Dacorum Borough Council (202336291)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336291

Dacorum Borough Council

23 August 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of various repairs in the property.
    2. complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house which she has occupied since 2011.
  2. The resident has reported various repairs issues since moving into the property, including damp and mould, structural issues and concerns about asbestos.
  3. On 15 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a structural issue which she stated she had been waiting for over 18 months to be resolved. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and cracks in the property, and that windows and doors did not fit properly.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2023. It stated that it had visited the resident on 19 June 2023 and that a schedule of works was being finalised and would be shared with the resident by 27 June 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint due to the delays and said that compensation would be discussed with the resident once the works had been completed.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 October 2023 and stated that most of the repairs remained outstanding. She stated that the plaster was cracking where the landlord had previously fitted new heli-bars above a window, there was a large crack in the bedroom and works to the doors that had started in May had not been completed. The resident stated that the damp in the dining room had been mould washed and decorated at least 4 times, but it continued to be an issue. She said that the landlord had not investigated that the damp may be coming from under the house. The resident stated that her daughter was suffering with breathing issues which may have been caused by the damp and mould. She also raised concerns about how asbestos was removed in the property. The resident highlighted that she had previously raised a complaint about these matters.
  6. The landlord issued a new stage 1 complaint letter on 12 December 2023. The landlord explained what it had already done and what it planned to do regarding each of the repairs issues. It upheld the complaint due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the outstanding issues.
  7. On 5 February 2024 the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She stated that she had originally tried to escalate her complaint in October 2023, but the landlord had instead raised a new complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 February 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2024. It said that some of the repairs remained outstanding and that a temporary decant to hotel accommodation had been offered for a period of 8 weeks while the works took place. The landlord noted that the resident said that this would not be practical, and the landlord therefore recommended a permanent transfer to another property. The landlord also offered £500 compensation due to the inconvenience and time taken to seek clarification on when the works would be carried out.
  9. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 16 May 2024 and stated that the landlord was still no closer to resolving the issues. On 22 May 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that repairs to the patio door and outside gully had not properly resolved the issues and that the landlord had not properly investigated the cause of the damp and mould. The resident also raised there was asbestos in the property which the landlord was “playing down”. The resident said that she had been delaying a medical procedure since 2018 in order to deal with contractors attending the property, and that the ongoing issues had an impact on her mental wellbeing.
  10. In August 2024 the resident said that, in order to resolve the complaint, the landlord should provide a schedule of works with timeframes, complete the outstanding repairs and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on the health of her child. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman also acknowledges the resident’s health concerns and that she has delayed surgery due to the landlord’s handling of the repairs. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health or the health of her child in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  2. The resident informed the Ombudsman that some of the repairs issues have been ongoing since she moved into the property in 2011. This includes damp and mould, the removal of asbestos in 2012 and structural issues first reported in 2018. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timescale, usually within 12 months of the issues arising. The resident raised her complaint in May 2023. Taking all of the circumstances into account, this investigation focuses on events from May 2022 onwards. While the concerns reported by the resident, and actions taken by the landlord prior to May 2022 may be referred to in this report for context, they will not form part of the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other repairs within 20 days, except where specialist materials are needed. The landlord’s damp, condensation and mould policy states that the landlord will investigate to determine the cause of the damp and mould and carry out remedial repairs. The policy states the landlord will strive to identify and tackle the underlying causes promptly. The landlord will respond to works classed as urgent within 48 hours and non-urgent works will be inspected within 7-days. The policy says that it will complete any remedial works within a reasonable timescale, depending on the severity and urgency of the problem and on the complexity of the solution.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. This included structural issues, damp and mould and the presence of asbestos. The Ombudsman has considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs. However, only events which have been deemed to be the most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report.
  3. Although the scope of this investigation does not reach back to December 2021, it is relevant to note that the landlord raised several works orders on 14 December 2021 for works including a mould wash in the lounge, repairs to brickwork in the utility room and re-sealing the rear door to prevent water ingress. An operative attended on 4 January 2022 to conduct a mould wash however, the works did not go ahead as the resident had not been notified of the appointment and furniture needed to be moved in advance. The operative’s notes of this visit state that there were 2 large cracks under the living room window and that this should be investigated as possible structural cracks. A further visit took place on 13 January 2022 for the rear door works. The notes of this visit state that there was no problem with the silicone and that the issue could possibly be due to the brickwork.
