Waltham Forest Council (202226828)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226828

Waltham Forest Council

15 March 2024

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of flooding in the basement and the associated damp and mould.
2. Reports of repairs to the kitchen.
3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy for a 4 bedroom house which began on 23 February 2015. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident lives in the property with her five children. The landlord is aware that the resident and two of her children have vulnerabilities.

Scope of the investigation

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress as she experienced flooding and damp and mould in her property over a prolonged period. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions had on the health of her and her family. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issues or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
This Service acknowledges the resident has made several reports of flooding in her basement that date back to 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of matters from February 2022, which is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint.

Summary of events

The resident reported her basement had flooded numerous times between February 2022 and November 2022. The landlord attended each time and cleared the water.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor suggested a “sump pump” should be fitted in the basement.
From November 2022 to March 2023 the resident continued to report to the landlord that her basement was flooding. The landlord attended each time and cleared the water.
On 24 March 2022 the resident reported damp and mould on the walls and ceiling in the basement. The landlord attended the property on 10 May 2022 and said it could not see any mould in the basement. The landlord’s records state a surveyor should be instructed to investigate the issues.
On 3 October 2022 the resident reported that her kitchen units were falling apart, the doors were off their hinges, handles were wobbly, and the shelves had fallen out of place. The landlord attended the property on 4 November 2022, its records state the resident said she did not want any repairs carried out as she was told she could have a new kitchen.
On 30 January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her basement and living room. The landlord’s records show a job was created and then cancelled.
The resident made a complaint on 2 February 2023. She said she had been reporting flooding and damp and mould in her basement for 3 years. She said she had damp in her living room, and the landlord had ignored her reports of disrepair in her kitchen.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and:
1. Said it had taken prompt action to attempt to address the issues reported. However, it had failed to address the causes of the issues and accepted that it should have considered waterproofing the basement at an earlier stage.
2. Acknowledged that if it had taken more urgent action it may have prevented problems occurring to other areas of the property.
3. Said it had arranged for a surveyor to investigate the flooding in the basement on 10 March 2023.
4. Offered £350 compensation for inconvenience.
On 6 March 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. She said the basement had been flooding for 4 years. There were delays in cleaning up the flood water, and some leaks contained sewage water. She said she was told many times that there would be permanent solutions such as a sump pump, but these were never put in place. She said the damp is expanding across more walls and her living room is unhabitable due to the smell. She feels neglected and her children’s health had deteriorated. She asked the landlord to resolve the issues and asked for more compensation.
Between March 2023 and June 2023, the resident reported her basement had flooded several times.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and said:
1. Its records indicated that the resident first reported the basement flooding in December 2020.
2. It acknowledged that there was a delay in it locating the source of the leak in the basement and taking steps to prevent it from reoccurring.
3. A contractor recommended a sump pump on 17 November 2022, which was 2 years after the resident reported flooding. Its records do not show whether a pump was ever installed.
4. On 12 May 2023 a surveyor said the rainwater gulley was the cause of the leak in the basement and it will investigate this further on 20 June 2023.
5. Its stage 1 complaint response did not say how it intended to remedy the damp and mould or the repairs to the kitchen.
6. It had not been provided with any evidence to support the resident’s comments that her children’s health had suffered as a direct result of the issues. However, it understood the ongoing and repeated issues affecting the property had caused a great deal of distress and worry.
7. It apologised for the length of time it has taken to fully resolve the matters and for its handling of the situation overall and offered £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she was not happy with the landlord’s final response. She wanted the landlord to:
1. Offer further compensation.
2. Replace the kitchen units, floor, and door.
3. Damp proof, repair the cracks in the walls, and repaint the living room.
4. Waterproof the basement.

