Basildon Borough Council (202223904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223904

Basildon Borough Council

21 December 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.
4. The landlord’s complaints handling.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secured tenancy which started on 6 December 2010.
The property is comprised of a kitchen, bathroom and one main room for living and sleeping in which is situated on the ground floor.
The resident lives with his partner and their two children. The resident’s partner has been dealing with the complaint with the landlord and the Housing Ombudsman. Both the resident and his partner will be referred to as the resident in this report.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy explains that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, action, or lack of action by the Council or its employees”.
The landlord’s complaints policy, dated March 2022, comprises two formal stages. Prior to this it will however try to resolve the matter informally in the first instance where it is possible to do so, in agreement with the resident.
If the matter cannot be resolved initially by the landlord within three working days or if the resident chooses not to allow the landlord to try to resolve the matter informally then it will be escalated to a stage one complaint. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within two working days. The landlord will then provide its response within 15 working days. If it is unable to respond within this time it will provide the resident with an explanation for the delay and provide a date by which it will respond.
If the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate the matter to stage two within 28 days from receipt of the stage one response. The resident is required to explain what they feel was wrong with the outcome at stage one, including providing supporting evidence. The landlord will acknowledge the complaint escalation within two working days and aim to provide its response within 15 working days. If the landlord exceeds this deadline it will provide an expected revised response date and an explanation for the delay.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it is responsible for structural repairs and maintenance. It adds the resident is responsible for decorating and minor repairs. Examples of housing repairs which the landlord is responsible for includes repairs to the “roof, walls, ceilings, window frames, outside doors” and also to “kitchen and bathroom fixtures – basins, sinks, toilets, baths and showers”.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that if the repair contractor misses a pre-arranged appointment the resident would be entitled to £20 for each missed appointment.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out how it deals with emergency repair work and routine repairs. The landlord deems any “repairs to remedy any defect which puts anyone’s health, safety, or security at immediate risk or which affects the structure of a building” as emergency repairs. It adds that requests for emergency repairs should be made by phone. Routine repair work is defined as “repairs for defects which may cause some inconvenience but do not pose any health, safety or security risks and it is not essential to carry out an immediate repair”. The policy sets out that routine repairs should be booked via the resident online portal. No response time for either emergency or routine repairs has been provided by the landlord.
The resident portal is an online option by which the resident can book repairs, view the repair history and provide reminders of appointments. The portal offers the resident the option of an appointment date when providing details of the repair required. The portal sends out a confirmation once an appointment has been booked.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains in relation to damp and mould that it is important for the resident to report it as soon as possible. It added that the requests would go direct to its contractor. The policy listed the four main types of damp which could affect the property: rising damp, penetrating damp, defective plumbing and condensation. In terms of condensation problems which the policy states “often causes black mould which can affect walls, ceilings and window frames”, it states that the resident should do a number of things which includes trying to make sure there is ventilation in each room by opening windows or vents.
The landlord has provided limited records to the Ombudsman and this Service has therefore used the resident’s account of events as the basis for the summary of events. This Service has commented further on the landlord’s record keeping later in this report.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord on 9 September 2022 to report mould in the property. The resident explained that the mould was present both in the bathroom and in the living room. The resident confirmed that there was no issue of anyone suffering from Covid-19 at that time and that she had a three-month-old baby in the property.
The landlord’s contractor noted that it had attempted to attend the property on 26 September 2022 in terms of undertaking a mould wash. The landlord’s repair log indicated that the resident had been unwell and did not want the work done on the day. As a result the landlord’s contractor had abandoned the job. This has been disputed by the resident. The landlord’s repair log indicate that the landlord had treated mould in the kitchen and bathroom on previous occasions in 2021. During those visits its operatives had undertaken mould washes and applied treatment to the walls.
The resident explained she had contacted the landlord about a leaking toilet on 17 October 2022. She stated she had been informed that someone would contact her the following day to book an appointment. However no one had telephoned her. The landlord’s repair log show it classified the works as being emergency in nature.
