Harlow District Council (202222305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222305

Harlow District Council

09 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould at the property.
2. Complaint handling.
3. This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a three bedroom house and the tenancy began in July 2012. The resident occupies the property with her spouse and two adult children. The property is owned by the council (landlord) but the repairs were managed by its contractors.
In October 2021, the resident reported mould in her daughter’s bedroom. The contractors inspected the property and found that the mould was caused by the poor condition of the roof. In November 2021, the contractors confirmed the roof needed replacing because it was beyond repair. Due to the poor condition of the roof, further water ingress issues caused damage to the external wooden fascia at the property. In March 2022, its contractors covered the roof and the guttering at the property with a plastic sheet to make it watertight. Due to this, rainwater was dropping down the property and the conservatory at the property.
The contractors said they would continue to maintain the roof until it was replaced by the landlord. The resident had to raise a complaint because the contractors had failed to take any action to resolve the exacerbated damp and mould at the property. The mould at the property continued to get worse, a roof survey completed in January 2023 confirmed there was increased condensation, damp and mould at the property The roof has still not been replaced to date but works have been booked in to replace the roof in August 2023.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond and repair:
1. Its emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Its urgent repairs within five working days
3. Its standard repairs within 20 working days.
4. Its planned repairs within nine months.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says:
1. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
2. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Local authorities have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point.

