Camden Council (202126123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126123

Camden Council

2 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Anti-social Behaviour/Noise nuisance (ASB) by their neighbours in the flat above.
2. Leaks into their property from the flat above.
3. Damp and mould in the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social Behaviour/Noise nuisance (ASB) by their neighbours in the flat above is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is because Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
On 17 August 2020, the resident’s NHO noted the resident’s concerns about the nuisance, particularly noise, by the neighbours which the resident has said the neighbour did not care about and it happened during the day but mostly at night with children running around, banging etc. The resident was advised to report incidents to Environmental Health (EH) and their request that the NHO do a ‘house sit’ after lockdown was agreed.
Between 19 August and 31 August 2020 the resident made at least five further reports to their NHO about noise disturbance from their upstairs neighbour’s flat. Again the NHO again suggested that the resident contact EH, explaining that they would require independent third party evidence in order to take action. The NHO also said that they would visit the neighbour and visit the resident to try and witness the noise. However, these could not happen at that time due to covid restrictions.
On 11 December 2020, the NHO confirmed that a letter had been sent to the upstairs neighbour regarding the noise nuisance allegations, their responsibility as a tenant and consequences should the allegations made by the resident be substantiated.
The issue of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was not raised in the resident’s initial complaint on 20 September 2021, nor responded to in the landlord’s stage one response.
The resident did raise concerns about the landlord’s response in their escalation request of 15 October 2021, referring to the upstairs neighbours having major house improvements completed, which went on for two months, 24 hours a day, with drilling, banging, sawing etc, and that the landlord failed to investigate the matter. These concerns did not formed part of the original complaint to the landlord, for which it had already issued its stage one response, nor were they responded to in the landlord’s final response but by the NHO in an email to the resident’s local councillor on 12 November 2021, following a visit to both the resident and their upstairs neighbour on 2 November 2021.
Whilst the resident clearly remains dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled their earlier reports of ASB, as this did not form part of the formal complaint made to and responded to by the landlord, this matter is outside of the jurisdiction of this service to consider.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2013. The resident lives at the property with her husband and has advised that the property is a two bedroom flat.
In 2014 the resident asked that the landlord inspect their home for rising damp, having described a leak in their bathroom walls as ‘seeming to come from the top as well as from the outside walls’ and that the leak water that was coming through the walls was ‘rusty’ in colour. The landlord’s records note that the plumber that attended cleared the silicone around the bath, toilet pan and skirting, remedied the leak from the WC waste outlet. The landlord raised a survey for rising damp and in April 2014 carried out works to hack back the bathroom wall and replaster, replaster hallway outside bathroom door, kitchen wall area and chimney breast in living room, noting that the bedroom area was dry. In May 2014 the landlord raised a job to hack off damaged plaster in the bedroom and render. A copy of the rising damp survey has not been seen by this service.
In 2015 the resident reported that the plaster was coming off the walls in the bedroom and kitchen. The landlord’s records noted that it attended, sealed around the window cill in bedroom, renewed damaged section of plaster to wall in kitchen, applied stain block to bathroom and bedroom ceiling, and left site in good order.
In 2016 the resident again reported that there was damp on the walls in their bedroom and hallway, and that these walls had previously been plastered over but damp had returned. The landlord’s records noted that a surveyor attended and reported that no works were required. The same repair record also states that there was evidence of a failing damp proof course (DPC) and on 6 September 2016, a job was raised for a DPC report to be carried out. The landlord’s repair records have a completion date for the DPC report of 25 December 2017.
The resident continued to make repeated reports of leaks and water damage to their property through 2018 and 2019. In response the landlord re-boarded and skimmed the bedroom ceiling, replastered the bedroom wall and stain blocked the affected areas, made safe the bathroom light following one of the leaks and issued the resident with a condensation kit.
A further DPC report was requested by the landlord on 20 March 2020. This service has not had sight of either this DPC report nor the one that the landlord has recorded as being completed on 25 December 2017.

Scope

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, usually within six months of the matter arising, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Therefore, whilst the historical incidents set out above provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s report on 13 March 2020 of a further leak from the flat above which was coming through their bedroom ceiling. Five months after the resident’s report of 13 March 2020, the landlord issued a local resolution response on 14 August 2020 and, approximately one year later, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 September 2021.
Whilst this service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting their health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Summary of events