The resident stated she had then called again on 20 October 2022 and an appointment had been scheduled for 4 November 2022. The resident had then made a complaint about the timescales as she stated the ongoing leak could make the mould and condensation in the property worse.
The resident explained she had been called on 21 October 2022 by the landlord’s complaint team. It explained that a mould wash was scheduled for 24 October 2022. The resident stated she had also been informed by the landlord that it would call her back. However she had not received a call on either 21 or 24 October 2022.
The resident explained she had then called the landlord on 25 October 2022 to raise new mould issues which required the bath to be replaced. She stated that the landlord had called her back on 27 October 2022 and confirmed the leak work was scheduled on 31 October 2022, the appointment for the bath was scheduled for 7 December 2022 and the mould issue was scheduled on 7 November 2022.
The resident stated she had telephoned the landlord on 31 October 2022 as no one had turned up on that day. She was informed that no appointment had been scheduled for that day but that instead it was scheduled for 1 November 2022. This was a date the resident could not make so the appointment had been rescheduled for 8 November 2022. The resident had noted that the landlord’s contractor had explained that it had tried to attend on 31 October 2022 but that it had stated no one was at home so it had left a note to say this. This had been disputed by the resident.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 9 November 2022 and the work for the mould wash had been rescheduled for 18 November 2022. The resident stated the landlord had informed her the repair to the toilet was due on 11 November 2022 and a contractor had indeed attended at that time and replaced a part which had stopped the leaking. However the leaking had returned the following day.
The resident stated they were informed on 15 November 2022 that the mould issues in the property were the result of rising damp from a leak outside the property and that this was a big job which required the roof to be fixed first. No timescale was provided to the resident for how long the matter would take to resolve. The resident set out that she called the landlord about the work for which no timescale was provided and she had then contacted the contractor on 18 November 2022. She was informed that nothing had been booked and the roof fix had instead been scheduled for 24 November 2022. Upon trying the contractor again the resident stated she was informed that the emergency team would be coming out but that it could be anytime on that day. When she called back later in the day she was informed that it would be the following day (19 November 2022). She had then phoned again on 19 November 2022 and been told to call back after the weekend.
The resident raised an online complaint on 21 November 2022. She set out the background history of the works from the contact to the landlord about the leaking toilet on 17 October 2022. She explained the mould had destroyed their daughter’s expensive learning toys and she had been told she needed to wait six weeks for her “mouldy bath to be changed”. She also added that the mould which was the result of rising damp had rotted away the skirting boards and that, following resolving the mould, the skirting boards would need to be replaced. She added that she had been waiting three weeks for a call back from the landlord’s contactors’ complaints team. She added that their health was not considered by the contractor. She submitted photos of the flat. In terms of an ideal outcome the resident set out that she wanted the landlord’s contractor to do the repairs as an emergency straight away and to make the property safe for them and their children. She also wanted to make a complaint against the landlord’s contractor. The resident added that she had been informed that the property was a category one health hazard, that it was not safe for them to be living there and that she was awaiting a visit from both a health visitor and a surveyor.
The landlord’s internal communication on 21 November 2022 forwarded the resident’s complaint to its customer feedback team. It noted the timescales for it to provide the stage one response as being 10 working days.
The resident telephoned the landlord again on 24 November 2022. She explained there had been no contact from the contractor and that two previous appointments for the mould to be cleaned on 8 and 18 November 2022 had been missed by it. She had now been informed that there was no appointment scheduled until 19 December 2022, having only got that date after having waited the previous weekend for an emergency appointment which did not occur. The resident added she was concerned about the mould given the tragic recent death which had been in the news, as she had two young children and she suffered from a weakened immune system herself. The resident stated she wanted to be contacted and offered a newer more recent appointment. The resident also explained that she had an appointment scheduled for that day for someone to look at the roof. She added she had phoned in the morning as she was previously aware the appointment was for between 8am and 12pm. However the landlord’s contractor had informed her that the appointments had been pushed back and could be in the afternoon but she had not been made aware of this. She wanted to ensure that the appointment took place.
