Colchester City Council (202226995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226995

Colchester City Council

8 April 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 reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom first floor flat, in a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her.

Summary of events

The resident reported that plaster was coming off the chimney breast around the fireplace, around the 15 July 2022. The exact date is unclear. The landlord marked the job as complete on 15 July 2022; the outcome is also unclear.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 and reported there was “condensation dripping” from the ceiling in her son’s bedroom. The landlord sent an internal email the same day to raise a damp and mould inspection.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 to chase the repair to the chimney. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day to chase the outcome of the repair raised in July 2022, and said:
1. It appeared the repair the plasterwork did not go ahead. I
2. It asked if a follow on repair was raised.
3. The notes reflected it was unable to repair the plasterwork because there was water “seeping into the brickwork”.
4. It also noted there were honey bees nesting that needed to be removed before works could go ahead.
It is unclear whether the internal email was responded to at the time.
The landlord instructed an independent surveying company to inspect the property on 8 December 2022. Following the inspection, it sent the landlord a report that said:
1. In the living room:
  1. There was evidence of possible rain water penetration down the chimney breast, and it recommended instructing a roofer to investigate.
  2. There was mould on the ceiling which “could” be down to “insufficient insulation”.
  3. There was condensation on the windows and mould around them. To overcome the condensation a constant heat level, and increased ventilation, was needed.
2. In the bedroom:
  1. There was evidence of mould on the ceiling and “water droplets” on the left hand side of the building. This was “all to do with condensation”.
  2. There was “probably” a lack of insufficient insulation in the ceiling contributing to the issue.
3. In the landing area:
  1. There was water droplets on the loft hatch, it recommended insulating the loft hatch to remedy this.
4. In the rear right room:
  1. There was mould on the window frame, “caused by condensation”.
5. In the kitchen:
  1. There was mould on the ceiling, and this was “due to condensation”.
  2. The extractor fan in the kitchen was working, but it needed to be cleaned and serviced.
6. The report noted the resident was drying clothes in the bedroom, which was not “helping the condensation problem”.
The resident contacted the landlord on the 12 January 2023 and asked about the outcome of the inspection, as she had not heard anything. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day chasing the outcome of the survey. It is unclear if the email was responded to, or if it replied to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023, and said she had still not heard anything about the survey, and said she wanted to complaint about its handling of the matter. The resident submitted a complaint on the landlord’s website on the same day, and said:
1. She had been contacting it about leaking windows and “dripping water” from the walls since 2021.
2. She had received a letter in 2021 about the landlord’s intention to upgrade the insulation in the building, but had not heard anything since.
3. She had to dry the walls and ceilings “every day”.
4. Plaster and paint was coming off the walls, and her carpets were “constantly wet”.
5. It had not addressed the chimney repair, and she was concerned about the presence of bees in the chimney.
6. She had not heard anything since its recent inspection, and had to chase it “multiple times” for a response.
7. She had been “forgiving and understanding” about the delays, but it had now gone “too far”, and she was upset at the conditions she was living in.
The landlord exchanged internal emails about the property on 31 January 2023, and said:
1. It was unclear if the resident’s property had been assessed for its insulation.
2. From what the resident had described it “all point[ed] to insufficient insulation”.
3. It was unclear if it had investigated the possible leak around the chimney.
4. Work was still ongoing to improve the insulation of its stock, and the resident’s property was part of a “large project” started back in 2020.
5. It noted that in “most cases” once a property was put forward for cavity or loft insulation it got “lost in the system”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 to chase its complaint response. The landlord responded on the same day, apologised for the delay, and asked for an extension. It said it would issue its response by 15 February 2023. It sent its stage 1 response on 13 February 2023, and said:
1. It had arranged an inspection of the property for 14 February 2023 to get a “clearer understanding” of the problems. Its visit would specifically look at the condition of the windows, and the insulation.
2. It was “clear” there was a “breakdown in communication”, and it offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 February 2023 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, and said:
1. She was unhappy there was a delay in sending its stage 1 response.
2. The officer who had called to book in the upcoming inspection was “patronising”. They had asked her if she was ventilating and “mopping up” the excess water in the property. She felt that they were trying to blame the issue on “tenant lifestyle”.
3. She was unhappy that it was doing another inspection, as it had already done so “multiple times”.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2023, and said:
1. It had raised works, following its visit on 15 February 2023, that would help manage the damp and condensation in the property.
2. The works were to be completed by 15 March 2023, and were to:
  1. Fix “leaking hopper” on the bath that caused water to leak out when the bath was emptied.
  2. Clear out the chimney of debris, and renew the air vent.
  3. Renew the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. Add more loft insulation, including insulating the loft hatch. (the repair log indicates this was completed on 9 March 2023).
3. It offered its “sincerest apologies” if its operative was patronising in “any way”. It explained that “many elements” contribute to damp and condensation.
4. It made an increased offer of £400 in compensation.
The landlord completed the remaining repairs set out in its stage 2 complaint response in 2023. The works and dates are set out below:
1. Installed the new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 30 March 2023.
2. Fixed the ‘hopper’ on the bath on 10 November 2023.
3. Cleared out the debris in Chimney and renewed the air vent on 23 November 2023. (the repair log indicates the resident cancelled an appointment to complete this repair in June 2023).
The resident contacted this Service in November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the bedroom in the property was “covered in mould”, and in the winter months she had water “dripping” from the ceilings.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states where damp or mould issues are identified its specialist contractor will do a survey. The contractor will return its report and ‘remediation schedule’ within 20 days of the issue being raised. Mitigating actions recommended from this survey are actioned within its repair timeframes which range from 1 day for emergencies, 5 days for urgent repairs and 21 days for non urgent repairs. It states it always ensures that any identified defects are remediated as soon as possible.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaint within 5 workings days, and send a response within 10 working days. It states it will send stage 2 responses within 20 working days.