On 13 March 2020, the resident reported a leak from the flat above which was coming through their bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s repairs records note that a job was completed, however, give no details of what actions it took nor when it took them.
Five months later, in August 2020, the landlord visited the resident and in its local resolution response to the resident on 14 August 2020 acknowledged that they had experienced ‘‘vast’’ water ingress on ‘‘numerous’’ occasions, noting that these were from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom and had affected the resident’s bedroom. The landlord said that all the repairs had been completed, with the exception of works to address the plaster damage which would be delayed due to Covid. However it provided no details of what it had actually done and when. There is also no record of what works were carried out, and when, between 13 March 2020 and 14 August 2020 in the evidence provided by the landlord to this service.
The landlord’s call notes record that it had spoken to the neighbour about the alleged works to their bathroom, which the resident had suggested as the cause of the leaks. However, as stated in the landlord’s correspondence, an inspection would not be carried out until after the Covid restrictions had ended.
On 17 August 2020, the resident reported a leaking overflow pipe from the upstairs neighbour’s water tank and was advised that an appointment had been put in place to replace the pipes to the tank that day.
The resident continued to report that the overflow pipe was leaking on 19 August 2020, 30 September 2020, 22 November 2020. During this time the resident was advised that the repairs would be carried out on 4 September, 9 September 2020 and was then advised on 1 October 2020 that there was a delay as it was waiting for parts. On 8 September 2020, the resident asked the NHO if another flat in their block became vacant whether they could secure a swap, and if so who they would need to contact about that. In response, the NHO advised that they were not able to advise about timings of repairs and that it was not possible to swap the resident into another flat as the landlord was required to advertise all available properties on its waiting list so that those with housing needs can bid for them.
On 22 November 2020, a carpenter attended the resident’s property to check their bedroom ceiling, which had been reported by the resident as bowing, and the ceiling was secured and boarded. The records also noted the need of a follow on to investigate leak from flat above. However, there is no evidence of any inspection taking place at that time.
On 1 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak was still ongoing and that they were now ‘’really struggling’’.
On 11 December 2020, the NHO advised the resident that the neighbour’s tank would be replaced and an emergency repair had been raised that day to make the tank safe. On 29 December 2020, the water tank had not been repaired and the resident reported that the ongoing leak was penetrating the floorboards in their bedroom, and had expressed concern that there might be a risk of collapse.
The resident continued to report leaks into their bedroom from the flat above on 2 and 29 January 2021, expressing their upset that the leaks had still not been rectified and were damaging their property.
On 6 March 2021, the resident reported that the leak from the flat above was ongoing and that there was a ‘‘very visible large crack’’ in the ceiling ‘‘that may cave in’’. The landlord attended the same day and a hole was drilled in the ceiling to allow the water to drip out. The following day the ceiling was made safe and it was again noted that a plumber would need to be sent to fix the leak from the flat above. On 7 March 2021, a plumber attended the upstairs neighbour’s flat and renewed the bath combined waste and overflow, noting that they had left it watertight.
On 8 March 2021, the landlord raised another job for a plasterer to check the ceilings in the resident’s property. The plasterer that attended reported that there had been water damage to the ceilings of both the bathroom and the second bedroom, both of which had been made safe by removing the damaged plaster and then boarding. The plasterer noted that there was also damage to the board under the lino in the second bedroom that would need to be attended. It is unclear when the damage to the board under the lino was addressed by the landlord.
The landlord inspected of both the resident’s and their neighbour’s properties 18 March 2021, and reported that there were ‘no live leaks’ in the resident’s property and the surfaces ‘felt’ dry.
On 19 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request assistance with the black mould they had recently discovered and which they said had been inspected by the landlord the previous day. The resident said that the black mould was in the room that they used as their main bedroom. The repairs team replied advising that they had forwarded resident’s email to the planning team who would review the pictures sent by the resident and advise if this could be added to the works related to the survey carried out the previous day.
A plumber attended the neighbour’s property again on 17 May 2021 and reported that the shower screen needed replacing with a rail and curtains, as there was a gap between the wall and the screen where the plumber said the water ‘‘pours’’ through. The plumber said that they had temporarily sealed the gap with mastic and had sealed behind the bath taps. The plasterer also attended the resident’s property the same day, and again removed damaged plaster boards from the bedroom ceiling, noting that they could not do the bathroom ceiling until the leak from the flat above had been resolved. On 27 May 2021, the plasterer revisited the resident’s property and again reported that they could not do anything as there was still a leak from the flat above.
The landlord’s repairs records note that a job was raised to install a shower rail and curtain in the flat above on 8 June 2021. This job was completed 13 July 2021, he landlord noting that it had been unable to gain access to the flat above
On 5 August 2021, a plasterer attended the resident’s property and removed the water damaged ceiling from the bathroom, and on 6 August 2021 returned to skim the bathroom and bedroom ceilings. The landlord’s repair records note that stain block was also applied to the water marks on the walls and ceilings.
On 20 September 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord, which it acknowledged the same day:
1. With regards to the leaks, the resident said that:
  1. These were initially reported in March 2020, but had been ignored and that no visits or repairs were carried out.
  2. It was not until August 2020 that they had a visit from a surveyor, who checked the bedroom and the bathroom and made a hole in the wall above the window but no follow up took place.
  3. They were offered a gift voucher of £50 but they could not use it as the issue had not been sorted.
  4. They had been on the phone with repairs many times, and were once told not to contact them anymore as they knew about the problem. The resident said that, in the meantime, the bathroom ceiling had leaked through.
  5. Their upstairs neighbours had repeated refused repairs between December 2020 and June 2021. The resident asked how this could be allowed.
2. They had reported black mould in their living room in March 2020. They had tried to report it over the phone but were instructed to do it online, which they did, only to be told that it was not an urgent issue.
3. The resident said that the landlord’s communication was poor, it had taken no responsibility to end the issues in a reasonable time and that no one felt obliged to keep them informed about any actions planned or taken.