The landlord’s internal communication on 24 November 2022 asked whether the work which was scheduled for that day was due to go ahead. The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord back straight away to say the work was scheduled and the resident had been made aware. The contractor added that the resident had stated that she had spoken to the landlord on 21 November 2022 to raise the emergency mould wash however this had not been passed to it. However in any case it would not have classed a mould wash as an emergency repair so it was uncertain why the resident would have been told this. The contractor added the appointments on 8 and 18 November 2022 were missed appointments.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 24 November 2022. She requested that someone went out and inspected the mould as she felt “it is disgusting that they are being allowed to live in this situation”. The resident added she had tried to get environmental health service (EHS) to come and inspect. The landlord explained that, as it was a council property, the EHS would not investigate. The resident requested that she was contacted that day to discuss the matter.
The resident visited an outreach support service as she was concerned about the state of the property. Following the visit the support service contacted the landlord on 25 November 2022 on behalf of the resident. It set out concerns about the mould issue and that she had been contacting repairs for a number of weeks about ongoing issues and there had been missed appointments. It added the resident had been on hold from between 25 mins to up to an hour on each call and was not happy with the service. The resident had been told to expect a call back from emergency repairs which had not taken place. She had repeatedly asked for call backs and been told that a complaint could take 10 days to be responded to.
A surveyor’s visit was arranged for 25 November 2022. The surveyor explained the property suffered from mould growth and that the cause of this was not from one factor but from a combination of issues. The surveyor explained that the property was a small bedsitting room which was being occupied by four people. It noted the bedsitting room had been sub divided by the resident to “create a sleeping area that takes up about 50% of the floor space”. However the surveyor noted that the space was not habitable as it had no windows or ventilation.
The surveyor also noted that there had been leaks to a downpipe at the rear corner of the building which the resident had informed the surveyor had been repaired. The surveyor noted that he could see water staining externally around the pipe which had also affected the wall. The surveyor noted that the wall required a three-stage treatment as soon as possible to stop the mould growth. The surveyor also noted the resident had agreed to remove the partition in the flat and to reinstate the room to a bed sitting room which would improve the circulation of air.
The surveyor stated that “the problem of occupancy” was the main issue and t whilst he noted the resident had applied for a transfer, although they did not have the right level of priority to move, he considered “in my opinion the property is not fit for this family”.
The landlord’s internal notes show that it contacted its contractor on 25 November 2022. It enquired whether the visit which had been due on 24 November 2022 had taken place. It also asked whether a mould wash had been scheduled for the property. The landlord’s email explained the resident had been continuing to contact it about the mould in the property which she stated was unliveable and that she was concerned for her and her young children.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed in an email of 25 November 2022 that an operative had attended and carried out repairs. The notes of the work carried out stated that a repair had been made to the roof and that the damage showing inside the property looked like condensation issues.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 30 November 2022. It stated that following the resident’s complaint about a leak and mould and damp issues in the property which it received on 21 November 2022:
1. A surveyor had attended on 25 November 2022 to assess the matter. The surveyor had acknowledged that the property no longer met the needs of the resident’s family and they had applied to transfer to a bigger property.
2. The surveyor had noted the installation of a partition wall which had prevented ventilation in the room. The surveyor had asked the resident to remove the partition.
3. A mould wash treatment had been scheduled for 19 December 2022. Following the resident’s concerns about the timing of this appointment the landlord was able to bring the appointment forward to 7 December 2022. It added if this was unsuitable then it would look at alternative dates.
4. The leak to the toilet had been rectified on 14 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor had noted further works were needed to it and these were scheduled for 5 January 2023 which was the earliest appointment available. It added that if this date could be brought forward the contractor would do so.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December 2022 to ask for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage. She stated:
1. Whilst the landlord did send a surveyor, this had only been after she had rung a number of times waiting for an environmental health surveyor to come to the property. She had then been informed that her complaint had incorrectly been sent to the private housing sector team and that as a result it was unable to take action against its own council (as the landlord).
