Havering Council (202226938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226938

Havering Council

22 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 resident’s reports of leaks in the property, causing damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom house. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities, and both her children have a respiratory condition, and one of her children is also disabled.
On 15 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from her roof which caused water to run down the walls, ceiling, and chimney breast in both the bedrooms. An inspection was completed on 20 December 2022 at which point it was established that scaffolding was required to the property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2023 and said that despite two operatives attending, no repairs had been completed as scaffolding was required. The water leak appeared on both chimney walls and had spread across the ceiling in one of the bedrooms. She explained that she had disabilities as did one of her children, and both of her children had asthma. The resident sent a follow-up email on 30 January 2023, reiterating her concerns regarding the damp and mould and the impact on her children’s health.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 3 February 2023. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience that had been caused which it said was due to the delay in the scaffolding company providing a date to erect the scaffold. The resident was assured that once the scaffolding was in place, it would investigate and resolve the leak without delay.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response because of the time it had taken to commence repair works and the impact it was having on the health of her family.
A stage two response was issued on 10 February 2023. The landlord confirmed that it would complete a mould wash on 14 February 2023 which would be completed over a four monthly period. It confirmed that the roof repairs should have been completed by 30 January 2023 (within 28 days of being notified) but due to difficulties in confirming a date with the scaffolding company, it did not uphold the complaint and was satisfied that arrangements for works had been made.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord completed a mould wash treatment in the property and the scaffolding was erected on 21 February 2023.
The resident requested an escalation to stage three of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 February 2023 and asked the landlord to clarify its timeframe for responding to damp and mould. She said that despite reporting the problem on 15 December 2022, an inspection was not completed until 31 January 2023 and considering the health of her family, she felt it wasn’t actioned as it should have been. Works to the roof had not been completed.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 1 March 2023 that works to the step flashing had been renewed around the chimney breast and a missing roof tile replaced, mortar renewed, and guttering cleared. The resident subsequently disputed that the works had been completed and sent photographs of the roof repairs. She asked that the painting works were completed and that she was reimbursed for the costs incurred in paying someone to move her bedroom furniture so the damp and mould could be treated.
The resident pursued the matter again on 14 March 2023 when she advised that owing to heavy rainfall, both bedrooms had become unusable, and the family were sleeping on the floor. She asked that a surveyor assess the damage as well as the works the contractor said it had completed to the roof.
The scaffolding was removed on 18 March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord to say that she was not aware that the scaffolding was being removed, and an inspection had not been completed following the contractor’s repairs. She asked the landlord for an explanation as to the recurring leaks despite its contractors stating that the repairs were completed.
The resident contacted the Service in March 2023 and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. As a resolution she requested that the leak was fixed, the bedrooms treated for damp and mould and decorated and that the chimney breast was removed.
The landlord issued a stage three complaint response on 8 September 2023 and offered sincere apologies for the “extreme delays” in the resident receiving a stage three response which it said was unprecedented. It had found that the roof had not been repaired within eight days as outlined in its repairs policy (although the Service notes that it confirms seven days in the policy). It had “ignored the policy” and had not treated the matter as an emergency which it should have done given the damage it was causing and the impact on the household’s health. It confirmed that a post inspection was not completed. It agreed to reimburse £50 to resident in paying for her bedroom furniture to be moved in addition to £50 compensation for the time and inconvenience experienced in the handling of the complaint.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

The records show that repairs to the roof remained ongoing over the following months, and the evidence provided by the landlord suggests that the leak was rectified in November 2023.
The landlord confirmed in an email to the Service on 28 March 2024 that an inspection on 16 January 2024 showed that there was no leak but resulted in further works being raised.
The resident has confirmed to the Service that in her opinion, the leak remains “active” and has resulted in her initiating a disrepair claim in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the delayed completion of the repairs on her health and that of her children’s. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding their health however, it is not possible in this case for the Ombudsman to determine if the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) impacted the household’s health in the way described. This may be more appropriately considered by a court or personal injury claim, where medical evidence could be obtained and considered. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Assessment

The Service acknowledges that the resident has experienced distress because of the ongoing water ingress into her property, which she states has caused damage to her property and personal belongings. During this time, the resident and her children have continued to be affected by the conditions in the property, which is a particular concern.