Events after the landlord’s formal complaints procedure

On 1 August 2023 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. The surveyors report said that it was reasonably likely that water penetration was occurring in the rear room due to defects in the brickwork and rendering on the rear elevation, leading to plaster bubbling. It said water had been penetrating the basement through issues related to the drains or cracks near the steps leading to the front entrance door. It suggested the following works were carried out:
1. Repointing
2. Reseal gaps and cracks in the ground
3. Repair the render
4. Unblock drains
5. Remove plaster on the lower level of the external walls
6. Stain block skirting boards
7. Redecorate affected areas.
On 2 August 2023 the resident reported a flood in her basement and said that rats were emerging from the basement and had bitten her children. The landlord treated this as another complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2023. It said that no evidence had been provided of rats, but it awarded £50 compensation because it had not carried out the damp and mould inspection within 4 weeks as promised in its stage 2 response dated June 2023 and the suggested works from the report had not yet been raised.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord attended the property and cleared the blocked gully.
On 13 October 2023 the resident reported another flood in her basement. On 16 October 2023 the landlord removed the water from the basement and patched up the plastering.
On 17 October 2023 the resident contacted her local MP about the recurring flooding in the basement and the damp and mould in the property. She said the delays in the landlord clearing the flood water had made the situation worse and it had not pursued a permanent solution to the leaks.
On 24 October 2023 the landlord installed temporary guttering to divert water away from the gully to prevent the basement from flooding.
On 30 October 2023 the resident made another complaint to the landlord. She said her basement continued to flood during periods of rainfall. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 November 2023. It acknowledged that prior to May 2023 it had consistently failed to seek a permanent solution to the flooding and there were avoidable delays in works being carried out. It apologised, offered the resident £2500 in compensation, advised how the resident could make a claim against its insurance for damage to belongings and said it would carry out works to replace the gully within 2 weeks.
On 2 November 2023 the resident reported flooding in her basement and asked for the aqua vacuum team to attend.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord attempted to carry out works to replaster, seal, and paint the mould in the living room, however, the resident was not home. They carried out these works on 5 December 2023. At this appointment the operative suggested that the landlord should instal thermal boards in the living room to help the room heat up quicker and prevent mould forming.
The resident has told this Service that the gully was replaced which has stopped the flooding in the basement. She said at the date of this report the landlord had not taken any action to resolve the damp and mould and the disrepair in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. 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 landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours and rectify within 24 hours. The policy states an emergency repair includes faults or disrepairs that constitute a safety hazard, or which make a property uninhabitable. Its target response time for urgent repairs is 5 calendar days and routine repairs is within 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states in deciding whether to award compensation, the investigating officer must consider whether the complainant has suffered injustice because of the maladministration or fault. The policy states a payment for distress is often between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged it can be up to £1,000. The payment for time and trouble is likely to be between £100 and £300.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding in the basement and the associated damp and mould.

The landlord was aware that the flooding in the resident’s basement had been an on-going issue for years. From February 2022 the resident repeatedly told the landlord that the flooding occurred after rainfall. There was no evidence the landlord investigated the cause of the flooding until May 2023, this was a significant delay. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. Instead, when the resident told the landlord the flooding had returned it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This was not resolution focused. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to ensure they understood the root cause of the matter.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident its surveyor had established the cause of the flooding in May 2023. However, the landlord failed to carry out any works until October 2023, this was 5 months later. Due to the resident’s ongoing reports which indicated the issue was not fully resolved, the landlord then provided a further repair 2 months later which permanently resolved the issue. This was 7 months after the landlord’s first response. This was a significant delay which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 24 March 2022. The landlord inspected the property on 10 May 2022 which was outside its target timescale of 28 calendar days. At this appointment it was recommended that a surveyor carried out a damp and mould inspection, however, this was not carried out until 1 August 2023, almost 3 months later. The landlord has not provided evidence to this Service that it has completed all the suggested works in the surveyor’s report at the date of this investigation. The landlord acted inappropriately by repeatedly failing to adhere to its target timescales and has failed to carry out recommended works to resolve the damp and mould. These delays have left the resident and her children living with damp and mould for a significant period.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the flooding and damp and mould was going to be resolved. This led her to reporting the same issues several times and repeatedly chasing updates. She contacted her local councillor, MP, and this Service for support in communicating with the landlord to resolve the flooding, damp, and mould. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord records showed that it repeatedly told the resident to contact its contractors. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord must ensure it maintains contact with the resident throughout the repair process and avoid leaving external contractors to communicate with residents directly. This ensures the landlord is fully aware of all issues and the onus is not put on the resident to report these or chase for updates. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate effectively with the resident.
The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her family health issues. No evidence was provided to this Service that showed the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until it issued its stage 2 complaint response, showing a lack of empathy towards the resident. The landlord failed to fully evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household and the level of risk they were exposed to. It failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord considered loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place while it investigated the cause of the flooding and the damp and mould. This could have included dehumidifiers, support from third parties and a decant assessment. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident and her household living with damp and mould without any interim measures or appropriate support.
There is no evidence that the landlord learnt from this complaint. The resident made two further complaints about issues with the basement flooding before the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to put things right. The landlord offered the resident a total of £700 compensation in its stage 1 and 2 responses for how it handled the flooding in the basement and the associated damp and mould. The landlord offered the resident a further £2500 in its recent stage 1 complaint response in November 2023. Any offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process and after the involvement of this Service cannot be purported to be ‘reasonable redress’. This is because for redress to be reasonable it should take place prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. Actions made following the landlord being made aware of an investigation cannot be described to be on the landlord’s initiative and is not in the spirit of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
In summary there were significant delays in the landlord investigating the cause of the flooding in the basement and carrying out the necessary works to permanently resolve the issue. There was a lack of communication, the landlord failed to consider vulnerabilities in the household and it did not carry out a risk assessment. It failed to consider interim measures and offer appropriate support. Although the landlord has carried out works to resolve the flooding in the basement and after its internal complaints procedure acknowledged most of the above failings and offered the resident redress. The landlord has failed to evidence to this Service that it has resolved the damp and mould and carried out all the recommended works in the Surveyor’s report dated 1 August 2023. The resident and her children have been living with damp and mould for 2 years, which has caused significant distress and inconvenience.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp and mould.
The landlord provided evidence of a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report. As part of this the landlord is looking to implement a new damp and mould policy and renewing its current repairs policy. This would be a positive step to the landlord improving its response to damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen

