Havering Council (202306892)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306892

Havering Council

30 August 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 and mould in the property and the subsequent handling of the remedial repairs.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She succeeded the tenancy in May 2011. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
While it is unclear, the evidence available suggests the landlord arranged to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in January 2023. The appointment was subsequently rearranged for 15 February 2023. However we do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of that visit.
On 20 March 2023 the resident made a complaint. She said:
1. there was damp throughout the property which was causing structural damage. Plaster and paint was coming away from the walls. She said that the landlord had not resolved the matter.
2. she was asthmatic and had “multiple attacks” throughout the winter. She said that the “wet walls” could have been the cause of her ill health over that period.
3. she had an appointment booked for 20 January 2023 at 1pm. However the operative arrived at 12pm. She said that the operative then failed to call her back and the repair had to be rearranged for 15 February 2023.
4. the chimney and roof were the causes of the issues. However they had not been repaired.
5. The issues had been ongoing for some years and the repairs and damage to internal walls needed to be resolved.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it “inspected the issues.” At that time it had liaised with the resident’s relative and there was some miscommunication. It said that the surround around the bottom of the chimney stack was repaired.
2. there were access issues on “another occasion.”
3. it had asked its surveyor to re-attend and raise any outstanding works following the new inspection.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof. It noted:
1. the roof looked “OK.”
2. there was no water ingress in the upstairs bedroom.
3. the chimney stack had what “looked like rising damp.”
4. another trade was needed.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 3 May 2023. It noted:
1. It had unblocked the living room vent.
2. the back garden wall was covered in ivy which may be the cause of the issues with the vents in the back bedroom.
3. there was no air circulation in that room and the room may benefit with another vent at the top of the window.
On 12 May 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. the landlord told her in its stage 1 complaint response that it would arrange for its surveyor to carry out an inspection. That had not happened.
2. she was told by a contractor that that the chimney was not the issue and the issue was the “rising tide.” She was told that more ventilation was needed and that the ivy needed to be removed. She said that was approximately 2 weeks ago. She had not heard anything since.
3. she called the landlord and was told that the repair had not been added to the system. She was told that there was no evidence of someone attending the property nor had any work been raised.
4. the matter was getting worse. The walls were wet and she was taking stronger asthma medication.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. its surveyor should re-inspect the property. It would monitor the status of the inspection and the subsequent outcome. It had arranged for the surveyor to contact the resident within the following 5 working days.
2. its records showed that the concerns around the ivy had not been progressed. It said that the surveyor would look at the matter when he inspected the property.
3. it upheld the resident’s complaint.
On 25 May 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Legislation, policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s responsive repair policy stated it would:
1. provide a range of appointments at times to suit residents.
2. where it was not possible to identify the problem it would send a surveyor to visit properties to fully identify the scope of works required.
3. complete routine repairs within 28 working days of the request.
Its complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.
Both the Decent Home Standards and The Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018 state landlords must make sure that its homes are free from ‘serious’ hazards and must ensure that its resident’s homes are fit for habitation

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has explained that the damp and mould in her property affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.
It is noted that the resident raised her concerns that the issues had been ongoing for many years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from early 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the residents’ complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould and the subsequent remedial works