The landlord’s repairs policy divides repairs into four categories, emergency, urgent, routine and planned. It confirms that if a resident is vulnerable, it may schedule a repair faster than normal. Appendix 1 (table 2) in the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will carry out an urgent temporary fix within three working days, where water is penetrating habitable areas.
The landlord did not attend within its prescribed timeframes. It attended five working days after being notified of the leak, which was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy. Of concern is that an internal inspection of the property was not completed until 31 January 2023, 30 working days after the report, despite the landlord’s knowledge that water was running down the internal walls.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould explains that landlords should make the most of every opportunity to identify and address damp and mould. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess and monitor damp and mould in the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord was made aware of damp and mould on 25 January 2023 which was later verified in an inspection on 31 January 2023 when the surveyor noted that the walls were “wet.” The Service would expect as a standard, minimal approach to ensuring the safety of residents and the habitable condition of the property, evidence of assessments and/or retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook. It is a particular concern that evidence of these assessments has not been provided.
Despite the landlord’s repairs policy confirming that it ‘may prioritise repairs where vulnerable households are identified’, the landlord failed to expedite the repairs considering the health needs of the family. The evidence strongly indicates that this aggravated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, and that the landlord failed to foster an empathetic response given the respiratory conditions of her children and her concern that “mould is a silent killer.”
The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in repairing the leak which it attributed to the contractors not providing a date to erect the scaffolding. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not request the scaffold until 26 January 2023, 22 working days after the initial inspection on 20 December 2022. The landlord has not explained the reason for this delay.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repair complaints, identified that where complex or extensive work is required, landlords should acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs, explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if they are provisional. It also says that it may be appropriate to explain whether compensation will be considered once the works have finally been completed.
The landlord’s stage two response found no failings in its handling of the leak and was “satisfied” that arrangements had been made to repair it. The response failed to adopt a resolution-focused approach in assuring the resident that it would monitor the repairs until their satisfactory completion. Further, it failed to consider reviewing the complaint upon the completion of the repairs to consider whether compensation was necessary if the resident was to experience further delays, as detailed in the Spotlight Report.
The landlord completed a mould wash on 14 February 2023, 14 working days after the resident raised her concerns of the impact of damp and mould on her family and 10 days after the surveyor detected “wet walls” and mould in the property. The lack of prompt action taken by the landlord up to this point was unreasonable and does not demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns as seriously as it should have done.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord’s contractors confirmed that it had completed repairs to the roof. However, the resident disputed this and reported the bedrooms had become “unusable.” It was reasonable for the resident to request a survey of the repairs, following the continuation of the leak after the repair. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to post-inspect and a departure from its repairs policy to “ensure works are completed to the required quality.” As such, it was unable to ease the concerns raised by the resident or provide robust evidence to conclude that the integrity of the roof was sound.
While the landlord was aware in March 2023 that the repairs had not been effective in resolving the leak, the resident was left in an uncertain position. The lack of swift action by the landlord would have elevated her concerns and failed to demonstrate a resolution-focused approach.
The resident raised her concerns about the impact of the living conditions on her and children on 25 and 30 January 2023, 7 and 23 February 2023, and on 14 March 2023 notified the landlord that she and her children were sleeping on the floor due to the “unusable” bedrooms. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered the reported conditions, or the vulnerabilities of the household to take robust action and expedite the repairs. A further two months passed before a further repair was completed, in May 2023. The landlord may have mitigated some of the detriment caused if it had post-inspected the works when it was notified of the persistent problem in March 2023.
Between March 2023 and May 2023, the evidence does not show that the resident was provided with support, or advice on how to manage the situation. There is no evidence of how the landlord intended tomonitor the damp and mould, or that it considered and/or offered dehumidifiers as a temporary measure while the leak remained outstanding. During this time, the resident and her children continued to be affected by the conditions in the property, which is a particular concern. It is not evident that the landlord considered its obligations, under the HHSRS in this case.
Another “ongoing” repair was raised on 30 October 2023 with water running down the chimney breasts in the bedrooms. An inspection was completed on 4 November 2023, and the records indicate that the leak was traced and repaired on 16 November 2023. The records of an inspection that the landlord carried out in January 2024 note that no leak was evident. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome of inspections carried out by qualified personnel, however, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has stated that the leak remains “active” and to date has not been satisfactorily resolved.