The resident reported issues with her kitchen on 3 October 2022. The landlord inspected the kitchen to identify if any repairs were needed on 4 November 2022, this was 32 calendar days later which was outside its target response time of 28 calendar days. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord contacted the resident about the kitchen repairs after this appointment. We would have expected the landlord to write to the resident and discuss all options available to resolve the kitchen repairs or that it deemed there were no repairs needed. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint that it had ignored her reports of disrepair in the kitchen in its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response; however, it did not state what action it was going to take to put things right. This was a significant failing that left the resident without any resolution to the issues she reported.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it has communicated with the resident about her reports of disrepair in her kitchen since she initially reported the issues on 3 October 2022, which was 1 year and 5 months ago. At the date of this report the landlord has not explained its position in relation to her request for repairs to her kitchen. The landlord has acted inappropriately by failing to investigate the resident’s report of repairs for a significant period, the delay has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of disrepair in her kitchen.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted a complaint on 2 February 2023, no evidence was submitted to this Service that the landlord acknowledged the complaint within its 3 working day timescale or told the resident when she would expect a response. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023, this was just outside the landlord’s target response time of 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged its failings in resolving the flooding in the basement and stated what action it had taken, what action it was going to take and offered compensation for the inconvenience caused. However, it failed to investigate the resident’s complaint about the damp and mould and the kitchen repairs. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this within its target timescale of 3 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023, this was 66 working days later, which was outside the landlord’s 25 working day target response time. This was a significantly delay. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident not knowing when she would receive a response to her complaint. This led her to chase an update several times which caused her distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it failed to say how it intended to remedy the damp and mould and the repairs to the kitchen in its stage 1 response. However, the landlord showed no learning from its mistakes as it also failed to state how it was going to put things right in its stage 2 response. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to fully investigate all complaint issues raised by the resident.
In August and November 2023, the resident raised further complaints about the flooding in the basement and the damp and mould. The landlord reviewed its previous complaint responses and its handling of issues over the same period. Although it was positive that the landlord awarded the resident further compensation, its late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. The late offer of compensation means the landlord did not follow part 4.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity”. If the landlord had offered the compensation at the appropriate stage of the complaints process the Ombudsman may have found it had put things right and resolved the issue fairly. When compensation offers come after the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to fully investigate all the issues raised, there were significant delays and a lack of communication. The landlord’s responses did not state what action it was going to take to put things right and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble she experienced in bringing her complaint.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding in the basement and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord investigating the cause of the flooding in the basement and carrying out the necessary works. There was a lack of communication, the landlord failed to consider vulnerabilities in the household and carry out a risk assessment and it failed to consider interim measures and offer appropriate support. The landlord has carried out works to resolve the flooding in the basement and after its internal complaint’s procedure acknowledged most of the above failings and offered further redress. However, the damp and mould issues are still outstanding at the date of this report which has caused the resident and her family significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has not provided any evidence it considered, investigated or communicated with the resident about her reports of kitchen repairs. The landlord acknowledged these failings in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses but did not take any action to put things right. The landlord left the resident in a position where she was left not knowing when the issues would be resolved for a significant period.
The landlord failed to fully investigate all the complaint issues raised, there was significant delays in its stage 2 response and a lack of communication with the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to state what action it was going to take to put things right and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A senior member of staff should do this.
2. If the landlord has not already done so it should pay the resident the £2500 compensation it offered in its complaint response dated 13 November 2023.
3. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation in addition to the £2500 it has already offered. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen repairs.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The landlord must write to this Service and the resident setting out the damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord should either confirm that it has affected a lasting resolution to these issues, specifying what that resolution was and when it was affected, or set out how and when it will diagnose the issues and affect a solution.
5. The landlord must inspect the resident’s kitchen and consider whether it needs replacing. Within 7 days of the inspection the landlord must write to this Service and the resident setting out what action it is going to take:
  1. If the landlord decides to replace the kitchen it must look at whether any temporary measures or repairs are needed within 4 weeks of the inspection.
  2. If the landlord decides the kitchen does not need replacing it must provide an explanation of how it came to that decision and consider if any repairs are needed and set timescales of when these will be carried out, which must be within 4 weeks of the inspection.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures. The landlord must provide a copy of the case review to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Code.