Damp, mould, and the associated repairs.

During the course of her complaint, and in her correspondence with this Service, in November 2023, the resident raised a concern that damp and mould had impacted on her son’s health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the remit of this Service.
The resident also raised a concern that her personal possessions were damaged by the damp conditions in the property. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, it is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is, however, the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The evidence seen for this investigation shows that the resident reported a further leak to the roof in February 2024. The evidence indicates that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair. While her concerns are noted, the later report of a roof leak is not within the scope of this investigation. Our Scheme states that a landlord must have had the opportunity to address a resident’s concerns on an issue as part of a formal complaint response. As such, this investigation has focused on the events leading up to the resident making a complaint, and the events shortly after she exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
When the landlord was on notice about the resident’s concern about leaks, damp, and mould is disputed. In her complaint the resident claimed that she had been reporting the issue since 2021. To assist us in our investigation, the landlord supplied a repair log dating back to the start of the resident’s tenancy. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the resident reported issues about damp and mould until her report of November 2022. As such, for the purpose of this investigation we have determined that the landlord was on notice about that issue from November 2022, and have assessed its handling of the issue thereafter. The evidence shows it was on notice about some issues with the chimney stack from July 2022.
When the resident first reported an issue about the chimney stack, the landlord marked the job as complete on 15 July 2022. There is no evidence to indicate what works it completed, or if it identified any follow on. This was a failing in its record keeping, which can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its ability to effectively respond to the issue.
Later internal emails, seen by this investigation, show that the landlord did not progress with the repair because there was water “seeping into the brickwork”, and it required further investigation. There is no evidence to indicate that this repair was followed up at the time it was raised. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, and evidence the landlord did not act in line with its repair timeframes. Considering the conditions described by its own officers, it is concerning the landlord was not more proactive in trying to address this repair.
Despite the above comment being made in an internal email, in November 2022, there is no evidence to indicate the email received a response. There is also no evidence that it sought to investigate the repair further at the time. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that caused an unreasonable delay for the resident. The resident was evidently distressed by the conditions she described that the landlord was not proactive in addressing the matter increased the detriment she experienced.
Following the resident’s report of a damp within her property, the landlord raised an inspection with its independent surveyor, promptly. The evidence shows this was within the timeframes set out in its damp and mould policy.
Despite the damp and mould inspection being raised within a reasonable timeframe, the evidence shows the landlord did not raise any follow on works within the timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. The inspection identified possible remedies to the issues, and the repairs were not booked in until March 2023, 3 months after its inspection. This was well outside of the 20 day timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in her property, the detriment was increased by the landlord’s lack of urgency, and failure to adhere to its policy timeframes.
The evidence shows the landlord did not communicate the outcome of its inspection to the resident. She was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly ask it for an update, in January 2023, without receiving an appropriate response.
The evidence indicates there was a disconnect between the team the resident reported repairs to, and the team responsible for delivering the repairs. It is apparent that, when the resident chased repairs, it would chase its repairs team. The evidence shows that in November 2022, and January 2023, the relevant team did not respond to internal enquiries, and it was unsure about what repairs were needed or had gone ahead. This poor information management can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays in tackling the identified repairs.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management cites that “poor record and information management” play a pivotal role in findings of maladministration in repairs cases. This evidence indicates that the landlord’s poor record keeping around the repairs in this case impacted on its ability to respond in a timely manner. The particular issues in this case are that it did not book follow on repairs, or appropriately record the outcomes of repairs visits. This left its officers not knowing the stage the repair was at, or what its proposed next steps were. Considering the impact its poor information management had on the resident’s complaint, an appropriate learning order is set out below.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of February 2023, offered compensation for its handling of the issues, which was appropriate. But, the complaint response offered very little assessment of its handling of the issue up to that point, or why it was offering compensation. This was inappropriate and can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its overall handling of the issue. Had it appropriately reflected on its handling of the matter up to that point it may have assisted it in preventing further delays.
That the landlord raised a further inspection of the resident’s property, as part of its complaint investigation, supports the conclusion that its original survey lacked the appropriate thoroughness. The resident was evidently frustrated by this, as indicated in her stage 2 escalation request, as she wanted it to address the repairs it had already identified.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, appropriately, outlined the repairs it planned to do to rectify the issues in the property. While it is noted that it increased its offer of compensation to £400, it did not offer any assessment of why it had done so, which was inappropriate. The landlord’s complaint response appeared to accept failings, by offering compensation, but failed to identify what those failings were, or what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was inappropriate and is evidence the landlord failed to properly investigate the concerns raised in order to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the matter.
That the landlord sought to apologise for the tone adopted by its operative in relation to condensation, and ventilation, was appropriate. While this Service has not seen evidence of the conversation the resident was concerned about, the landlord appears not to have disputed the content of the conversation. Given the inspection identified issues with water ingress and inadequate extractor fans, it appears its operative over emphasised the resident’s use of the property, as a factor. This was not in line with the approach set out in our spotlight report on damp and mould that says that landlords need to move from “inferring blame to taking responsibility”.
In relation to the chimney issue the resident raised a concern, as part of her complaint, that the landlord had not addressed the infestation of bees. Both the landlord’s complaint responses were silent on the issue, which was unreasonable. It is noted the landlord told this Service that it does not attend to bee infestations, but that it did not signpost the resident to where she could seek assistance in this matter was unreasonable. It is also worth noting that if an infestation relates to a possible structural defect within the building, the landlord would need to take action to address it. The evidence shows there was a lack of appropriate consideration of this matter. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
The landlord did not complete the repairs to the bath until November 2023, 8 months after it was on notice about the issue. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by this, as the repair issue identified would have contributed to the level of moisture within her property.
The landlord did not seek to complete works to the chimney until June 2023, nearly a year after it was on notice about the issue. It is noted that the resident cancelled the appointment for June 2023, so the landlord is not responsible for the entirety of the delay. However, it is evident the landlord was not proactive in booking the repair initially, and indeed after the resident cancelled the appointment. Given the nature of the repair, the lack of proactiveness on the part of the landlord is concerning.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s initial survey lacked the appropriate thoroughness, as it needed to book a follow up survey before raising repairs. The evidence also shows it failed to book repairs within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. Given the length of time it took to address the chimney repair, the further reports of water ingress, and the resident’s ongoing concerns about mould, we have made an order to inspect the resident’s property.
At the time of its final offer of compensation, the majority of the repairs it identified were still outstanding. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to appropriately reflect on its handling of the matters, and its apparent admitted failings. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of its poor communication, and failure to progress with the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Considering this, its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of orders are set out below.