Overall, the resident went to significant time and trouble to progress the investigation and repairs. This caused her significant frustration, distress, inconvenience, led her to feel issues raised were unresolved, and undermined her confidence in the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged delays and the inconvenience caused and identified failings in its management of the case at stage three of its complaints process, its apology and offer of £100 compensation was significantly delayed, and disproportionate to the failings in this case.
Further, the landlord failed to identify any learning from the case or demonstrate that it had fully understood its failings, considered any missed opportunities, or identified further steps it needed to take to improve its response to similar circumstances in the future.
In considering a proportionate level of compensation, the Service has considered the landlord’s failure to act within a reasonable timeframe following the report of the leak, the distress and inconvenience that has been caused for over two years as well as the missed opportunities by the landlord to resolve the leak, which the resident reports remain ongoing. Therefore, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
The compensation awards ordered below are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, where the landlord’s response to the failures undermined the landlord-resident relationship, and where the failures accumulated over a significant period.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a three-stage complaint procedure. At stage one of this procedure, the complaint should be responded to within ten working days. At stage two of the complaint procedure, it should respond within 25 working days and at the final stage, the landlord should provide a response within 30 working days.
While it recognised failings on its part, it failed to put things right by satisfying itself as part of the complaint investigation that the leak, and damp and mould had been resolved, and the remedial works had been completed. There is no evidence that the landlord used the complaint process as an opportunity to ‘learn from outcomes.’
The stage two responses were brief and did not acknowledge its failings or the impact of these on the resident. It would have been appropriate for the response to acknowledge the resident’s concerns in relation to her family’s health. The landlord’s records confirm that “no service recommendations were provided at stage two as a full investigation was not carried out due to outstanding work booked in to be completed.” Its response lacked empathy and consideration of the circumstances of the resident and her family.
Additionally, it failed to assess its previous actions to conclude that the actions it had taken were reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances in this case. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
The landlord subsequently reviewed its stage two response and produced a stage three response. While it is positive that the landlord took corrective action to address something it felt it had got wrong, issuing a stage three response 137 working days after the escalation request was significantly outside of its service standard. The landlord took 90 working days to provide a response after it had reviewed the case on 3 May 2023. The Service would expect the landlord to agree an extension with the resident and confirm this in correspondence, however there is no evidence of this.
Its review stage response was again cursory and lacked sufficient detail to show it had meaningfully investigated the complaint. While the landlord recognised failings on its part, it did little to “put things right” for the resident, the least of which should have been to satisfy itself that as part of its complaint investigation, all repairs were satisfactorily resolved and or completed. As it did not, the landlord failed to sufficiently consider the impact its actions had on the household. There is little evidence that the landlord took steps to “learn from outcomes”, and there were further failings post-complaint response in the landlord’s completion and monitoring of repairs. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge the adverse effect caused to the resident by living in a property with damp and mould.
The landlord’s failings in its complaint handling constitute maladministration and an additional order of compensation has been made, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This order is proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident, following the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with the service standards set out in its complaints policy and its repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint to reach a resolution, which led to considerable delays. The landlord failed to use the complaints procedure as an effective tool to resolve the dispute, compounding its handling of the substantive issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property, causing damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2450, made up of:
  1. £1500 for the delay in repairing the leak affecting the resident’s enjoyment of her property.
  2. £750 for failing to consider the vulnerabilities of the household and for the distress and inconvenience this caused because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  3. £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. If already paid, this should be deducted from the overall total.
3. The Service understands that a RICS survey has been completed in March 2024 as the resident is pursuing a disrepair claim so no further orders relating to the works will be made.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a review at senior management level to determine the reasons for the failings in this case, and what action it should or has already taken to prevent a reoccurrence of these. The review should include but is not limited to an assessment of the management of the leak, damp, and mould in this case, including its oversight of works completed by contractors, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould and consideration of whether the development of a specific policy on damp and mould would be beneficial (if one does not already exist).
2. How it communicated with the resident about the diagnosis and assessment of the leak, damp and mould
3. How it responds to reports of vulnerable residents and uses this information to expedite repairs where appropriate and provide additional support if required.
4. The outcome of the review and details of any remedial actions taken or planned should be shared with the Service, also within eight weeks.