Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London Borough of Newham (202227845)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227845

Newham Council

30 August 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom maisonette.
  2. The landlord sent a building surveyor to inspect mould in the resident’s bedroom on 12 April 2019, following a report from the resident. The surveyor recommended overhauling the bathroom extractor fan, which the landlord did on 26 April 2019. The surveyor also recommended installing thermal boarding on the ceiling in the front bedroom. The landlord completed this on 18 October 2019.
  3. Following new reports of dampness and mould, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the roof on 8 January 2020 and the property interior on 11 February 2020. The landlord installed thermal boarding on the window wall and carried out painting in the affected bedroom as the surveyor recommended. It completed these works on 22 May 2020. Nothing further was reported by the resident until 2022.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 November 2022 as damp and mould had re-emerged. She was unhappy this was in the room where the landlord had previously completed repairs. She wanted the landlord to come out to the property to inspect. The landlord sent a surveyor to perform an inspection on 9 December 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 16 December 2022. It partially upheld her complaint, offering £50 for failing to respond in its policy’s timeframe. It confirmed that an asphalter was attending on 16 December 2022 to ascertain the required external repairs. It said that once it had completed these, it would perform any necessary internal works and redecoration.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 December 2022. She was unhappy that previous repairs had not rectified the situation and that the mould had reappeared. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 January 2023. It provided the resident with a further £50 for its delays in answering her complaint. It acknowledged that the damp and mould was a reoccurring problem and provided £550 for the distress and inconvenience this had caused. This made the overall compensation offered throughout the complaints process £650. It said that each time the resident reported mould, it had surveyors perform an inspection. It then completed the actions and repairs recommended. It said that it would begin the external repairs on 23 January 2023. Following these, it would then perform the internal redecoration and repairs. It completed external roof repairs on 24 January 2023.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this service on 14 February 2023. She was unhappy that she had not heard from her landlord about the repairs in over 5 weeks. She said that the mould had been ongoing since 2017. She told this service she would like the landlord to accept responsibility for the reoccurrence of mould. She also wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience to her family. The resident confirmed to this service that internal repairs started on 14 August 2023 and were ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this service, there has been reference to historical complaints regarding damp and mould issues which have not been progressed through the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents can be referenced to provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events 6 months prior to the complaint being raised and the elements of the complaint that the landlord has responded to. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in 2019 and 2020 have therefore not been considered as part of the resident’s complaint due to the 18-month gap between reports.

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

  1. The landlord does not have a damp and mould policy which outlines how it will deal with these issues. As the landlord does not have specific policies and procedures, this service expects a landlord to respond to reports of dampness and mould within a reasonable timeframe. In this service’s opinion, a period of 28 days is reasonable in the circumstances and in line with common practice in the industry.
  2. Despite the landlord completing the external roof repairs, the resident has reported that the internal work and redecorations remain outstanding. The landlord committed to completing this as part of its stage 2 response. It has failed to fulfil these commitments in a reasonable time. These began 10 months after the resident’s initial report of dampness and mould and 7 months after the landlord’s contractors completed external repairs. This was not a reasonable timeframe from the landlord.
  3. The length of time taken for the landlord to complete these represents maladministration. The Spotlight report says that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The length of time the landlord has taken to complete the repairs it outlined has not been timely and did not reflect the urgency of the issue.
  4. The landlord has said the delay was due to issues with the resident providing access. No evidence has been provided to show that it contacted the resident about access to the property. The resident has said the landlord has not contacted her since its stage 2 complaint response.  If the resident had concerns about providing access, this service would expect the landlord to attempt to resolve these. The contractor emailed the landlord on 8 February 2023 asking for it to arrange access with the resident. The landlord does not appear to have taken any action regarding this. This represented a failing from the landlord to properly manage the repairs and communicate with all the involved parties.
  5. The Spotlight report highlights that this service’s investigations have often found poor communication, particularly regarding inspections, outcomes and timetabling of works. This service found that poor communication often contributed to exacerbating the situation. In this scenario the landlord was unaware that its contractors had not completed the necessary repairs. Residents can often fall through the gaps between different departments, with no one taking overall ownership for resolving the problem reported. This appears to be what has happened in this situation with the landlord’s management of repairs. This represented a failure in managing the repairs, communicating with all the necessary parties, and record-keeping.
  6. The landlord should consider its current approach to record keeping and satisfy itself it is sufficiently accurate and robust. The landlord should also consider whether its record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
  7. This service does also note that the resident did not chase the outstanding repairs with the landlord in the timeframe this investigation has covered. It would have been a reasonable action for the resident to take in making sure the internal repairs were completed. The landlord should nevertheless have been aware that the internal repairs remained outstanding.
  8. The delays caused by the landlord’s poor management of the repairs no doubt contributed to the resident being in a property which had extensive damp and mould. She has told this service this had a significant impact upon her mental wellness and physical wellbeing. The landlord should therefore pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience its actions and inactions have caused.
  9. The resident has stated that she feels previous repairs were not extensive enough to prevent a recurrence of the dampness and mould in the property. As these earlier repairs fall outside of the scope of this investigation this service has not considered this as part of this investigation.
  10. The landlord should consider publishing both a repairs policy and a damp and mould policy outlining the actions a resident can expect it to take in these circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it takes into consideration the recommendations and examples of good practice contained within this service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
  11. It is recommended that the landlord make all relevant staff and contractors aware of this service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. 
  12. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould. The landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation for its failures. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s failure to complete the repairs it promised in its stage 2 complaint response left the resident inside a property requiring repair because of damp and mould for 10 months. This had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. If the resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, it then attempts to provide its complaint response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord failed to meet the timelines set in its policy at both stage 1 and stage 2. It took 17 days at stage 1 and 25 days to provide its response at stage 2.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £50 for its stage 1 failure and £50 for its stage 2 failure. Given the length of the delay and the inconvenience caused to the resident, this was a reasonable offer of redress from the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s responses were fair in content and tone.
  5. If the landlord has not already paid the combined total of £100 redress to the resident for its failings, it is recommended it reoffer this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000, inclusive of its previous offer of £550, for its failure to handle the reports of damp and mould in a fair and reasonable manner.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its failure to do so.
    3. Provide evidence to this service it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures of £50 for its stage 1 failure on 16 December 2022 and £50 for its stage 2 failure on 20 January 2023.
  2. The landlord should publish both a repairs policy, and a damp and mould policy on its website to provide residents with the expected actions and timescales they can expect from the landlord to complete any necessary repairs. The landlord should ensure that it takes into consideration the recommendations and examples of good practice contained within this service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord make all its relevant staff and contractors aware of the Spotlight report on damp and mould.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord should consider its current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. The landlord should also consider whether its record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.