Summary of events

The information provided shows the resident had reported mould in her daughter’s bedroom in October 2021. She reported that there was mould seen on the bedroom ceiling and around the bedroom window.
In November 2021, the contactors inspected the roof. During the inspection it had found that:
1. The overall condition of the roof was poor and beyond economical repair.
2. The roof would be replaced by the landlord in due course.
3. The poor condition of the roof was allowing moisture to penetrate inside the bedroom causing mould.
Contact notes from February 2022 show the contractors had installed a temporary covering over the whole roof and the guttering at the property to ensure it was watertight until the roof was replaced by the landlord.
The landlord has not provided any repair logs or call records to confirm any of its contact or its record keeping about the issues that were reported by the resident. These records were requested by the Ombudsman but have not been received to date.
The resident has said she was not contacted or updated by the contractors about any of the works completed at the property. She had returned home from work one evening in February 2022 and found that scaffolding was erected at the property to install the covering sheet over the roof. The resident said she had to ask the workers onsite about the works being completed at the property.
The information provided shows in September 2022, the resident had contacted the contractors again and said:
1. There was excessive rainwater falling off the roof and rushing down the house. The rainwater was also falling onto the conservatory and down the conservatory doors.
2. She was getting wet when leaving and entering her home due to the amount of water dropping off the roof.
3. The back garden was flooding with the rainwater.
4. There was increased condensation and mould inside her daughter’s bedroom.
5. She had to wipe away the condensation and clean the mould on a daily basis.
6. She had tried to clean the mould and repaint the bedroom with damp proof paint but this was not helping. The roof covering had made the issues inside her daughter’s bedroom worse.
The resident has said she had also emailed her housing officer about the ongoing issues but received no reply. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any emails or contact notes by the landlord to confirm this.
On 20 October 2022, the resident raised her stage one complaint by telephone. The main points raised were:
1. The roof replacement and guttering outside her property was delayed.
2. The temporary plastic cover over the roof was causing rainwater to fall down onto her house and into her back garden causing floods.
3. She had never requested a plastic sheet to cover her roof.
4. Since the sheet was installed, there has been increased condensation, damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom.
5. She was struggling to sleep at night due to the noise of the rainwater dropping onto the plastic sheet over the roof.
6. There was always rainwater dropping onto her conservatory roof and down the conservatory doors. She would get wet when leaving and entering her home because of the rainwater dropping onto her.
7. She had emailed her housing officer about these issues but received no reply from them. She had later called them by phone to raise concerns about the rainwater to which the housing officer had replied ‘how often does it rain’.
On 16 November 2022, the contractors issued its stage one complaint response and said:
1. It had reviewed the complaint points raised.
2. It had reviewed the photographs taken of the roof during the inspection and it was agreed that the roof was beyond economical repair.
3. Its contractors were responsible for keeping the property ‘watertight’ and the sheeted tarpaulin placed over the roof had been agreed by the landlord until it was in a position to replace the roof.
4. The complaint was not upheld.
5. The resident was provided with details to escalate her complaint to stage two if required.
On 24 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two by email. The same issues raised during her stage one complaint were escalated to stage two.
On 7 December 2022, the contactors issued its stage two complaint response and said:
1. It had had reviewed all the complaint points raised.
2. During its inspection in November 2021, it was agreed that the roof at the property was beyond repair and would be replaced. It explained the photographs of the roof were shared with the landlord and the landlord had agreed that the roof was beyond repair.
3. The property was sheeted with tarpaulin during February 2022. It explained when a property is sheeted, part of the process is to also cover the guttering as this allows a firm fixing to hold the sheeting secure.
4. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the roof and the guttering being covered.
5. It confirmed that the roof replacement referral was not sent to the landlord due to an administrative error. Its roofing manager would be attending the property on 15 December 2022 to inspect the property in order to establish if any temporary repairs could be completed to prevent the water ingress issues causing damp and mould inside the property.
6. The complaint was upheld and it apologised for the administrative error due to which the resident’s details were not passed onto the landlord.
7. This was its final complaint response and it provided details to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman if required.
On 15 December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The main points raised were:
1. She was not happy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
2. The roof replacement was delayed which has exacerbated the damp and mould at the property.
3. The rainwater was still flooding her back garden and dropping onto her conservatory.
4. There was increased condensation, damp and mould at the property.
5. The landlord’s roofing manager failed to attend an appointment on 15 December 2022. The resident was not contacted about the failed appointment and no further inspections were arranged.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with photographs of the conservatory and her back garden. From the images provided, it can be seen there was rainwater dropping down her conservatory doors, and there were floods in the garden.
On 23 January 2023, a roof survey of the property was arranged by the contractors. The survey report dated 23 January 2023 said:
1. The tarpaulin sheet to the rear elevation was not properly battened down and dressed over the existing fascia on both sides of the property causing the water to cascade. There was evidence of moisture to the external wall above the small flat roof porch to the front side of the property where water was cascading off the main roof.
2. There was dampness to the external wall of the bedroom at high level.
3. There was no guttering to the front or back of the property. The guttering needed replacing and connecting to the adjoining guttering system.
On 22 February 2023, the resident chased the landlord directly for an update. On the same day the landlord responded to the resident and said:
1. A roof survey had been completed and its finding had been passed onto the landlord in February 2023. Its contractor was responsible for keeping the property watertight until the landlord was in a position to replace the roof.
2. Its contractors had inspected the roof and a roof replacement referral was made in February 2023.
On 23 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again and said:
1. The back external wall at the property was damp and there was mould inside her conservatory.
2. Her daughter’s bedroom was still mouldy and required cleaning every day to remove the mould especially around her window.
3. The issues at the property were causing her a lot of distress.
4. She was not aware of the roofing manager’s inspection. She had not been contacted by the contractors about any inspections.
The landlord’s internal communication provided to the Ombudsman confirms a roof replacement referral was sent to the landlord on 14 February 2023.
On 22 July 2023, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that:
1. A surveyor had come out to inspect and discuss the roof replacement plans with her neighbour. The surveyor then confirmed all the planned works had been agreed.
2. The builders instructed by the landlord had contacted the resident by phone to confirm the works would be started in early August 2023.
3. She has not received any letters, emails or calls from the landlord to confirm any of these works.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of water ingress issues at the property exacerbating the damp and mould at the property