  4. The evidence reflects that the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf on 27 June 2022. He stated that the resident had raised concerns regarding damp and mould in the property, and that a mould wash was due to be carried out on 15 June 2022 but was cancelled. The resident raised that this job had been booked in December 2019 and there had been several missed appointments. Records of these missed appointments have not been provided to the Ombudsman. The resident stated that previous works including mould washes and insulating the walls had not resolved the issue, and she believed that the damp was coming from underneath the property.
  5. The landlord responded to the MP on 28 October 2022 and stated that an appointment had been scheduled for 5 October 2022 which the resident had cancelled. There is no evidence that the landlord made attempts to re-schedule this appointment, which it ought to have done. Further, there are limited records to indicate what actions were taken to address the damp and mould or structural issues between June and October 2022. The landlord ought to have taken a proactive approach to resolving the issues however, there is no evidence to indicate that any actions were taken during this period.
  6. On 1 November 2022, the resident chased up the landlord regarding outstanding repairs raised in relation to damp and mould, cracks inside and outside the property and a bowing window.
  7. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in November 2022. While this was an appropriate action, it is noted that the requirement for a surveyor to attend was identified following the January 2022 visit, and the delay in the landlord arranging this was therefore unreasonable. The landlord stated that it has no contemporaneous notes to reflect the findings of this survey. It said that, following this visit, the surveyor requested an independent structural survey to be carried out. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of contacts and repairs that allows a clear audit trail to be maintained. The landlord did not do this which indicates a record keeping failure.
  8. The repairs records indicate that a works order was raised on 23 November 2022 to investigate the downpipe for damage and install new drainage. The evidence indicates that these works took place on 23 January 2023, which indicates a further delay. Following this, the resident contacted her MP on 2 February 2023 and stated that now the downpipe works had been done, a mould wash and redecoration was required in the dining room.
  9. The landlord requested works orders to be raised on 2 February 2023 for the following works:
    1. Rake out plaster under the lounge window and inspect the brickwork,
    2. Rake out small sections of plaster behind a crack in the bedrooms and inspect the brickwork,
    3. Remove trims to the bedroom window, replaster window reveals and fit new trims,
    4. Adjust the front entrance door,
    5. Remove trim above the front entrance door, fill in void about the door and refit trim.
  10. The repairs records indicate that a repairs appointment took place on 2 March 2023 for works to the front door, and the operative noted that replacing the trim would not be a good solution to the problem. It was identified that there was asbestos which would be disturbed when removing the plastic and it was recommended that the cladding should be removed to allow access to the doorframe, which should be insulated and new cladding installed. There is no evidence to indicate that these works have taken place, which indicates a significant delay outside of the repairs timeframes.
  11. The landlord’s contractor visited on 8 March 2023 and noted that the plaster underneath the living room window was solid and a tool was required for removal. Again, there is no evidence of a follow-up appointment being booked. However, an email from the contractor on 19 April 2023 states that the resident did not want the works doing currently and that she did not want all of the works doing at once due to the disruption that this would cause. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord communicated with the resident in order to establish an agreeable way to progress the works, which it ought to have done.
  12. Within her May 2023 complaint, the resident said she had been waiting over 18 months for the structural issue to be dealt with. She stated that heli-bars had been installed above the living room window in 2018, but this had not resolved the structural issue. She said that she had not been provided with a copy of the November 2022 structural survey report.
  13. In its 21 June 2023 stage 1 response the landlord referred to a visit to the resident’s property on 19 June 2023 to inspect the structural issues. However, no notes have been provided to the Ombudsman to reflect this visit, which again indicates record keeping issues. The landlord stated that a schedule of works was being finalised and would be shared with the resident by 27 June 2023. The schedule of works has not been provided to the Ombudsman and the resident informed us that the landlord did not send this to her. This indicates a failing by the landlord to provide clarity to the resident on what works would be done, along with realistic timescales, as well as with record keeping.
  14. The stage 1 response stated that encapsulation works had been scheduled for 23 June 2023. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023 and said that the operatives attended later than planned and so the works could not go ahead. There is no indication that the works were rescheduled.
  15. The evidence reflects that a works order was raised for “various repairs, plaster work, repointing work, new handrail. Renew bathroom fan” which was marked as completed on 6 July 2023. While it appears that some works were undertaken, which was appropriate, the notes are limited and it is unclear exactly what works were carried out during this appointment.