2. Environmental health had informed her that she needed to contact her baby’s health visitor to assess the conditions that she was living under. The health visitor was unaware of this process and she was moved from one team to another in terms of who she needed to contact over the matter.
3. That whilst they were on the housing transfer list they had been on it for six months and had not been getting anywhere on it. Even the landlord’s surveyor had accepted this was “not a liveable situation in the long run as the mould will definitely come back when it’s been cleaned”. She added the mould had still not at that time been cleaned and that it had been six weeks at the time.
4. The landlord and its contractor had not offered any compensation for the missed appointments which was not in keeping with the information on the landlord’s website.
5. In terms of the mould wash which had eventually been brought forward from 19 December 2022 to 7 December 2022 this had followed on from the missed appointments in November 2022 and was the result of a number of calls from the resident to the landlord’s contractor. The resident added the landlord had not helped her at all in making her complaint.
6. Whilst the landlord had stated that the leak had been “rectified” this was not the case but it was a lie from the contractor. The resident stated the toilet was continuing to leak from the same place, the day after the contractor had attended. She added she had to wait till January 2023 with the leaking toilet together with the other issues in the property, which she did not expand on.
7. She had still not been contacted by the complaints team for the landlord’s contractor over the past four weeks.
The landlord sent an email on 5 December 2022 to its contractor asking for a number of responses to specific questions asked as part of the resident’s complaint escalation. This included as to when the mould had initially been reported as well as questions about whether or not the toilet leak had been resolved. It also enquired about any missed appointments. The contractor replied to it on 9 December 2022 stating it did not think it had done anything wrong and that work had been scheduled in line with its service standards. The contractor added there had been no missed appointments.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 13 December 2022. It did not uphold the complaint and offered the resident the option to escalate the matter to stage three if they remained unhappy. In relation to the complaint made by the resident it stated:
1. The mould appointment which had been brought forward to 7 December 202 had now taken place and been completed.
2. In relation to the toilet, that its contractor when attending on 14 November 2022 had reported further works which had been required. These were scheduled for 5 January 2023 as a routine appointment. It added if the contractor could bring this appointment forward it would do so.
3. It could find no details of any missed appointments. However it invited the resident to provide further details so it could investigate this aspect further.
4. In terms of the resident’s comments about the environmental health team, a complaint had been registered by it on 22 November 2022. The following day it had stated it contacted customer services to say “housing complaints from council tenants were not within the remit of the private sector rented team (PSRT) to intervene”. This had also been communicated to the resident by email.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage three on 14 December 2022. The resident set out the two dates of the missed appointments by the landlord’s contractor which were on 8 and 18 November 2022. She added that she was unhappy with how the landlord and the contractor had dealt with the situation which had needed her to call again and again on the matter. She stated it had “let her live in these horrid, dangerous conditions for weeks”. On top of this the contractor was going to make them wait for four weeks after the surveyor had attended to do the cleaning. She added that the contractor’s complaints team had never contacted her despite her complaining to it directly.
The landlord issued the stage three letter on 4 January 2023. It stated:
1. Its contractor had attended the property on 26 September 2022 to complete the mould wash but had been unable to enter the property as the resident was unwell. It acknowledged missed appointments from the contractor had occurred on 8 and 18 November 2022. It added it would pay £20 compensation for each missed appointment.
2. The surveyor who had attended on 25 November 2022 had confirmed a mould wash would be needed. This had been arranged for 19 December 2022 but had been brought forward to 7 December 2022.
3. The surveyor had noted that the lounge/bedroom area of the bedsit had been sectioned off by the resident and there was no ventilation. Without the removal of the sectioned area, the surveyor believed that mould would continue to form as a result of the lack of ventilation. The surveyor noted the resident had confirmed that the partition would be removed, and the room returned to the original design.