In a follow up email of 27 September 2021, the resident explained that for years they had been reporting damp walls in the living room and all over the house, which were either ignored or they were given an explanation so that the landlord would not have to do anything about it. They had damaged curtains in the kitchen and that day they discovered mould in shoes that were kept in the hall. The resident said that they ventilated all their room as they had every day and were ‘‘petrified’’ of what they breathed every day and what long-term effects it was going to have on their health.
On 28 September 2021, the Major Repairs Operations Manager (MROM) emailed the landlord’s Site Manager stating that they could not see the resident’s property on the Damp and Mould spreadsheet. The MROM asked that this be checked, the resident’s property added to the list as a priority and for the property to be surveyed ‘‘quickly’’. The same day the Site Manager requested the survey.
On 3 October 2021, the resident reported an ‘‘uncontrollable’’ leak. The landlord’s records note that a job was issued the same day, the resident called to chase the job as they were unable to stay due to work commitments, the job was cancelled and passed to day repairs.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 October 2021.The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there were delays in carrying out the works in the property above, explaining the reason for this as:
1. Inspections by different contractors, initial repairs failing to fix the leak from the hot water tank, approving and ordering of the new hot water tank and the delay with delivery of the new tank.
2. The extensive nature of the works that were needed in the property above and the need to rehouse that family temporarily for works to commence.
1. Said that, with regards to the length of time taken to carry out the repairs in the resident’s property following the leaks which had started in March 2020:
1. There had been a number of orders raised in relation to leaks from the property above, and there was an ongoing leak that was preventing it from completing plastering works in the resident’s property.
2. Its Planning Team had spoken to the resident on the 1 October 2021 about the leak, and had arranged for a plumber to attend on the 6 October 2021 to identify the source of the leak.
3. It was in the process of arranging access into the property above in order to carry out checks, and there would be no further plastering works carried out in the resident’s property until the source of the leak had been resolved.
1. Said that, with regards to the length of time taken for it to inspect the mould and damp in the property, its mould and damp team had advised that their consultant had been asked to carry out a survey of the resident’s property as soon as possible, and that the resident would be contacted directly to make an appointment.
2. Apologised for the length of time taken to completed the repairs in the property above and offered £150 for the length of time taken to repair the leak and any inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident. It also said that it was not possible to swap the resident into another flat on the estate as it was required by legislation as well as its policies to advertise all available properties on the waiting list so that those with housing needs can bid for them.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord’s damp and mould team emailed their specialist consultant and asked that they contact the resident to make an appointment for their property to be surveyed.
On 14 October 2021, the resident’s NHO provided the resident with a link to the relevant Housing Application website and advised that they would get back to the resident once they had heard from repairs with an appointment date.
The resident escalated their complaint the following day, 15 October 2021.
1. With regards to the leaks, the resident said that:
  1. No action had been taken by the landlord for months, since a visit to their property by a surveyor in September 2020. Their ceiling needed to be ‘‘crashed’’ and was leaking at that time, and the landlord had said that it could not carry out the repairs to the upstairs neighbours bathroom due to the ‘‘illegal instalment’’ of a bidet by that neighbour.
  2. The upstairs neighbour had repeatedly refused to allow access, which extended the period that they had to wait for their repairs to be completed, and which added to the ‘‘significant’’ damages they incurred. The resident said that they could not understand why the landlord had not acknowledged this.
  3. They had asked many times for help with a move but this was ignored and they were advised to use Home Swap, which they said was impossible due to the ongoing leak issue.
2. With regards to the damp and mould, the resident said that:
  1. They reported it on 18 March 2020, and sent through pictures asking for someone to inspect it, but seven months later nothing had happened.
  2. Something that was a small patch of mould in the living room had spread ‘‘profoundly’’ taking over furniture as well as destroying shoes kept in the hallway and shoes kept in a wardrobe in a bedroom.
  3. They experience mould on a daily basis and would ‘‘deem such living condition as hazardous if not outright dangerous and deadly’’.
On 18 October 2021, the resident sent their NHO pictures of damage caused by the mould. The NHO responded the same day to confirm that they had forwarded these to both repairs and the repairs supervisor asking that they contact the resident directly to arrange access for an inspection. In response the landlord’s Site Manager advised the NHO that they were aware of the damp problems at the resident’s property and that their specialist consultant would be in contact with the resident for a survey appointment.
The landlord’s damp and mould team chased their specialist consultant on 21 October and raised an order for a damp and condensation survey the same day.
On 2 November 2021, the resident’s NHO visited both the resident and their neighbours property. The NHO noted that the leak had been resolved and there were no further concerns regarding the upstairs property. However, on 17 November 2021, the resident contact their NHO about a further flood from the flat above. The resident said that they had called emergency repairs and upon investigation the neighbour’s washing machine had been identified as the source of the leak.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord’s damp and mould consultant attended the property to carry out a damp and mould survey. The following day the resident emailed the NHO and provided a copy of a letter from their GP, dated 3 November 2021. In the letter, which was addressed to the housing team, the GP said that they were quite confident that the resident’s living circumstances were a major cause of the resident’s psychological symptoms relating to moderate/severe depression and that they were also quite confident that the damp and mould issue was having a negative effect on their respiratory system.
On 17 November 2021, the resident contact their NHO about a further flood from the flat above. The resident said that they had called emergency repairs and upon investigation they had identified that the neighbour’s washing machine was leaking. The resident also asked the NHO if they had received the damp and mould consultant’s report.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 November 2021 to again report a leak from the washing machine in the flat above. The resident said that repairs had advised that this was not an emergency. A job was raised, however, the landlord’s records do not show whether this job was completed and if so what action the landlord took.
