London Borough of Redbridge (202210856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210856

London Borough of Redbridge

8 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the damp and mould repairs at the resident’s property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damage following damp related repairs.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident and her family reside in a two-bedroom semi-detached house owned by the landlord, a local authority. They have held a secure tenancy since 2013 and the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Following a survey in October 2021, work was undertaken to resolve damp to the floor and walls in the property. On 24 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was dissatisfied with the scope of works and the way they were carried out. She said the contractors did not put covering on the stairs or bedroom floors and as such they would need professional cleaning.
The resident complained on 11 April 2022 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould repairs. She said that she had not been compensated for damaged flooring and that she had requested insurance claim forms several times but had been ignored. She also said she had to struggle over eight years to get the damp issue dealt with and had been treated poorly by staff. In May 2022 the resident said the cost of new floor coverings throughout the house was approximately £800-900.
The landlord’s response issued on 21 June 2022 said it did not agree the compensation claim as it had worked hard to resolve the issue, with carpets having been covered during works and not damaged. The landlord pointed to the tenants’ handbook which said that loose floor coverings and carpets were the resident’s responsibility, and that she should be claiming for any floor covering through her contents’ insurance. The resident escalated the complaint on 11 July 2022 and said that she had no contents insurance. She said that the landlord’s surveyor had been out to the property six times and should have spotted ‘red flags’, but instead shortcuts were taken, and the damp reoccurred.
The final response from the landlord on 22 August 2022 apologised for the delay and poor communication from staff dealing with the complaint and offered £250 compensation for this aspect. It repeated that the contractors had covered the floor each day and that the resident should claim via their own insurance. The landlord did not address the resident’s statement that damp had reoccurred. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated the quality of the repairs.
The resident says that she feels that the landlord has not been accountable and wants it to compensate for the replacement of floor coverings after the damp proofing repairs. She wants the landlord to be held responsible and cover the cost of getting floor covering replaced on top of the £250 offered, due to stress and personal items damaged that were never considered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has a wider approach to investigating complaints and looks to establish what was fair in all circumstances. In both resident’s initial complaint and escalation request, in addition to the alleged floor damage, she had raised issues with the landlord’s handling of the damp repairs, their scope and the quality of works.
While she stated that her main complaint was about the floor covering, she was also dissatisfied with the overall damp proofing works and the reoccurring mould. However, in its responses, the landlord focused on the floor covering and failed to investigate its handling of the damp and mould repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould requires landlords to be more proactive and to increase its awareness to the issues experienced by residents related to damp and mould. It is important that landlords understand the problem, learn from the outcome and improve their system to prevent further risks.
It is concerning that in this case the landlord did not address the damp and mould under its complaints process and as such it missed an opportunity to review its action. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman, will include in its investigation the overall handling of the damp and mould repairs at the resident’s property.