The resident reported mould in her daughter’s bedroom in October 2021. An inspection was completed in November 2021 which noted that the poor condition of the roof was causing mouldat the property. After the inspection, the contractors confirmed the roof needed to be replaced because it was beyond repair. No works were done to remove the mould that was seen during the inspection. The resident had to clean the mould and repaint the bedroom herself. This was unreasonable and it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In February 2022, the roof and the guttering at the property was covered with plastic sheeting to make it ‘watertight’. The resident was not informed of these works, she said she had returned home after work one day and found that ‘scaffolding was erected’ at the property. This was unreasonable and caused a lot of confusion for the resident. The resident had to ask the operatives onsite about these works. The contractors communication with the resident was poor throughout its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould at the property. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the landlord’s own repairs policy which says when a repair is reported the tenant will be given a time and a date for when its contractors would attend the property.
In September 2022 the resident reported increased condensation and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. She said she was ‘wiping the condensation’ and cleaning the mould on a daily basis. She said there was excessive rainwater dropping onto the house and her conservatory.It would be reasonable to conclude the rainwater was dropping onto the property because the guttering had been covered. The contractorsagain failed to take any action to inspect the property for anyadditional repairs required to these issues at the property. This was inappropriate and not accordance with the landlord’s HHSRS duties.
The resident had to raise a complaint in October 2022. She reported increased condensation, damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. She was concerned about the rainwater dropping onto the property and the conservatory. Evidently, the issues in the bedroom were getting worse. The rainwater was flooding the back garden and dropping onto the resident when she was leaving and entering her home. The operatives failed to take any action. Although a complaint response was issued to the resident, no action was taken to inspect the damp and mould at the property. This was unreasonable and no doubt distressing for the resident. The contractors had said they were responsible for keeping the property watertight but failed to take any action to resolve the exacerbating damp issues inside the property.
The resident had toescalate her complaint to stage two. The contractors responded to the complaint and they confirmedwere responsible for keeping her property ‘watertight’ and an inspection by its team manager was arranged on 15 December 2022 to inspect the water ingress issues causing damp and mould at the property. They then failed to attend the appointmenton 15 December 2022 and failed to make any contact with the resident to rearrange the appointment. This was unreasonable and not in accordance with the landlordrepairs policy. This caused further confusion, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In January 2023 the contractors arranged a roof survey which confirmed there was damp and mould at the property. The survey had also found that the ‘Tarpaulin to the rear elevation was not properly battened down’ and there ‘was evidence of moisture to the external wall above the small flat roof’. The survey had found there was dampness to the external wall of the bedroom at a ‘high level’. Evidently, the mould issues reported in September 2021 had worsened and there was now damp and mould in other areas of the property. Even after the survey, the contractors failed to take any action to inspect the water ingress issues which had evidently become worse over time. If they had inspected these issues sooner, the further damp and mould issues may have been avoided.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with photographs of her garden and conservatory doors. It can be seen from the images there were water floods in the garden and rainwater was dropping down the conservatory doors. The resident has said these images were sent to the contractors but no action was taken. Furthermore, the inspection of the roof in November 2021 by the contractors had confirmed the roof needed replacing and was beyond repair.
However, the contractors then failed to make a roof replacement referral in November 2021 to the landlord due to an ‘administrative error’. This was accepted by the contractors themselves during their final complaint response. The roof replacement referral was not made until February 2023 which was 15 months after the roof had been inspected as beyond repair in November 2021. This was unreasonable and outside the landlord’s repairs policy which says all major works should be completed within nine months..
The roof at the property has not still been replaced to date. However, since the replacement referral was made to the landlord in February 2023, the resident has confirmed that she has received confirmation from the landlord’s sub-contractors that the works are planned to start in August 2023. If this referral had been made sooner in November 2021, the roof replacement may have already been completed reducing the overall timeframe. The overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident may have also been avoided. The further damp and mould issues at the property may have also been avoided.
Overall, the landlord is responsible to ensure its repair contractors are responsive and engaged with its residents. Despite the contractual relationship with its contractors, the landlord is legally responsible for any repairs required at the property and to ensure they are completed in accordance with its own policies and procedures. In this case the contractors failed to take any action to inspect or address the continuous water ingress issues which were exacerbating damp and mould at the property. The roof replacement referral was delayed for a considerable length of time. The works done to cover the roof and the guttering at the property may have been appropriate for a short period of time but it was not appropriate to cover the roof and the guttering for a long period of time. It would be reasonable to conclude that this would have exacerbated further moisture, damp and mould issues at the property.
Even though the contractors had delayed the roof replacement referral. The roof replacement was discussed and agreed with the landlord in late 2021 so it was aware that a replacement of the roof was required at the property. It should have systems in place which kept an accurate record of these discussions. It should also have had systems in place to check and ensure any follow up works required by its contractors were being completed without any delays. Furthermore, the resident had contacted the landlord directly in February 2023 and made the landlord aware of all her concerns but it failed to investigate these issues or take any action to address any of the water ingress issues at the property which are still continuing to date.
The landlord failed to comply with its HHSRS duties by not assessing or monitoring the works it had agreed to complete with its contractors. If these works had been monitored and checked, the escalated water ingress issues exacerbating further moisture, damp and mould at the property may have been avoided. The further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident may also have been avoided. Therefore there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress issues at the property exacerbating damp and mould at the property.
The landlord has failed to acknowledge any of its failures or offer any redress to the resident to recognise these failures. The Ombudsman will order compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, this Service has considered the resident’s average level of rent for the period from November 2021 until July 2023, which was around £95.24 per week or £380.96 per month. The roof replacement and the damp and mould issues are still outstanding to date, 20 months from when it was reported in October 2021. The resident had to live with condensation, damp and mould affecting the property. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was severely reduced, especially her daughter’s bedroom.
Given the affected areas and the impact on the family 25% of the rent, or £1904.80 is considered appropriate in recognition of its failures in handling the damp and mould related works. The rent figures and the identified delay period are indicative and used as a guideline only and are not intend to amount to an exact refund.