4. It had discussed the matter with its contractor over the poor attendance and lack of communication. The contractor’s staff had been reminded of the importance to these issues by the landlord. It offered a further £50 compensation in relation to the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 5 January 2023. It explained the appointment to carry out work on the toilet scheduled on that day had been rearranged to 7 February 2023. It added if this appointment was not convenient the resident should call it.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 11 January 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 January 2023. It stated this email had followed on a call with the resident on 6 January 2023 and it confirmed that it would pay £20 for the missed appointment on 5 January 2023 for the repair to the toilet. The landlord also informed the resident that she would be contacted by an operative in relation to arranging an appointment for the ventilation at the property and that under the tenancy agreement the resident was required to give the landlord access to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s internal communication on 13 January 2023 noted that the resident had telephoned it upon receiving its email of 13 January 2023. The resident stated they had not refused access to the property. Instead the resident had asked “about the charge incurred to her for using the machine” for the ventilation. She had been told to contact the landlord for a response and had called it three times asking for a call back but had not received a response.
The landlord has confirmed that the resident moved to alternative accommodation by means of a mutual exchange on 22 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Since completing the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident has raised further issues. These include the issue of the humidity in the property as well as concerns about damp in her kitchen ceiling. The resident has also raised concerns about holes in the skirting boards and the leak to the toilet which she has explained was not covered by the landlord’s stage one through to stage three responses. The issue of humidity and the damp in the kitchen ceiling will not be addressed as part of this investigation, as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or which have not been raised with it in the first instance. The Ombudsman could make a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to check if there are any outstanding issues. However as noted above the resident has since moved from the property. In terms of the skirting board and the leak to the toilet, as these issues were contained in the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, they have been addressed in this investigation.
It is not in dispute that the property is overcrowded and was not suitable for the current household size of the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

The resident had raised the issue of the damp and mould in the property in September 2022. The landlord’s repair log show that it had scheduled a visit to the property to address these issues on 26 September 2022. However it added that the contractor had not been able to gain access to the property due to the resident feeling unwell, which the resident had disputed.
Upon being notified of damp and mould a reasonable course of action for the landlord would have involved it making arrangements to inspect the property. This would have allowed it to discover the extent of the damp and mould as well as determining a possible cause of it. Whilst the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property, this occurred on 25 November 2022. The surveyor’s visit had also followed on from repairs to the roof of the property which had taken place the previous day as well as the initial repair to the toilet which happened earlier in November 2022. Although the landlord’s notes show that the surveyor’s visit had been to determine if the property was still habitable for the resident, by waiting two months this would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. This was especially as the resident had explained that she had two small young children and that she suffered from a weakened immune system which the mould would have exacerbated.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of properties where potential hazards are identified. Where the source of damp and mould was not immediately obvious, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to eliminate potential root causes.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould, issued in 2021 actively discouraged inference or blame on residents for causing damp within their home. Following the surveyor’s visit he had identified a lack of ventilation in the property which the resident had adapted by means of placing a partition within it. Whilst the surveyor was of the opinion this lack of ventilation would have contributed to damp and mould within the property he had also identified a leak from the roof of the property which had caused damp to one of the property walls. The surveyor took reasonable action in asking the landlord to carry out a mould wash as well as looking at improving the ventilation in the property. Whilst the surveyor did ask the resident to restore the property to its original configuration by removing the partition which the resident had added, he had also suggested treatment to the wall where the leak from the roof had caused water to ingress into the property.
The mould wash for the living room of the property was scheduled for the middle of December 2022. This was based on the first available date which the landlord’s contractor had open. However the landlord did explain following the resident having questioned this date that, if the appointment could be brought forward by its contractor, then it would be. The landlord has confirmed that it was able to bring the appointment forward from 19 December 2022 to 7 December 2022. Whilst this was within two weeks of the surveyor’s visit it was still over two months after the mould wash had first been proposed by the landlord and after two earlier previous appointments by the landlord’s contractor in November 2022 had been missed by it.