While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that the landlord attended to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property around 15 February 2023. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous notes relating to the visit. It is unclear whether the landlord has not kept a record or has done so but failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. As the landlord has not provided a record of the outcome of the visit, it has been unable to demonstrate that it took appropriate action at that time to reasonably resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In her original complaint in March 2023, the resident said that there was damp and mould throughout her home which was getting wors. She added that the landlord had not resolved the matter with the roof and chimney repairs outstanding.
In response that landlord said that it had inspected the issue and repaired the chimney stack. As the landlord did not specify when it carried out these actions it is unclear when they took place, and it is not clear from the records that have been provided to this Service either. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. Not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman, when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling the provision of accurate information to residents.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, its contractor attended around 20 April 2023. It noted that the roof “looked OK” and that there was, “what looked like rising damp” in the chimney stack. It said that another trade was needed. However, the evidence available suggests that no further investigations were undertaken by the landlord. Given that the resident had raised health concerns and a clear need for further investigations and remedial work was identified, that the landlord failed to act on this report was inappropriate. Our 2021 Damp and Mould spotlight report stated that in relation to damp and mould reports, effective diagnosis is critical. The landlord failed to act appropriately based on the evidence that is available and this was a significant failing.
This not only caused the resident distress and inconvenience, but time and trouble as the evidence shows that she chased the landlord again around the end of April, or at the beginning of May for an update. At this time she reiterated that she had damp and mould in her home and that the walls were “crumbling”. The evidence suggests that in response the landlord’s contractor attended on 3 May 2023. It reported that ivy was causing issues with the vents in the back bedroom and that the room may benefit from another vent. There is no record that the landlord followed up on the contractor’s recommendations and notes on these issues. This was a further failing on behalf of the landlord.
This was the second time that the landlord failed to act on its contractors recommendations following a visit to the property. It is unclear if this is as a result of poor repairs management or because of failures in the landlord’s record keeping. Our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights this issue when it stated that “creating data in systems that hold it appropriately are the first steps needed for good data management, but to turn that data into knowledge and action plans, it must be used.” In this instance, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s poor knowledge management meant that the necessary investigations and remedial works to resolve the matter were delayed further. That is an additional failing that exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Subsequently, the resident escalated her complaint. She explained that following the landlord’s contractor visit, she had not heard from the landlord and that the surveyor had not attended as suggested in its stage 1 response. Given the circumstances and the evidence that demonstrates that the surveyor did not attend as stated; the landlord’s failure to adhere to its own commitment was inappropriate. Not only did this mean the resident incurred further time, trouble and distress chasing the matter, but the landlord missed several opportunities to carry out a vital and fundamental inspection into matter in a timely manner. Our spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case the landlord failed to do so.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would contact the resident within the next 5 working days to arrange a date for the surveyor to re-inspect the property. As we do not have any contemporaneous records, it is unclear whether the inspection went ahead. In the circumstances, the landlord should have maintained a clear record of the visit and it should have also written to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection. That it did not was a further failing.
The evidence suggests that in the following months, the landlord carried out some surveyor inspections and repairs. In July 2023 the landlord noted that it had re-inspected the chimney stack and it was “all dry” and on 21 September 2023 the ivy had been removed. In internal correspondence around the same time, the landlord stated that it had attended and that the damp issues had “subsided considerably” and that the resident had agreed that she would contact it if the issue reoccurred. It is noted that around that time, that the property’s windows had been replaced. It is unclear whether the landlord had reviewed its contractor’s recommendations about installing additional vents.
While the landlord had stated that the resident had agreed to contact it if the matter reoccurred, given the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that it inspected the property within a reasonable period on its own accord. This would have demonstrated that it had taken proactive steps in monitoring and reviewing the matter. This would have also aligned with our spotlight report that stated that “Landlords should implement a data driven, risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. This will reduce over reliance on residents to report issues.”
The evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord took any steps to note the condition of the property in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It is unclear why it failed to do so given the resident’s own comments about the conditions within the property and how they were affecting her. There is no record of the landlord undertaking a risk assessment or considering any interim measures to address the issues that the resident had reported, such as carrying out a mould wash or providing the resident with a dehumidifier. If the landlord did not consider that such measures were necessary, it should have advised the resident as such and made a clear record of its decision. However, based on the evidence that is available, the landlord failed to act appropriately in response to the concerns that were raised by the resident about the conditions within the property.
Overall the landlord failed to demonstrate that it:
1. carried out appropriate and meaningful damp and mould inspections.
2. followed up and completed remedial works in a timely manner.
3. took into account the resident’s vulnerability when deciding how to deal with the damp and mould that had been reported.
4. kept the resident reasonably updated.
The landlord’s failure to monitor and progress the case as outlined above meant that it took it approximately 7 months to resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. Therefore there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home and the subsequent handling of the remedial repairs.
Based on the evidence that is available, we consider that payment for loss of amenity would be appropriate in this case. The resident was clear and consistent in explaining how the condition of the property had affected her. It took the landlord 31 weeks to take some meaningful action, such as inspecting the chimney and removing the ivy. Therefore, we consider that it is reasonable for the landlord to pay £2,250 compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the property during this time. We do not have the rent charge at the time of the complaint. Therefore, the compensation has been calculated using 25% of the £316 per week, which has been based on rent data for the property from the regulator of Social Housing.
It is stressed that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