  16. There is no evidence to indicate that any further visits to the resident’s property were undertaken until October 2023, which reflects a significant delay that was outside of the timescales in the landlord’s repairs handbook. It is noted that works orders were raised on 31 August 2023 for the patio doors to be replaced, a damp proof course to be installed underneath the doors and mould treatment in the bedrooms. However, in an email to the landlord on 17 October 2023 the resident said that none of the outstanding works had been completed apart from a mould wash in the bathroom in May 2023. She raised concerns that the landlord had plastered over large cracks, and that the plaster was now cracking again. The resident reported that there was damp in the dining room, bedroom and over the patio door.
  17. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that, despite the works order being raised on 31 August 2023, access issues delayed the removal of the patio doors until 21 November 2023. However, the landlord has not provided records of its attempts to attend to the resident’s property to complete these repairs, which indicates a further record keeping failing. Further visits took place on 30 November 2023 and 4 December 2023 to adjust the side and back door frames. However, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the works that were done during the first appointment and the evidence suggests that there was an issue with the patio door repairs that were carried out.
  18. An asbestos survey took place on 9 October 2023 which found that asbestos was present in 4 areas of the property. The survey recommended that the material should be incorporated into the asbestos management plan until it has been removed prior to either demolition or refurbishment. The survey contained recommendations for further steps that should be taken, which included a risk assessment and management plan. There is no evidence to reflect that the landlord took these further actions.
  19. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 7 November 2023 and following this visit, a CCTV drainage survey and works to the doors took place on 15 November 2023. The landlord took appropriate action by arranging for these inspections to take place however, the overall delays were unreasonable and a CCTV survey ought to have been considered much sooner. The CCTV inspection identified that the mainline water surface drainage was blocked and works were carried out to restore the flow to the main line. It is unclear whether the drainage issue was linked to any of the damp in the property.
  20. A further inspection by the landlord’s roofing contractor was carried out on 22 November 2023 and recommended that cracked plaster to either side of the bedroom windows was renewed and that this would allow future movement to be monitored. The contractor stated that there was no evidence of any leaks and that there was hairline cracking which it said was likely to be due to movement cracks and was to be expected.
  21. In its 12 December 2023 stage 1 response the landlord addressed each of the repairs issues and stated what had been done or what would be done in relation to each one. The landlord stated that the heli-bar stitching works had now been rectified and that underneath the patio door and been bricked up with a new damp proof course. It said that regarding the lower section of the window where the resident had reported cracking, a thermal imaging survey would be carried out. It also stated that front door cladding was to be removed by its asbestos contractor in January 2024. The landlord did not comment on the resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos inside the property.
  22. A subsidence survey took place on 24 January 2024 and the report stated that ground or foundation movement could not be determined due to multiple layers of repairs. It stated that the main issues identified included blown plaster, window frame bowing and various cracks. The report made recommendations for further inspections to identify whether the property was subsiding, which included a monitoring regime over a full year and commissioning a factual intrusive site investigation and CCTV drain survey. There is no evidence to indicate whether the landlord gave consideration to carrying out the further investigations, which would have been appropriate. It is unclear whether the November 2023 CCTV drain survey could be relied upon here, or whether a further survey was required.
  23. It is evident that several repairs appointments and inspections took place between October 2023 and January 2024. This indicates that the landlord had made some efforts to resolve the issues. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024 and set out a list of outstanding actions which included many of the same repairs issues that the resident had been reporting for several months. This indicates that, despite the previous appointments, many of the works listed at stage 1 remained outstanding and some of the repairs, such as the brickwork under the patio door, had been unsuccessful. The landlord listed the following outstanding works:
    1. Installation of a drainage system at the rear of the building
    2. Rebuilding of the brickwork under the patio door with a visible damp proof course installed,
    3. 2 lintels above the kitchen window and door would be sealed and plastic clad to reduce moisture and water ingress,
    4. Works to the front door would be scheduled once the asbestos cladding had been removed,
    5. Works to the bedroom and lounge walls, scheduled following agreement with the resident on how to carry out the works without too much disruption.
    6. The landlord would attend the neighbour’s garden to assess the patio height and any possible impact this may be having on the dining room wall. Internal works to the wall would then be scheduled.
  24. The evidence indicates that anappointment was scheduled for 14 February 2024 and further works to the patio door frame were carried out.The notes reflect that a further appointment took place on 28 February 2024 and works to a door and the bathroom extractor fan were completed. However, the notes do not make reference to the other outstanding actions listed above.
  25. Following the 28 February 2024 appointment, the resident raised concerns regarding the installation of smoke alarms in the living room and kitchen and that the operative may have disturbed asbestos in the ceiling. It is noted that the landlord queried whether the contractor was trained to work in asbestos however, it is unclear whether a response was received. The landlord ought to have responded to the resident’s specific concerns however, there is no evidence that it did so.