Complaint Handling

The landlord did not send its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The evidence shows that it was not proactive in letting the resident know that the response would be delayed. She was cost time and trouble by needing to chase it for a response. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling, and a failure to abide by the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. The Code states a landlord should provide an explanation to the resident about delays containing a clear timeframe for when it will respond. That it was not proactive in doing so, caused the resident an inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 18 working days after it was made. While not an excessive delay, the landlord did not apologise for the delay within its complaint response, this was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint responses were silent on multiple issues the resident raised as part of her complaint. As outlined above, its complaint responses were silent on the bees issue, which was inappropriate. The landlord also told this Service the renewal of the cavity wall insulation was not “relat[ed]” to the complaint. This was inappropriate. The resident raised a concern, in her original complaint, that she had received a letter in 2021 about an insulation upgrade, but had not heard anything. The landlord’s silence on this aspect of her complaint was a failing in its complaint handling.
The Code states “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord not addressing specific issues she had complained about. Its failure to address all of the concerns the resident had raised created an unfair complaints process.
As outlined in detail above, the landlord failed to show learning about its admitted failings. There was an, albeit minor, delay in sending the stage 1 response, which it failed to acknowledge. It did not address all aspects the resident complained about in its responses, which caused a further inconvenience. The lack of reflection of its own actions can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the overall poor handling of the substantive issues in the complaint. As such, an appropriate learning order is set out below.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord’s record keeping around the repairs was poor, and it was at times unclear on what action it had taken, or needed to take. The landlord was not proactive in booking follow up repairs, and failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in its damp and mould policy. It failed to show an appropriate level of learning about its admitted failings, which meant similar mistakes continued to happen.
The landlord failed to show learning about its admitted failings. There was an, albeit minor, delay in sending the stage 1 response, which it failed to acknowledge. It did not address all aspects the resident complained about in its responses, which caused a further inconvenience. The lack of reflection of its own actions can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the overall poor handling of the substantive issues in the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £400 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Given its silence on these matters throughout the complaint, write to the resident to outline:
  1. When it plans to upgrade the cavity wall insulation.
  2. Its position on the bee infestation, and how it can support the resident to address it.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the ongoing concerns about damp, mould, and water ingress, instruct an appropriately qualified, independent surveyor, to inspect the resident’s property and identify any repairs needed.
2. Conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs, and identify points of learning to reduce the risk of similar failings occurring again, with a particular focus on:
  1. The impact of its failure to show learning throughout the complaint.
  2. Its knowledge and information management, including record keeping.
  3. Its poor communication with the resident, and internally.
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. The importance of a thorough and transparent complaint investigation that seeks to show learning about admitted failings.
  2. The importance of responding to all aspects of the complaint.
  3. The importance of proactively communicating complaint response delays to the resident, and acknowledging any delays in its complaint responses.