The landlord’s records for 22 November 2021 note that when the NHO spoke to the resident on 19 November 2021, the resident had confirmed the leak had stopped ‘‘for now’’. However there had been a further leak on 21 November 2021. The NHO said that when they spoke to the upstairs neighbour on 19 November 2021 it was the NHOs understanding that the neighbour was not to use her washing machine until the issue had been fixed, and that they had again advised her not to do so. The NHO noted that the neighbour had made an appointment for her washing machine to be fixed but had been unable to get an appointment until 2 December 2021. The following day, 23 November 2021, in an email to a local councillor, the NHO advised that it had been arranged for the neighbour’s property to be attended that day to cap the water from her washing machine and to check the waste pipe.
The landlord issued its final response on 25 November 2021.
1. With regards to the leaks, the landlord said that it understood there to be one instance of the neighbour refusing access to operatives in March 2021. However, it was believed that the appointment was made with no advance notice given.
2. With regards to the damp and mould, in March 2020 the resident reported this in their lounge. The damp and mould team emailed a specialist consultant on 4 October 2021 and asked them to contact the resident to make an appointment. This was chased on 21 October 2021 and the specialist consultant attended on 3 November 2021. Unfortunately there was a delay in receiving the report and it would liaise further with the resident once the report had been received, which it anticipated to be in the next couple of weeks.
3. With regards to damages, the resident had been advised to claim from their own household insurance or complete a public liability claim form, which it said was attached to its response.
4. For the delays involved with repairing leaks into the resident’s home, the landlord award a further £250, which it said was in addition to its previous award of £150. The total compensation award being £400.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 7 December 2021, the resident chased their NHO for a copy of the specialist damp and mould consultant’s report, the NHO advised that the resident would hear from them by the end of the week. The resident chased the landlord NHO again for the report on 13 December 2021.
On 16 December 2021, the resident reported that their ceiling was starting to leak again, which occurred sometime after the neighbour started their washing machine. On 17 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord asking to be moved to a neighbouring flat stating that the black mould, damp, cracks and leaks in the ceiling had been totally ignored by the landlord.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s Planned and Complex Works Supervisor (PCWS) completed a Recommendation for Rehousing on Grounds of Essential Repairs (ESR) form, which stated that:
1. The property was ‘‘suffering from wholesale damp penetration caused by both external and rising damp’’. This was affecting the building fabric and is also affecting furnishings and clothing. It was noted there was no mechanical ventilation in the property or smoke alarms.
2. It was recommended that:
  1. All external rainwater goods and soil stacks be inspected to confirm they are watertight, along with localised external soil stack and gullies in view of rising damp.
  2. The pointing between brickwork is inspected to ascertain weatherproof condition.
  3. Very likely a full damp proof job with complete refurbishment to whole fabric of building with full internal refurbishment.
3. The physical condition of the property was described as ‘‘very poor’’, that it would take over 12 weeks to complete the works involved, and said that a move was considered urgent. The report also stated that there were health and safety concerns requiring an urgent transfer.
4. The date of the visit was confirmed as being 30 November 2021.
On 17 January 2022, the resident report another two leaks from the ceiling. The resident was advised that the neighbour would be moving our shortly and, if the leak was bad, to contact repairs immediately.
On 21 January 2022, the NHO wrote to the resident to advised that
1. The surveyor had confirmed that the property was suffering from damp penetration, and that this was being caused by both external and rising damp. This is affecting the building fabric and is also affecting furnishings and clothing.
2. They had recommended that the works to the property, would take between 8 to 12 weeks.
3. It has been agreed by management, that the resident could occupy the neighbouring flat the resident had suggested, as a temporary accommodation basis, and it would complete a temporary licence agreement.
4. Once this had been agreed, major repairs could start the works.
The NHO responded on 31 January 2022 advising that they were only sent the report on 10 January 2022. The report stated that the estimated length of the works would be between 8 to 12 weeks and suggested a temporary move for this period of time as urgent. If the works were to take longer than 12 weeks, the resident could have the option of moving permanently but in order for the move to happen, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the resident would need to complete a housing application, for which the NHO provided the link. The NHO said that the start of the works were pending the resident’s decision.
In an internal email of 4 April 2022, the landlord noted that the resident had not yet completed a housing application and wanted a move to a two bedroom property.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord wrote the resident’s MP to advise that the suggested flat was no longer available as it had been put back on the list of void properties to be let.
On 8 April 2023, in correspondence to this service, the resident advised that the landlord was in touch every few months with the same proposal: to move them temporarily to a one bedroom flat and that they pay the rent for their two bedroom property whilst the repairs are carried out. The resident said that:
1. They had not found one person who could tell them what would happen if the repairs were not completed on time.
2. They had been left all by themselves while the other flats in the building had been ‘‘given away’’ and that instead of validating their needs and feelings, the landlord had victimised them for the last three years.
3. They would gladly be rehoused temporarily into the flat suggested by the landlord, whilst they continued to seek a permanent solution, but no one explained to them that this was something they could do.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from the outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord responded appropriately and whether any redress offered by the landlord was appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and in accordance with the tenancy agreement to complete repairs and to do so within a reasonable time. Once a landlord is informed of damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘‘on notice’’ to carry out a reasonable enquiries to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s Tenants’ Guide (the Guide) states that, for emergency repairs, the landlord will attend as soon as it can on the same day. Uncontainable leaks are given as an example of an emergency repair. The Guide goes on to state that if the repair is not an emergency, the landlord will book an appointment for a tradesperson or engineer to visit at a date and time which is suitable to the resident and when the right person for the job is available.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord has a two stage internal formal complaints procedure which states that at all stages the complaint will be acknowledged within 2 working days. Responses at Stage 1 will be issued within 10 working days and at Stage 2 within 25 working days.