Repairs to damp and mould

The repairs handbook shows that the landlord is responsible for internal walls, major plaster work, concrete floors and vinyl floor tiles when fitted by the landlord, as well as floorboards and joists. The tenant is responsible for loose floor coverings and fitted carpets. The landlord is responsible for major plasterworks to ceilings. The handbook says that routine repairs (not emergency or urgent) will normally be done within 28 days.
The tenancy conditions handbook section 3.7 lists the landlord’s responsibilities and says that the landlord will repair the structure of the building to include roofs, walls, floors ceilings, window frames, external doors, drains gutters and outside pipes.
The tenancy conditions handbook also says that the resident may be able to get compensation if certain repairs are not done within a reasonable time.
Landlord service housing compensation guidelines says that there are several considerations to take into account when the landlord decides whether compensation is appropriate – they include if a complaint is upheld, whether the situation is the fault of the landlord, whether the complainant has experienced significant injustice as a result of the complaint issue.
The landlord’s repairs log evidences an ongoing and reoccurring issue to the kitchen drainage causing back surging regularly and affecting the kitchen flooring and walls. This Service has seen evidence of this repeatedly reported between 2015 and 2022, with the last report of March 2022. While these appointments were attended, the landlord failed to demonstrate that in over 11 visits the issue has been permanently resolved.
In October 2021, an inspection to damp and mould was carried out and it is not disputed that the damp and mould issues were ongoing at the time and have impacted the whole property. The lounge, the hallway, the kitchen, and the frond bedroom were affected. It is noted that structural works were required to rectify the issues. However, those works did not include further inspection of the kitchen drainage issue and any hallway repairs. Additionally, the works identified had not started until February 2022.
The resident’s initial email dated 24 February 2022 highlighted concerns with the quality of the work, including that insulation board had been fitted over vents, and that there was no continuity in terms of skirting. The original complaint email in April 2022 said that this was the second time the damp and mould issue had been raised in four years and carried out by the same contractor. The resident also added that the work orders did not include the hallway although this had also been affected by mould. The resident said she felt there was a lack of ownership and she had to raise issues many times before any repairs were raised. She also asked for compensation due to the damage done to the flooring as a result of the works.
The landlord, however, failed to respond to the concerns raised about the quality and scope of damp and mould works, and rather focused on the carpets damage. At stage one, it said that “it was working hard to resolve the damp issue” and apologised if the resident had experienced “any delays in the works being conducted”. However, this Service has seen no evidence of its investigation into how it has handled the damp and mould issue. As such the landlord could not demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action.
Additionally, it failed to thoroughly investigate the cause of the damp in the kitchen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the drainage and back surge reoccurring issue did not contribute further to the dampness. As such, the landlord did not act with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, which requires it to adopt a more proactive and holistic approach in investigating damp and mould issues.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that some of the repairs identified in the report from October 2021, were completed in March 2022. There was additional decoration work which was completed in May 2022. However, the repairs log evidences that a further survey was carried out in October 2022, which was following the landlord’s final response from August 2022. The survey established that the damp and mould in the kitchen and front bedroom remained unresolved. The works were marked as completed in November 2022. Overall, the damp proofing works were completed over one year from the recommendation of the survey inspection from October 2021. This was unreasonable and not in line with the time frames of its repairs obligations.
The resident reported that she had been chasing repairs or any action from the landlord repeatedly. Additionally, given the unreasonable number of visits to inspect the property and to conduct the damp proofing repairs, it is fair to conclude that the resident experienced great inconvenience. She was also decanted for three days during the most disruptive works in February. There is evidence that when she returned to her property, the repairs were still ongoing. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate a resolution orientated approach on the landlord’s part, something which has clearly affected the landlord tenant relationship negatively.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould at the property amounted to severe maladministration. The landlord failed to complete the damp proofing repairs it had identified within a reasonable time and in line with its policy. It did not fully investigate its repairs handling and as such failed to put things right for the resident. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about this crucial aspect of her ongoing concerns when given the opportunity through its complaints process.
An order has been made with regards to establishing whether the damp and mould repairs were completed and of good quality. Compensation is also awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and considering the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance suggests that for cases of maladministration and severe maladministration with significant impact to the resident, a compensation in the range from £600 to £1000 is reasonable. Due to the considerable period of time for nearly 26 months for the damp and mould repairs to be completed and the landlord’s failure to offer any redress, the higher end of this scale is reasonable, and particularly £1000.

