould treatment to two affected areas. This was completed on 13 May 2021.
3. Clear, check and clean all gutters to the front and rear of the property. This was completed on 23 February 2021.
4. Lay insulation and investigate possible water leaks in the loft space. This was completed on 11 March 2021.
On 1 January 2021 the resident reported a leak in one of the bedrooms with water running down the walls. The landlord raised an emergency job and this was marked as completed the same day. A further order was raised on 6 January 2021 for loose roof tiles to be repaired and this was marked as completed on 12 January 2021.
On 20 March 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which said:
1. She had experienced ongoing problems in the property since moving there in 2019 and despite repeated requests to the landlord, repairs had not been completed to an acceptable standard.
2. She had a young baby and these issues had caused her distress. Her health visitor also believed the living conditions were causing the family “huge anxiety”.
3. The landlord said work had been completed but the property remained damp and cold and she had to have the heating on more, which had led to increased heating costs.
4. There was a hole in the ceiling of her son’s bedroom that led to water entering the flat. This had been plastered over by the landlord but rainwater was still coming in to the flat and affecting her son’s physical and mental health.
5. There was a crack in the living room and water was entering the flat from this, which was unresolved.
6. A specialist condensation contractor had visited to deal with some of the mould issues but this had taken an unreasonable amount of time and had not properly dealt with the problem.
7. She did not believe that her and her family should have to live in these conditions and asked the landlord for emergency accommodation, compensation and to be considered for a permanent move.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 April 2021. Within this it said:
1. It had visited the resident’s property in December 2020 after she had first raised these issues. During this visit it had identified one spot of mould in her child’s bedroom believed to be caused by blocked gutters and one around the kitchen window. It gave her advice about making sure the property was heated and well-ventilated to reduce the damp.
2. It confirmed the works identified during the visit had been completed and that it would arrange to do another inspection to check these and confirm there were no other issues. This Service has seen no evidence of an inspection being carried out.
3. It did not agree that the property was uninhabitable or that compensation was justified and so there was no need to move the family to temporary accommodation.
The resident responded the same day asking to escalate her complaint to stage two as she did not agree with the landlord’s response. She disputed the suggestion that she had caused the damp and mould by not heating the property adequately. This was not responded to and the resident sent two further e-mails on 24 May 2021 saying she was unhappy with the stage one response.
On 13 May 2021 the resident reported a water mark and damp patch on her son’s bedroom ceiling where it had previously been repaired. The landlord attended on 27 May 2021 and added a waterproof seal to the roof of the resident’s property.
A Councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 5 July 2021 to chase a response to her complaint escalation request. The landlord responded the same day acknowledging her request and apologising for the delay.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. Within this it said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained the reason was because her escalation requests were overlooked due to staff being busy.
2. It apologised that all works had not been completed when its stage one response was sent and confirmed all proposed works had now been completed.
3. It would arrange to visit to assess the ventilation unit and make sure it was working as it should and check there were no more leaks from the roof.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 9 August 2021 and confirmed that the ventilation system was working well. It identified water marks in several of the rooms, which suggested a roof leak but could not inspect the loft area so a follow up visit would be needed. While there, it identified an area in the living room with mould forming due to a disconnected aerial cable outlet not having been sealed externally. It agreed to raise an order to get this removed and filled, which it did on 11 August 2021 and the job was marked as completed on 14 September 2021.
The landlord carried out a follow up visit to inspect the loft area on 19 August 2021 and identified some damaged roof sheets needed replacing. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on this eight times between September 2021 and March 2022 but there is no record of any response. On one of these occasions, she told the landlord that the flat was still damp and her children kept getting chest infections.
In February 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She said that works had been delayed and the situation was ongoing.
In early March 2022, the landlord provided an update to the MP who had made an enquiry on behalf of the resident. The exact date of the enquiry is unknown as this Service has not seen a record of this. The landlord said that all works to the resident’s property had been completed but that it was looking at the roof and the best way to erect scaffolding to do this. It said that the resident had been “bombarding” its surveyor with text messages, which was not an encouraged method of communication and she had been advised to contact the team via the correct methods.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. Its overall conclusion was that the property was in good repair and condition with no evidence of condensation or black mould. It took readings using a damp meter and there were no signs of moisture. The ventilation unit was checked and in working order but it identified that the bathroom extractor fan was not. During the inspection the resident reported that there was mould on the silicone around the bath and the landlord gave advice on how to clean this and that this was expected and normal. The landlord agreed to service the fans in the bathroom and kitchen and to stain block and paint an area on one of the ceilings that had previously been repaired.