  26. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 February 2024 and stated that there had been 28 appointments attended by the landlord the previous year but the only works that took place were installing heli-bars above the living room window and a mould wash in the bathroom. It is noted that no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman of the repairs to the living room window. Further, the landlord’s records do not indicate 28 appointments took place during 2023 which could indicate a further issue with its record keeping practices.
  27. In its 2 May 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord stated the some of the works listed at stage 1 were outstanding and that a decant had been offered due to the disruptive nature of the works. The evidence indicates that the decant had initially been offered in February 2024. The landlord also said that the 9 October 2023 survey had found no asbestos in the living room which was a main concern of the resident and that there were 4 locations that low grade asbestos was found. The landlord did not refer to the resident’s concerns about possible disturbance of asbestos to the living room and kitchen ceilings.
  28. The resident informed the Ombudsman that her and her family were due to be decanted on 14 August 2024. However, she said that she had still not been provided with a schedule of works or timescales for these works. The resident expressed concern that she was due to have an operation and that she needed to know the timescales for the works as the decant property did not have the facilities that she required following the operation. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that a visit to the resident’s property had been scheduled for 19 August 2024 to confirm the works that would be undertaken.
  29. Overall, there were significant delays by the landlord to deal with the repairs issues reported and it appears that some of the repairs that were carried out did not sufficiently resolve the issues. The landlord’s record keeping practices were poor and the evidence indicates that the resident was required to chase the landlord several times regarding the outstanding repairs. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord.
  30. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  31. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the repairs, which have still not been resolved. She has spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord to progress the repairs, and the delays in resolving the issues has caused concern regarding the health of her family as well as causing her to delay a medical procedure. She has also had the inconvenience of numerous attendances at her home over a prolonged period. Further, it is likely that the poor record keeping impacted the landlord’s ability to monitor and progress the repairs appropriately, and has also meant that we have been unable to fully determine the course of events in this case.
  32. The landlord made some effort to “put things right” by offering £500 compensation at stage 2 for the delays experienced. However, the amount offered is insufficient to remedy the impact on the resident or the extent of the delays. An order for additional compensation has been made below, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which have had a significant impact on the resident. A further order has also been made for the landlord to provide a schedule of works with timescales to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The policy states that if the resident is unhappy with the response, they can escalate the complaint and the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that any extension to this timescale must be no more than 20 days, without good reason.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2023, which was outside of the 10-day timeframe outlined in the complaint handling policy. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023 and requested for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint which indicates a complaint handling failing.
  3. The resident further contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023 and outlined the outstanding repairs issues and stated that she had already raised a complaint. The landlord treated this as a new complaint and a stage 1 response was issued on 12 December 2023. Again, the landlord ought to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 rather than raising a new stage 1 complaint. Further, there were 41 working days between the 17 October 2023 email and the second stage 1 response, which indicates a delay outside of the timeframes stipulated in the repairs policy.
  4. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated on 5 February 2023. There is no indication that the landlord responded to the resident, which is a failing. The resident made a further escalation request on 24 February 2024 and stated that she had also requested this during a visit from the landlord the previous day. On 4 March 2024 the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and a response would be provided within 20 working days. The landlord further contacted the resident on 27 March 2024 and extended the stage 2 by a further 20 working days, which is line with the Code. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2023, which was within the further extension timeframe.
  5. There was a complaint handling failing by the landlord to escalate the first complaint to stage 2 and delays in escalating the second stage 1 complaint. The failings amount to maladministration by the landlord as it did not act in accordance with its complaints policy. The resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord and the failure to escalate the first complaint led to delays in her being able to raise her complaint with the Ombudsman. An order has been made below for compensation to be paid to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of various repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,150, which is made up as follows:
    1. £950 for its handling of repairs. This amount is inclusive of the £500 offered at stage 2 (which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid).
    2. £200 for complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works, along with timescales for completion, which sets out the repairs that will be completed while the resident is decanted. The repairs should be carried out within the timescales provided and the landlord should inform the Ombudsman once they have been completed.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide responses to any of the resident’s outstanding questions about how asbestos has been handled in the property and confirm any works it will carry out in relation to asbestos, along with timescales for completion. Any required repairs should be carried out within the timescales provided and the landlord should inform the Ombudsman once they have been completed.
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review its current record keeping practices against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information, which sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords, if it has not already done so. It should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review, and details of any actions that it has/will take in relation to its record keeping practices.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within the timeframes specified.