Leaks into the property from the flat above.

Between 13 March 2020 and the landlord’s final response on 25 November 2021 the resident reported multiple leaks into their property from the flat above. These were identified as emanating from the flat above and related to leaks from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom, pipes to the water tank and washing machine.

Leak from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom.

Having been informed by the resident of a leak into their property on 13 March 2020, the landlord had a duty to respond to the resident’s report in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
Given that uncontainable leaks are listed as examples of emergency repairs in the landlord’s Tenants’ Guide, the landlord would have been expected to have attend as soon as it could on the same day. The landlord’s records give no details of what actions the landlord took following the resident’ report on 13 March 2020.
It was not until five months later, in August 2020, that the landlord visited the resident and in correspondence with resident on 14 August 2020 acknowledged that the resident had experienced ‘‘vast’’ water ingress on ‘‘numerous’’ occasions, noting that these were from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom and had affected the resident’s bedroom. The landlord said that all the repairs had been completed, with the exception of works to address the plaster damage which would be delayed due to Covid. However it provided no details of what it had actually done and when. There is also no record of what works were carried out, and when, between 13 March 2020 and 14 August 2020 in the evidence provided by the landlord to this service.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the property and any repairs required, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to all its residents.
It is evident from the call notes that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about the alleged works to their bathroom, which the resident had suggested as the cause of the leaks. However, as stated in the landlord’s correspondence, an inspection would not be carried out until after the Covid restrictions had ended.
Given the restrictions at that time, and that the plaster damage was not an emergency, is was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would be unable to complete the works to the resident’s ceiling until the restrictions were lifted. However, the landlord would be obliged to respond to reports of any further leaks which constituted an emergency repair, in accordance the timescales set out in its Tenants’ Guide. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to keep the resident updated during this period of restrictions as to when it would expect the works to be completed, which there is no evidence that it did.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced ‘‘vast’’ water ingress on ‘‘numerous’’ occasions, it failed to make any reference to the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the leaks in its local resolution response of 14 August 2020, nor did it make any reference to any actions it had carried out in the previous five months or planned to carry out once the Covid restrictions had eased. The landlord’s response displayed a lack of urgency in seeking to resolve the cause of the leaks from the flat above, simply stating that the resident’s concerns would be forwarded to their NHO. There is then no evidence of the NHO visiting the resident and their neighbour until 2 November 2021, over a year later.
There is also no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to address the issues with the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom between 14 August 2020 and 7 March 2021, when a plumber attended the upstairs neighbour’s flat, renewed the bath combined waste and overflow and left it watertight. This was far to long for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to take any steps to seek resolve the leak from the neighbour’s bathroom, especially given that the resident continued to report leaks into their bedroom from the flat about throughout this seven month period. There is no evidence of any inspections being carried out throughout this time.
On 22 November 2020, a carpenter did attend the resident’s property to check their bedroom ceiling, which had been reported by the resident as bowing, and the ceiling was secured and boarded. The records also noted the need of a follow on to investigate leak from flat above. However, there is no evidence of any inspection taking place at that time.
The resident continued to report leaks into their bedroom from the flat above on 2 and 29 January 2021, expressing their upset that the leaks had still not been rectified and were damaging their property. However, there is again no evidence of any inspection taking place at that time.
On 6 March 2021, the resident reported that the leak from the flat above was ongoing and that there was a ‘‘very visible large crack’’ in the ceiling ‘‘that may cave in’’. The landlord attended promptly the same day and a hole was drilled in the ceiling to allow the water to drip out. The following day the ceiling was made safe and it was again noted that a plumber would need to be sent to fix the leak from the flat above.