When the resident made a complaint on 20 March 2023, she said that her ill health may have been a caused by the condition of the property. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address her concerns. Given that the resident raised concerns that the conditions within the property may have contributed to her ill health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the matter. For example it would have been appropriate for it to have referred the resident to its insurers to make a public liability claim if she wished to do so. That it did not was a failing.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord did not adhere to the prearranged time for her January 2023 repair appointment and that it had not resolved the damp and mould issue. In response the landlord referred to an appointment where it stated that it had repaired the chimney stack. It also said that “there was access issues on another occasion.”
These responses were vague and did not adequately address the resident’s complaints. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the date in which the chimney stack was repaired and reasonable evidence that it did so, such as a summary of the visit notes. This would have demonstrated that it was relying on accurate information for its response.
The resident said that operative arrived an hour earlier than arranged and therefore she missed his visit. The landlord’s responsive repair policy stated that it provided a range of appointments at times to suit residents. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns and provided her with the outcome and its position. Our KIM report highlights the importance of this. It recommends that landlords set out clear requirements of operatives before they are allowed to record an appointment as missed. “This should include ensuring that the appointment was notified to the resident, it was made at a time they could attend, checking that any contact requests were adhered to, guidance on what level of contact”. While it is unclear there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated the matter adequately and therefore failed to provide the resident with an appropriate response. That it did not was a further failing.
In the resident’s escalation request, she explained that the surveyor had not carried out an inspection as stated in the landlord’s stage 1 response. While the landlord said that it would arrange for the surveyor to re-inspect the property. It did not specifically address the resident’s concerns that he had not already carried out an inspection. This meant that the resident’s concern went unanswered and the landlord may have missed an opportunity to fully put matters right for any further time, trouble and distress that the resident may have incurred. Therefore the response did not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
It is also noted that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that its visits and follow up works had not been recorded on its system. As noted above, the evidence provided to this Service suggests failings in the landlord’s record keeping systems and processes. The landlord could reasonably have used the resident’s complaint as an opportunity to review its systems, identify why the failings had occurred and taken steps to try to put things right. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this matter further. It therefore failed to respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately but also missed an opportunity to learn from the complaint and implement changes as necessary.
Overall, the landlord failed to investigate and adequately address some of the resident’s specific concerns that she raised in her complaints. This meant that she incurred unnecessary time trouble pursuing the matter further. In addition, some of her concerns went unanswered. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould and the subsequent handling of the remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £2,550 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £2,250 for reduced enjoyment in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent handling of the remedial repairs.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent handling of the remedial repairs.
  3. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to ascertain if she has any concerns about damp and mould in her home. In doing so, the landlord should consider undertaking a damp and mould inspection. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a report of the outcome of any visit. If remedial works are required, they should be arranged within 2 weeks of notification.
4. Contact the resident to ascertain whether she would like to make a claim in relation to her concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her health. The landlord should provide the resident with its insurance team details, if she wishes to pursue the matter.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report. The review should:
1. Consider, with reference to our spotlight report on damp and mould, whether it should implement a separate damp and mould policy if it has not done already, or include adequate processes within is existing repair policy and procedure to investigate and resolve damp and mould reports in a timely manner. In doing so, it should ensure that inspections and remedial works and completed in a timely manner.
2. ensure staff are trained/retrained on its complaint policy and procedures. Taking into consideration the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024. In particular, it should ensure that complaint responses adequately address all of the resident’s concerns. Also that its measures to put matters right are adequate and proportionate to level of time, trouble and distress the resident has incurred as a result of its service failure.
3. review its record keeping practices in line with our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report. In particular, ensuring that all contact with its residents, such as visits and calls are logged on its system, in relation to repairs.