Damage to flooring

The landlord’s housing compensation policy says that ‘there are situations where compensation should not be offered, and the Council should be clear in making such decisions at an early stage. These include situations where claims should be made from the landlord’s or individual’s own insurance policy or where a legal claim is on-going, and damages could be awarded’.
The landlord’s online repairs handbook shows the landlord’s responsibility for tenanted properties. A table shows that the landlord is responsible for internal walls, major plaster work, plaster air vents, concrete floors (not including floor tiles) and vinyl floor tiles when fitted by the landlord, and floorboards and joists. The tenant is responsible for loose floor coverings and fitted carpets. The policy further says that the landlord’s contractor will ‘adopt a tidy work practice and leave the property in a clean state’.
In this instance, on 24 February 2022, the resident reported damage to her flooring due to no coverings having been used when work was in progress. Following the damp works in March 2022, the resident reported that she had been left at the property with concrete in her hallway and no carpets on the stairs.
Her complaint detailed that she had requested claim forms in emails dated 17 March 2022 and 21 March 2022 and had also left a voicemail. At stage one in June 2022, the landlord apologised if the surveyor did not have clear communication with the resident of any suggested outcome. However, it advised the resident to claim compensation through her building contents insurance.
In her stage 2 escalation she reported that damp issues had been reported since 2019 and not been resolved following at least 6 visits of the landlord’s surveyor, and particularly the work required to the front of the house and the entry hallway. Additionally, her son was vulnerable and affected by the way the house looked without the floor covering. Hence, the resident had to arrange for the flooring to be put down at her own expense. This was done on 16 June 2022.
This service has seen evidence that the resident provided photos of the condition of the hallway floor and stairs. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered those photos. In its final response, it said that the contractors were covering the flooring as a standard practice but could not demonstrate that it had investigated the issue with its subcontractors in full.
In circumstances like this it would have been reasonable for the landlord to firstly investigate whether the damage was not its fault considering the reoccurring damp and mould, the delay in dealing with the related repairs and the resident’s reports about quality of works. As such the landlord could provide faster and fair resolution through its complaint process by investigating thorough the cause of the damage and taking informed decisions about the carpet covering. The landlord did not do so and as such it did not act in line with its compensation policy.
Additionally, whilst the landlord was very clear in refusing the resident’s claim for compensation, it did not comment on her repeated request for an insurance claim form or a referral to its own insurer. The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord should be clear in making such decisions at an early stage, and that this would include situations where claims should be made from the landlord’s own insurance policy, but it did not direct her there. Instead, it repeated in both its complaint responses, even when the resident explained she did not have such a policy, that she should claim on her building contents insurance.
The landlord has not shown that it had investigated the issue of reported damage in full, nor considered the resident’s evidence or promptly referred the matter to its own insurance department. It did not do what was reasonable and in line with its policy. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the flooring. An order has been made for the landlord to reconsider the resident’s compensation claim and if it finds no fault to refer the case to its liability insurers.
Compensation for the inconvenience the landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the resident’s reports of damage to the flooring has been ordered. The sum of £200 is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This does not make any assumptions about the outcome of any insurance claim but reflects the frustration that the resident has experienced in trying to make a claim for alleged damage to the flooring.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy says stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlord to address all the issues raised in the complaint.
In this instance, stage one complaint was submitted on 11 April 2022 and the response issued 21 June 2022, 33 working days past the landlord’s time limit. The stage two complaint was submitted on 10 July 2022 and the response issued on 22 August 2022, 11 days over the landlord’s stated timescale. As such there was a considerable delay in its complaint handling and the landlord failed to respond within the timescales of its policy.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £250 compensation for the delay and lack of communication. It said that there was now a more robust system in place to ensure that such delays would not occur going forward, including a tracker on managers’ actions regarding complaints which evidence that the landlord has taken learning from the complaint.
However, it is concerning that the landlord failed to address in its complaints responses and investigate in full one of the main issues the resident raised, and particularly its handling of the mould and damp repairs. As such it failed to put things right for the resident and learn from the outcome.
In addition to the repair issues, the landlord failed to respond to other issues raised by the resident during the complaint process. The resident had explained in her original complaint that she felt discriminated against as a council tenant. The resident described instances where staff had made remarks that she was lucky to have a council property, and about the cost of repairs, but these issues were not investigated by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this issue to indicate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
At stage 2 the resident raised further the inconvenience the situation with the flooring has caused to her vulnerable child. However, the landlord did not address in any way or acknowledged the impact the situation had on the residents or her child. It failed to show any empathy or duty of care. As such, its omissions in the complaint handling affected negatively the landlord tenant relationship.
Whilst the sum of £250 previously offered by the resident is reasonable compensation for the failures the landlord identified, it is not enough to remedy the additional failures identified by the Ombudsman. As such higher compensation of an additional £100 has been awarded.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to flooring.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1550 for the failures identified in this report. Payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account. The payment comprises:

i. £250 previously offered to the resident if not already paid.

ii. £1000 in respect of distress and inconvenience the resident experienced caused by its delays in handling of the damp and mould repairs at the resident’s property.

iii. £200 in respect of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced by the failures in its response to her reports of damaged flooring.

iv. An additional £100 compensation in respect of the time and trouble incurred by the resident by its handling of the complaint.

Reconsider its compensation claim decision and if it finds no fault in its action, to signpost the resident to its insurance department and support her by making a claim on her behalf as appropriate.
Issue a written apology by a senior member of staff for the issues identified in this report.
Inspect the property to investigate further the drainage issue in the kitchen causing back surge and carry out any necessary repairs; to investigate whether there are any damp and mould outstanding repairs and carry them out.

The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has completed the orders listed above within four weeks of this determination.