On 8 March 2021, the landlord raised another job for a plasterer to check the ceiling. The plasterer that attended reported that there had been water damage to the ceilings of both the bathroom and the second bedroom, both of which had been made safe by removing the damaged plaster and then boarding. The plasterer noted that there was also damage to the board under the lino in the second bedroom that would need to be attended. It is unclear when the damage to the board under the lino was addressed by the landlord.
It was not until 18 March 2021, that the landlord inspected of both the resident’s and their neighbour’s properties, and reported that there were ‘no live leaks’ in the resident’s property and the surfaces ‘felt’ dry. The limited evidence seen by this service of the landlord’s inspection at this time makes no reference to when the plumber’s recommendation of 6 March 2021 that the leak from the flat above be fixed was addressed, nor did it make any reference to the issue with reported on 8 March 2021 regarding the board under the lino. The only reference seen by this service in relation to the floor was in an email from the NHO on 2 November 2021, which stated that a hole in the floor had been sealed.
It was not until the plumber attended the neighbour’s property again on 17 May 2021, nine months after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that alterations their neighbour had made to their bathroom might be the cause of some of the leaks, that it was identified that the shower screen to the bath was the cause of the leak. The plumber that attended on that day reported that the shower screen needed replacing with a rail and curtains, as there was a gap between the wall and the screen where the plumber said the water ‘‘pours’’ through. The plumber said that they had temporarily sealed the gap with mastic and had sealed behind the bath taps.
On 17 May 2021 a plasterer had also attended the resident’s property and again removed damaged plaster boards from the bedroom ceiling, noting that they could not do the bathroom ceiling until the leak from the flat above had been resolved. On 27 May 2021, 10 days later, the plasterer revisited the resident’s property and again reported that they could not do anything as there was still a leak from the flat above.
The landlord’s repairs records note that a job was raised to install a shower rail and curtain in the flat above on 8 June 2021. However, due to the landlord being unable to gain access to the flat above, this job was not completed until 13 July 2021, a delay of approximately five weeks. However, in its final response, the landlord’s response does not reflect this. Instead the landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns that the works were delayed by the upstairs neighbour not providing access, stating that there was only one instance of the neighbour refusing access to operatives in March 2020 and that this was due to no advance notice being given.
On 5 August 2021, a plasterer attended the resident’s property and removed the water damaged ceiling from the bathroom, and on 6 August 2021 returned to skim the bathroom and bedroom ceilings. The landlord’s repair records note that stain block was also applied to the water marks on the walls and ceilings.

Overflow pipe.

Despite the landlord advising the resident that the works to the upstairs’ neighbour’s water tank were to be carried out on 17 August 2020, the resident continued to report that the overflow pipe was leaking on 19 August 2020, 30 September 2020, 22 November 2020. During this time the resident was advised that the repairs would be carried out on 4 September, 9 September 2020 and was then advised on 1 October 2020 that there was a delay as it was waiting for parts.
On 11 December 2020, the NHO advised the resident that the neighbour’s tank would be replaced and an emergency repair had been raised that day to make the tank safe. However, by 29 December 2020, over four months later, the water tank had still not been repaired and the resident reported that the ongoing leak was penetrating the floorboards in their bedroom, and had expressed concern that there might be a risk of collapse.
The exact date the leaks from the upstairs neighbour’s water tank were resolved is not known but the evidence suggests that this was sometime in March 2021, approximately seven months after the overflow pipe leaking had been reported by the resident.

Washing machine

On 17 November 2021. The resident initial reported a leak from the flat above, which was attended the same day and the source reported as being from the neighbours washing machine The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 November 2021 to report a further leak from the washing machine in the flat above. A job was raised, however, the landlord’s records do not show whether this job was completed and if so what action the landlord took. The resident also advised the NHO at this time that repairs had advised that this was not an emergency. The NHO notes that when they spoke to the upstairs neighbour on 19 November 2021 they had advised her not to use her washing machine until the issue had been fixed.
In this case, the landlord acted promptly and appropriately. Having been notified of the leak from the upstairs neighbour’s washing machine, it promptly contacted the neighbour to discuss it and, rather than waiting until 2 December 2021, when the neighbour had arranged for the washing machine to be repaired, the landlord arranged for the water to the machine to be capped off and the waste pipe checked.
It is acknowledged that the resident reported further leaks from the flat above on 16 December 2021 and 17 January 2022, which they were advised to report to repairs. The upstairs neighbour moved out around March 2022.