On 26 September 2022, the landlord raised jobs for mould to be washed down and treated in the resident’s property and for a loft inspection to be carried out to check the insulation had been laid correctly. It is not clear from the evidence seen what prompted these works. The jobs were marked as completed on 26 and 5 October 2022 respectively.
In November 2022, an MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf requesting an update on leak, damp and mould issues that were ongoing in the resident’s property. The MP highlighted that there were two young children in the property and that the resident was pregnant. The landlord responded that all works required in the resident’s property had been completed but there were outstanding works to the roof, which had been delayed due to problems obtaining the required materials. It agreed to reinspect the resident’s property on 24 November 2022 to identify the issues and put a plan in place to address these. This Service has seen no evidence of this inspection.
On 17 November 2022, the landlord raised a job for mould in the resident’s property to be washed down and treated. From the evidence seen, it is not clear what prompted this job being raised. It was marked as completed on 24 November 2022.
On 3 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that her son’s room was still damp and wet and asked for an update on the roof repair. She told the landlord she had recently given birth to twins and that it was not safe for them to be living in the property as it was. The landlord raised a job to replaster the ceiling and this was marked as completed on 23 January 2023.
The resident told this Service in April 2023 that the roof repair was carried out in March 2023, there was no more mould but that the property was still damp.
In May 2023, the resident told the landlord (via an MP) that her property was still affected by damp and this was having a negative impact on her children’s health. The landlord has raised a job to carry out a damp and mould survey with a target completion date of 6 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that this issue has had a negative impact on her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure to act by the landlord. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property

In December 2020 the landlord identified that it needed to clear the gutters and carry out a mould treatment at the property. It is not clear from the evidence seen how the landlord categorised these repairs but it would have been reasonable for them to deal with these as routine. Both of these jobs exceeded the 28-day response time with the gutter clearance taking 39 days and mould treatment taking 93 days. It is understandable that the gutter clearance may have taken slightly longer than the 28 days as scaffolding was required and so this was not an unreasonable delay; however, where repairs are going to take longer than the committed timeframe, it is best practice for landlords to inform residents of this and provide an estimated date for completion. In this case, there is no record that the landlord did this. The mould treatment was significantly delayed and there is no clear or understandable reason for this; particularly as the evidence shows that in September and November 2022 the landlord completed further mould treatments within the 28 day response time, and on one occasion, the job was completed in six days. This raises the question of why it took so long to complete on this occasion but there is no record of any reason or explanation for this. The length of time this took is unreasonable given that the landlord was aware that there were young children living in the property and the resident had highlighted the affect of the conditions on her children’s health in March 2021. This delay and lack of updates would have understandably have been upsetting and frustrating for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord also identified in December 2020 that additional insulation needed to be laid in the loft and a ventilation unit installed. As these works were not repairs but new installations, it is reasonable that the landlord set individual completion targets for these jobs, outside of the repair response times. From the records seen, there is no evidence that it did this or that it gave the resident any updates on the progress of the works. The actual completion times for these works was 51 days for the additional insulation to be laid and 93 days for the ventilation unit to be installed. The landlord was aware of the condition of the property and that there were young children living there and in her complaint in March 2021 she highlighted the impact this was having on her and her family. In light of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to progress the works urgently, but this does not appear to have happened. While the insulation was laid before the resident made a complaint, the ventilation unit had not yet been installed and it was a further two months before this was done; although the landlord said in its stage one response that this job had already been completed. Overall, it is the view of this Service that these works were unreasonably delayed and this amounts to maladministration.
In January 2021, May 2021, August 2021, September 2021 and November 2021 the landlord attended within its committed response times in relation to various repairs required.
The landlord identified in August 2021 that some of the roof sheets needed replacing. It is reasonable that this job was dealt with as a routine repair and on the basis that scaffolding would be needed, it is understandable that this may have taken slightly longer than the 28-day committed completion time. The roof sheets were replaced in March 2023, which was 19 months after the repair was identified. This is significantly over its response time and amounts to maladministration. The resident told the landlord on more than one occasion that the damp and mould was negatively impacting her young children’s health. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or attempted to complete the roof repair more quickly as a result of this, which would have been appropriate. When the resident told the landlord in January 2023 that she had recently given birth to premature twins and was concerned about her children living in the property, it responded by replastering the damp ceiling area, but failed to do anything to progress the underlying cause of this issue, and it was a further two months before this repair was completed. This delay would have understandably caused significant worry and distress to the resident, who was living in the property with four young children, including two new-born babies.