Although the landlord has stated it did not consider the matter to be an emergency and so it would not prioritise the mould wash, this opinion was not shared by the resident. The resident has explained that she was informed when she had contacted the landlord’s contractor about the matter on 18 November 2022 that someone would initially attend on that day although it could be late in the day. When this had not happened she had then been informed a contractor would turn up the next day, during a weekend. The landlord has not provided notes of the communication between its contractor and the resident, and so it has not been possible to determine what had been discussed between the parties. Although the landlord states in any event a mould wash would not qualify as an emergency repair, this would appear to be contrary to the landlord’s repair policy. The policy defined emergency repairs as “repairs to remedy any defect which puts anyone’s health, safety, or security at immediate risk”. The mould could be a risk to the resident and her family’s health, especially as she had a weakened immune system and the landlord’s repair logs show that the issue of the mould had been a recurring issue which previous repairs had not resolved.
Whist the landlord did make an offer of compensation of £50 for the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident within its stage three response this offer was not proportionate. In addition to the mould wash, the damp had caused damage to the skirting boards of the property. Whilst the landlord in its responses to the complaint had concentrated on the issue of the mould wash it had not addressed the issue of the rotten skirting boards which the resident had raised as part of her original complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.

The landlord has stated in its complaint response to the resident that it had attended the property on 14 November 2022 and replaced the condenser pipe on the toilet. It added that it had checked that the toilet was not leaking and it was satisfied that this was the case at the time. Although it had subsequently noted further work was required for the toilet it added this was not emergency work and the work had been scheduled for the New Year. The resident accepted the landlord’s contractor had attended the property for the toilet leak, however this had been on 11 November 2022. This was 25 days after the resident had originally report the leak on 17 October 2022 when the landlord had deemed the issue to be an emergency repair.
The landlord’s repair logs show that a further leak had been noted on 14 November 2022 and that when it had attended the property as an emergency repair it considered there may be a “potential piping issue”. The contractor’s notes had noted under “recommendations for client” that it would suggest that the concrete pan collar was recemented. A work order for this had been logged the following day as a routine repair and this was scheduled for 5 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor had not attended on this date and instead had attended the property on 18 January 2023.
The repair logs show the resident had also raised a further leak to the toilet on 14 December 2022 and this had been logged as an emergency repair. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide any timescale for how long it will take to respond to either an emergency or a routine repair. In the case of the previous emergency repairs the landlord had attended within one working day. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord. However in the case of the routine repair recorded on 15 November 2022 the appointment had not been scheduled for seven weeks. As the issue concerned a leak from the toilet which had been ongoing for a month at that time, it was not appropriate for the resident to have to wait this further length of time for the repair to be attended to. Whilst the period did cover the Christmas and New Year period when staffing would have been on a reduced basis, the length of time was still unacceptable. The landlord has in its stage three response made a payment for the missed appointment in November 2022 However it had not made any offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident, which given the circumstances was not appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.

The landlord’s repair logs show that the issue of the roof had been noted by it on 18 November 2022 when it had noted that “the roofing is leaking into the living room causing rising damp in the property”. This date did not match the recollection of the resident who stated the issue of the roof had been noted on 15 November 2022. The landlord’s repair logs do show that the landlord had raised other jobs on 14 as well as 15 November 2022 in relation to the skirting board which was rotten and mouldy and the leaking toilet.