Summary

Overall it took the landlord approximately 17 months to resolve the leaks from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom. It also took seven months to resolve the issues with the upstairs neighbour’s water tank. These were excessive and unreasonable amounts of time for the resident to have to wait for the works to be completed, especially as throughout this time the residents was subject to ongoing leaks and damage to their home. The resident had also consistently raised concerns over a prolonged period about the adverse effect the ongoing leaks were having on them and their property, and the landlord was already aware that the resident had experienced repeated leaks into their property for a number of years.
It is acknowledged that there will always be some leaks that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, longer to rectify. However, in the case of both the leak from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom and water tank, the landlord was aware at an early point of the source of the leaks but failed to ensure that appropriate action was taken to resolve those leaks in a reasonable period of time. It is acknowledged that covid restrictions, and the ongoing impact of those restrictions once lifted, would have impacted the landlord’s ability to address the repairs required in the upstairs property. However, these alone do not explain the excessive amount of time the landlord took to do so.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In its stage one response on 4 October 2021 the landlord apologised for the length of time taken to completed the repairs in the property above and offered £150 for the length of time taken to repair the leak and any inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident. The landlord increased its offer in its final response to £400.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the time taken to complete the repairs, and for the inconvenience this caused, the landlord’s complaint responses lacked any empathy for lived experience of the resident. The landlord’s explanations of what had gone wrong were vague and failed to acknowledge the extent of the delays and detriment to the resident. The landlord also failed to recognised any learning that it might take from this case. This, combined with its failure to address the full complaints and to accurate account for the progress of the works, gave the impression that the complaint was not taken seriously. The £400 compensation offered by the landlord also failed to appropriately reflect the considerable adverse effect to the resident as a result of the unreasonable delays in the landlord resolving the leaks.
Given the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the leaks from the flat above, the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, together with the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or evidence any learning from those failures constitute severe maladministration.