The resident chased updates on the progress of the roof repair on at least eight occasions between September 2021 and March 2022, with only one record of a response being provided. The only other recorded updates were in March and November 2022, which were sent in response to MP enquiries. The lack of communication would have been frustrating for the resident and the evidence shows that she went to a significant amount of additional time and trouble to chase updates with little or no response.
The landlord told the MP in March 2022 that the resident had been “bombarding” its surveyor with contact and that she had been advised to communicate with the team via the “correct methods”. While appropriate that the landlord set out correct communication methods with the resident, it should have done so in writing but there is no evidence that it did. The resident had told the landlord the impact this issue was having on her family and that this was a serious concern to her and so it is understandable that she wanted an update on when the issue would be resolved. With this in mind, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to agree a communication plan with the resident in acknowledgement of this, to ensure she received regular updates without staff feeling bombarded and also ensuring that the resident felt reassured and not ignored.
The landlord said that the resident’s text message contact could not be recorded on its system and so it did not encourage this method of communication. This is a concern as text message communication is becoming more common and so it would be appropriate for the landlord to have a way of recording this contact on its system. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its record keeping arrangements in relation to this.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the damp and mould in the property, including carrying out multiple mould washes, installing a ventilation system, laying additional insulation in the loft and servicing the extractor fans. It carried out a number of detailed inspections where it was able to identify any issues and agree actions to address these and on one occasion it used a damp meter to identify any signs of moisture. In addition to the landlord’s actions, it gave appropriate advice to the resident about keeping the property well heated and cleaning minor mould from around the shower. While its actions were reasonable, its failure to repair the roof leak, which was the underlying cause of the damp and mould, meant that these actions only went as far as to slow the spread of the damp and mould rather than resolving the issue.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould amounts to maladministration. This is because of the delay in carrying out the initial actions with no explanation or update given; as well as its failure to repair a roof leak for 19 months. The actions taken to address the damp and mould were reasonable but without addressing the underlying cause of the damp and mould, this meant that it went on for a significant period of time causing considerable upset and worry to resident in respect of her children’s health. The landlord failed to provide updates to the resident where works were delayed and this resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for updates on at least eight occasions with no evidence of any response on seven of these occasions. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation made up of £600 for the distress and inconvenience and £300 for the time and trouble taken in chasing updates.
The landlord records show that it is continuing to investigate the resident’s ongoing reports of damp in the property, which is appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to carry out its proposed inspection and follow this up in writing, confirming an action plan to support the resident with this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure says that stage one and stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code), which directs landlords to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review and update its policy so it is in line with the code.
In this case, the landlord’s final response was provided in 74 working days, which is significantly over its committed response time. This delay meant that the resident took additional time and trouble to chase a response from the landlord both directly in May 2021 and via a Councillor in July 2021. After this, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and apologised for the delay but it still took a further 23 working days to provide its final response. Within the final response, it apologised again for the delay and explained the reason for this but there is no evidence that it considered any other actions it could take to put things right. Overall, the complaint process was unreasonably delayed and this amounts to service failure. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the time and trouble taken in chasing a final response to her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the damp and mould in the property was reasonable; however, there was a delay in it carrying out initial actions to address this and a significant delay in its response to the underlying cause (a roof leak) for 19 months. This caused significant detriment to the resident who was concerned about the impact this was having on her young children’s health.
The complaint handling process was unreasonably delayed and while it apologised and explained the reasons for this, there is no evidence that it considered any other actions it could take to put things right.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1050 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
  2. £300 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in chasing updates in respect of her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  3. £150 for the time and trouble taken in pursuing a final response to her complaint.
2. Carry out an inspection of the resident’s property in respect of her ongoing reports of damp. The landlord to confirm in writing the outcome of this inspection and what actions it will take to support the resident in resolving this issue. The landlord to take note of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) when considering this matter.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its record keeping arrangements in respect of text message communication to determine whether it can record this method of contact and provide additional staff training, if required.
The landlord to review and update its complaints policy so it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and if appropriate, complete a self-assessment.
The landlord should notify this Service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.