The repairs to the roof required scaffolding and the repairs to it which were noted by the landlord as being a routine priority were completed on 24 November 2022. There is no indication after this time that the resident had raised any further concerns about the roof. In terms of the time taken by the landlord to deal with the roof, as this took less than ten days from the time the issue had first been noted, this was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy explains that the landlord uses a two-stage formal approach after it attempts to resolve the complaint on an initial informal basis. Whilst the resident had initially been communicating with both the landlord and its contractor in terms of outstanding repair issues she had raised a complaint on 21 November 2022. The landlord had responded with both its stage one response and stage two responses within the timescales noted within its complaints policy. However following the stage two response on 13 December 2022 it had notified the resident that if they remained dissatisfied they could escalate the complaint to stage three. This option of a third stage was not in keeping with either its own policy or with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which came into force in April 2022. The complaint handling code explains that landlords should not prolong the complaints process and that the structure of the complaints procedure should generally only comprise two stages unless the landlord believed that a third stage was necessary; for which it was required to set out its reasons as part of its self- assessment. Another reason for a third stage would be if the resident had requested it. However in this case, the landlord rather than the resident had offered the option of a third stage and the stage three response was issued by it on 4 January 2023, some three weeks after the resident had responded to the stage two response.
The landlord has explained that, as it had been using its old complaints policy at the time of the resident’s initial complaint, it had continued on this basis for the remainder of the resident’s complaint. However the complaints policy it has provided to this Service was dated March 2022. This pre-dated the resident initially raising her complaint, which had been made in November 2022. Therefore the landlord should not have used its old complaints policy but rather the newer revised complaints policy.
As a result of the landlord’s actions, the complaints process became protracted and the resident was delayed in referring her concerns to this Service for further consideration. The adverse impact on the resident was that the delay caused distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Limited information has been provided by the landlord in relation to telephone conversations which it held with the resident. In addition the landlord has not provided any communication from its contractor to the resident despite it being requested by this Service.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in the management of the resident’s repair request as well as the complaints handling. These recording failures all amounts to a failing on the part of the landlord as they would have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration over the time taken to resolve the issues which she had raised. The landlord had repeatedly informed the resident that there had been no missed appointments by its contractors despite the contractor accepting at the outset that it had missed appointments. The landlord had also referred to events occurring on different days to the recollection of the resident. The resident’s version had also in part been backed up by the landlord’s repairs log. This discrepancy in dates would have led to the resident believing that the landlord was ignoring the information which she had provided without any explanation being provided by it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to deal with the issue of the damp and mould which involved a mould wash for a significant period of time. Although the landlord has stated the resident had refused access to its contractor in September 2022 as she was unwell this has been disputed by the resident. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous notes which show that it had attempted to attend the property on that day. Even after factoring in this appointment the mould wash was not arranged until December 2022, around three months after the resident had initially raised the issue. This was not appropriate especially given the resident’s health concerns and her apprehension on the effects of living in mouldy condition on her children.
The landlord has recognised at stage three of its complaints process that the service provided by it had fallen short and, whilst it made an offer of compensation, this was not sufficient for the distress and inconvenience which it had put the resident through. The landlord had also not addressed the resident’s concerns about the rotten skirting boards when considering the issue of damp and mould.
The landlord had initially treated the repair to the toilet as being an emergency. Whilst it believed it had rectified the leak in November 2022, the resident had informed it straight away that the leak was still occurring. Despite this the landlord treated the leak and the further works which it had planned as a routine repair and the matter was not dealt by it for a further two months. This caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord dealt with the repairs to the roof promptly. As it had involved scaffolding this would have taken the landlord some time to organise. Following the repair the resident had not raised any further concerns about the roof.
There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling by the use of stage three which was not in accordance with either its own complaints policy at the time or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The impact on the resident was that it caused a degree of distress and inconvenience.
There were record keeping failures by the landlord in terms of its communication as well as that of its contractor with the resident. In addition to call notes the landlord did not have details of missed appointments by its contractor.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £350. This is in addition to the £50 for distress and inconvenience and the payment for missed appointments as set out in the stage three response which it should also pay if it has not already done so. The further amount comprises:
  1. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.
  2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the toilet.
  3. £50 for the landlord’s failure in its complaints handling.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should ensure that its housing allocations team has correct information in terms of household circumstances and it should ensure the resident is kept updated in terms of the priority for rehousing.