Damp and mould in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. In addition, landlords should ensure that any follow up appointments are booked for as soon as possible.
It is important the landlord clearly communicates its diagnosis with the resident, sharing any relevant information, to ensure the resident has confidence in it and understands the next steps. Where follow up work is required, the resident should be informed early on. If there is any slippage to the timetable, again residents should be informed as soon as possible, and they should be advised why the timetable has changed. Where specialist surveys are required, landlords should ensure the need is identified early on and that work orders are progressed in a timely manner.
It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. This not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. This reinforces the importance of focussing on an accurate diagnosis at an early stage.
Where appropriate, landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property (‘decanting’) to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered.
Whilst the period prior to 13 March 2020 has not been assessed in this report, it is important to recognise that the resident had been reporting concerns about damp and mould in their property since 2014. Between 2014 and March 2020, the landlord arranged for a survey for rising damp in 2014, following which it carried out replastering works to the property. The landlord’s repair records also state that in 2016 there was evidence of a failing damp proof course (DPC) and on 6 September 2016, a job was raised for a DPC report to be carried out. A further DPC report was requested by the landlord in March 2020. This service has not had sight of any of these reports.
On 19 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that they had recently discovered black mould in the room that they were using as their main bedroom. The records from the landlord’s visit to the property the previous day have not been seen by this service, however an internal email following the visit made no reference to black mould. In response to the resident’s contact, the repairs team advised that they would pass the resident’s photos to the landlord’s planning team.
There is then no evidence of the landlord taking any action with regards to the resident’s reports until 27 September 2021, six months later, following the resident’s formal complaint and follow up email. At this point that the landlord identified that the resident’s property was not in its Damp and Mould spreadsheet and that a survey would be required.
In its stage one response, issued a week later, the landlord advised that it had asked its specialist consultant to carry out a survey of the resident’s property as soon as possible and that the specialist consultant would contact the resident directly to make an appointment. The landlord made no reference to the delay in the report being requested and the damp and mould team contacted their specialist consultant the same day.
The resident continued to report concerns about the damage caused by the mould and to express their concerns about the impact of the mould on their health, this included a letter from the resident’s GP in which the GP said that they were ‘’quite confident’’ that the resident’s living conditions were affecting their health.
Despite this, it was not until 3 November 2021, that the landlord’s specialist damp and mould consultant attended the resident’s property to carry out a survey, eight months after the resident first reported the black mould. This was also despite the landlord knowing that there had been a long history of issues with damp and mould in the property, and having been advised by the resident’s GP of their concerns about the impact on the resident’s health.
By the time of the landlord’s final response, the report from the specialist damp and mould consultant had not been received by the landlord. In its response, the landlord recognised that the resident had reported the issue as far back as March 2020, over a year prior to the period covered in this report, but made no apology for the delay in its response nor did it given any explanation as to why a survey by a specialist consultant had taken not taken place until 3 November 2021.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for the consultant’s report through December 2021 and January 2022. However, despite the landlord having received the report by 4 January 2022, this was not shared with the resident until 21 January 2022 and then only in summary in an email from their NHO.
The Ombudsman would expect the outcome of such surveys, and any other inspection at the resident’s property, to be routinely shared with, and explained to, the resident. This includes being clear on any recommendations or actions that are not going to be followed up and the rationale for this to aid the resident’s understanding.
The specialist consultant’s report described the physical condition of the property was described as ‘‘very poor’’, stated that it would take over 12 weeks to complete the works involved, and said that a move was considered urgent. The report also stated that there were health and safety concerns requiring an urgent transfer. As such the landlord would be expected to arrange to move the resident either temporarily or permanently, depending on the nature of the works and the expected time needed to complete the required works.
However, the urgency of the specialist consultant with regards to the need to move the resident was not reflected in the response given to the resident by the NHO on 31 January 2022, in which the resident was advised that their move was dependent on them completion a housing application form. The NHO also failed to accurately reflect the anticipated timescale for the work suggested by the specialist consultant, reducing it to 8 to 12 weeks. This service has seen no evidence to explain why the NHO reduced this anticipated timescale to below 12 weeks, the threshold above which the NHO had advised the resident that they could have the option of moving permanently. It is also unclear, given the need for the resident to be moved urgently, why the landlord added the condition of the housing application needing to be completed before any move or works could go ahead.
It would not be unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete a housing application if they were to considering decanting the resident on a permanent basis, to ensure that the property was both suitable for the resident’s needs and that, as a local authority, it was able to ensure fairness and equity with other residents seeking accommodation and under current Homelessness Legislation. However, in this case, given the urgency of the need for the resident to be moved, that the landlord was insistent that the initial decant would not be permanent and that the resident has already proposed a flat that they could move into, it is unclear why the landlord placed this unreasonable restriction on its ability to decant the resident.
In addition, it would have been reasonable to expect the NHO or another appropriate member of the landlord’s staff to have visited the resident to discuss their preferences, expectations, concerns and options. Had such a meeting taken place, it could also have provided the landlord with an opportunity to assist the resident with the completion of their housing application. It would also have evidenced to the resident that the landlord was taking their situation seriously and that they intended to address it as soon as possible. It is noted that the landlord addressed a number of the resident’s concerns in writing, however, its continued insistence that the resident complete a housing application form, without offering any assistance to the resident, was neither fair nor reasonable. Rather than seeking to address the resident’s concerns, other than simply repeating what it had said already, the landlord simply let the matter drift and failed to take any meaningful action.
These were serious failures by the landlord and the landlord’s lack of resolution focus was especially inappropriate given damp and mould are potential hazards within the scope of HHSRS.
The complaints process was the opportunity for the landlord to have acknowledged its failures, to take steps to put things right, to provide the resident with redress proportionate to its failings. It was also an opportunity for the landlord to learn from the complaint. However, in this case, the landlord failed to evidence that it has done any of these things. Despite acknowledging that the resident had first reported the damp and mould in March 2020 and that the specialist consultant did not carry out an inspection of the resident’s property until 3 November 2021, some 20 months later, the only delay acknowledged by the landlord in its final response was the delay in receiving the report.
The landlord’s complaint responses again lacked any empathy for lived experience of the resident and failed to acknowledge the extent of the delays and detriment to the resident. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failures in this case, to offer the resident any compensation for those failings, or to consider what learning it might take from this case in order to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future. Given the extent of the landlord’s failures and its failure to appropriately address these through the complaints provided has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in their property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into their property from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s reports of and mould in the property.

Reasons

In the case of both complaints considered in this report, the landlord responses to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide the resident with a reasonable service over a significant period of time which had a seriously deterimental impact on the resident. The landlord also demonstrated a failure to put things right or to learn from outcomes.

Orders

That within five working days of this report, the landlord is to arrange for a senior member of staff to visit the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report and to discuss, and address, the resident’s concerns about being temporarily decanted into another property whilst the works are completed.
Within 10 working days of this report, the senior member of the landlord’s staff that visited the resident, is to write to both the resident and this service to confirm what was discussed at the meeting and what steps the landlord is going to put in place in order to ensure that the resident is decanted as a matter of urgency. The landlord is also to confirm what support it can offer the resident in order to help facilitate the move.
That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2,000 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the failures identified in this report with regards to its handling of their reports of leaks into their property from the flat above. This is inclusive of the £400 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the failures identified in this report with regards to its handling of their reports of damp and mould in their property.
2. Conduct a senior management review into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement, and report to the appropriate governing body the outcome. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case.
3. Consider what learning it might take from this report in order to improve how its staff communicate empathy in their interactions with residents. The landlord is then to write to the resident to set out what measures it has put in place to ensure that there are improvements going forward.
4. Consider whether, on the basis of the findings of this report, further compensation might be due for any delays between 25 November 2021 and the completion of the works. The landlord’s decision is to be signed off by the senior management team carrying out the review of this case. The landlord is to then to write to the resident and this service to confirm what its position is and to provide an explanation for this.
5. Confirm to this service that it has complied with all of the above orders.