Complaint handling.

The resident raised her stage one complaint on 20 October 2022. The contractors issued a stage one complaint response on 16 November 2022, which was 18 working days later and eight working days outside the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 24 November 2022. The contractors issued a stage two complaint response on 7 December 2022, which was eight working later and well within the landlord’s complaints policy.
Although the overall response time had improved during stage two and the contractors hadacknowledged and apologised fortheir stage one complaint handling delays,the complaint should have been referred to the landlord for investigation. It was not appropriate that both complaint responses were issued by its contractors. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with landlord’s complaints policy which says all complaints should be investigated and responded to by the landlord itself.
This was also unreasonable because it denied the landlord an opportunity to investigate the issues that were being reported by the resident and check its contractors were providing the service they were contracted to. The landlord should have systems in place to ensure its contractors are managing complaints about repairs accurately by referring them to the landlord. Therefore there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This case demonstrates significant record keeping failures throughout the resident’s reports of water ingress issues at the property. The Ombudsman had requested call logs and repair logs from the landlord but none were provided. Evidence points to failures both in the contractor’s and the landlord’s record keeping. The resident advised that she had to chase the contractors on several occasions about the ongoing issues at the property which were exacerbating damp and mould at the property. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. This Service was not provided with any comprehensive call notes that could demonstrate what was discussed with the resident, and what advice it gave.
The landlord and its contractors should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. The discussions between the landlord and its contractors about the roof replacement were not provided to the Ombudsman. Furthermore, no internal communication confirming its planned works was provided. It is important that the landlord’s records accurately reflect dates and times significant events took place. The contractors confirmed that photographs of the roof were shared with the landlord after its inspection in November 2021 but none of these records confirming its agreement to replace the roof were shared with the Ombudsman. This limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate it had complied with its HHSRS obligations.
Records should tell a full story of what happened, when and why. In this case, the landlord was unable to demonstrate any of this which had a significant impact on its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress issues at the property which were exacerbating damp and mould at the property. Furthermore, due its record keeping failures, it failed to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint therefore denying itself an opportunity to put things right.
Overall the significant record keeping failures hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and effectively communicate these to the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress issues at the property exacerbating the damp and mould at the property.
2. record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord and its contractors delayed the required roof replacement referral from November 2021 to February 2023. It actions to cover the roof and the guttering at the property were not appropriate long term which had exacerbated further damp and mould at the property. Furthermore, it failed to take any action to investigate the continuing issues of water ingress at the property and its communication with the resident was poor throughout its handling of these repairs.
The contractors had failed to refer the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Instead the complaint responses were issued by its contractors. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It was unable to demonstrate that it had kept contemporaneous notes of its interactions with the resident. There was missing details around its communication and discussions with its contractors which had an impact on its ability to investigate and put things right for the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £2654.80 direct compensation made up as follows:
1. £1904.80 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s handling of the water ingress issues at the property which exacerbated damp and mould at the property.
2. £500 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the above issue.
3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to write to the resident and update this Service about its roof replacement works and when the works are scheduled to be completed.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to inspect the damp and mould at the property and complete any identified works required within a further four weeks and make good any damage caused by the damp and mould at the property.
The landlord is ordered to self-assess its procedures and approach to damp and mould cases against the recommendations from our spotlight report on damp and mould. The landlord is to provide a response to this Service setting out where it is already compliant with the recommendations and where it isn’t, including what steps it will be taking to ensure its future actions are in line with the report.
The landlord is required within four weeks of the date of this report to review this complaint and provide a report on:
1. How it intends to improve its record keeping failures and its internal staff communication to ensure all reports of disrepair are investigated and referred without any delays, in order to avoid such failures in the future.
2. How it intends to improve its communication with its repair contractors so its repairs obligations are recognised at the outset when dealing with damp, condensation and mould at the property, to ensure such failures are avoided in the future.
3. How is intends to improve staff training to improve its communication with residents to ensure it is engaged and resolutions focused, to ensure such failures are avoided in the future.
4. How it intends to change its complaint handling procedures to ensure that it has oversight of complaints about its contractors and that it provides responses itself, in accordance with its policy.
The landlord to issue the resident a written apology within four weeks of the date of this report for the failures identified above.