Islington Council (202012629)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012629

Islington Council

28 June 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s report of a sewage leak into her home and her concern that it did not adequately investigate the cause.
2. the resident’s report of items disposed of after the leak.
3. the installation of extra radiators in the resident’s home.
4. the resident’s request to insulate her home, and related concern about damp and mould in her property.
5. the installation of a flue safety chain.
6. the boxing in of pipes.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman 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”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the installation of a flue safety chain and the boxing in of pipes, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident raised complaints at Stage 1 and the Stage 1 review of the complaints procedure that the landlord had not installed a safety chain for the flue in her kitchen or boxed off pipes that were part of the central heating system that was outside a bedroom. However, the resident did not escalate these complaints to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure, or otherwise express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response at the time.
Essentially a landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint within the stages of its complaints procedure before this Service can make a determination on how it has dealt with that complaint. As the above complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, they are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide (August 2017), confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “Keep[ing] the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including:
1. drains, gutters, external pipes;
2. the internal structure”.
The Housing Repairs Guide confirms the landlord’s obligation to “keep in repair and proper working order:
1. Installations for supplying water (including drainage), gas and electricity.
2. Installations for room and water heating fitted by the council”.
The Housing Repairs Guide states that:
1. “Should a council tenant’s home be flooded the council will carry out works to restore the property to a condition it can be lived in. If you should suffer a flood in your home, dependent on the extent of the damage caused by the flood, the council may provide you with temporary lighting, heating and cooking facilities. In severe flooding situations the council may need to rehouse you and your family on a temporary basis. Due to the scarcity of available accommodation in London, your choice of emergency temporary accommodation will be limited.
2. If the electrics in your home have to be disconnected for safety reasons as a result of flooding, the council will reconnect them, once it is safe to do so. Leaseholders will need to arrange such reinstatement work themselves, potentially through their building or contents insurer.
3. If the flood involves foul water or sewage, the council will disinfect your affected flooring and where feasible apply a deodoriser”.
With regards to repairs priorities and response times, the Guide states:
1. Emergency – Used when there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. Service will respond and make the area or appliance safe”. The landlord should respond within two hours.
2. Urgent Repairs – “Used for repairs that affect a tenant’s day-to-day living including no heating or hot water”. The landlord should respond with 24 hours.
3. Routine Repairs “covers non-urgent repairs e.g. minor repairs to plasterwork or resealing around a bath. The service will attend on the next available appointment. Some jobs will need an inspection first”. These works should be completed within 20 working days.
Regarding improvement works the landlord’s website states: “this cyclical works team look at any work that may need to be carried out to council owned estates and blocks every seven to ten years. This work could include repairs or replacements of roofs, windows, brickwork and external and communal decorations. … The council’s major works programme is subject to change, either by the addition or omission of works and/or a change in timescales”.
The Council’s Vision 30: Building a Net Zero Carbon Islington by 2030 document notes “just how important a factor insulation is in the fight against fuel poverty as well as climate change”. The document mentions wall insulation. Although the document does not specifically mention underfloor insulation, it has a photograph showing “Installing underfloor insulation using Q-bot”, which indicates that underfloor insulation is an option it can consider.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure (dated December 2020) at the time of the resident’s complaint:
1. Stage 1 – The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. A full investigation will be conducted, and a final response will be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt.
2. Stage 2 – Chief Executive’s stage. This second stage of the complaints procedure gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive. A full response is provided to the customer within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint (excluding bank holidays).
3. The complaints procedure further states that “When a complainant makes a request for an investigation at Chief Executive’s Stage of the complaints procedure, the department where the complaint originated and the receiving office/officer should clarify with the complainant why they are making the request. … The complainant is expected to provide copies of any additional documentary evidence they have to support their request.
4. The reasons for a request for an investigation at the CE stage and any new supporting evidence must be looked at by the receiving officer/service. If not yet done, a review of the stage 1 investigation and its findings must be conducted; this can be dealt with as a Stage 1 review”. Stage 1 reviews must be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days of receiving the new information”.
The landlord Housing Compensation Policy (November 2019) states:
1. “In certain circumstances Islington Council may have no direct liability to make payment to a resident who has suffered damage or disturbance. As a good social landlord, however, it will sometimes be in our interests to make an ex-gratia payment on a ‘without prejudice’ basis”.
2. “In cases where damage to belongings occurs due to Islington Council’s negligence residents must claim against Islington Council’s Public Liability insurance by making a request in writing or by completing the relevant claim”.
The Ombudsman has also been provided Corporate Compensation guidelines which provides concurrent, differing guidance on awarding compensation, including cases of housing repairs, but which was not applied in this case. This states:
1. Council Housing repairs – Disrepair compensation payments range between £500 and £2500 pa depending on the severity of the problem.

Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her property is a single level, first floor, two-bedroom flat in a block consisting of 18 floors. Under her flat is a void area containing the bin room, skip area and the pump room for the block. The landlord has advised that none of the resident’s household has vulnerabilities recorded. The resident has advised this Service that she has a skin condition that is worsened by coldness. The resident has a young child.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord carried out a “Full System Appraisal” of the resident’s central heating system. The landlord, according to its responses to the resident’s complaint, recommended that its gas contractor install another radiator in the hallway and provide additional support to the flue installation; however, no works orders were raised at this time for these repairs. Following the inspection, the landlord raised an order to box off pipes outside the resident’s child’s bedroom.
The landlord’s repair records show that following a “Quality Assurance Inspection” on 9 June 2020, the landlord agreed a request from the resident to install a radiator under the kitchen window and raised an order. It also raised an order to install a radiator in the hallway, on the same wall as the toilet door, as identified at the inspection of 19 December 2019. The repair records stated that works were completed on 20 July 2020, although this was not the case.
On 8 December 2020 there was a sewage back surge into the resident’s property. This was originally noted by the caretaker who noticed water seeping into the bin room and skip area, whilst the resident was asleep. On the same day the landlord raised an emergency repair order for an “Operative to attend to blocked stack located in kitchen which is causing flood to Resident’s kitchen” within two hours. The contractor attended after around six hours during which time the resident had to bail water herself. The resident has confirmed that the contractor managed to clear the blockage with a 20-meter snake rod.
On 9 December 2020 the resident advised that she was not satisfied that the soil stack did not have a blockage and asked that the stack be cleared from the outside. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it should confirm if there were any follow-up works to be carried out, such as a jet wash from outside. The parties have confirmed that the landlord’s contractor dye tested the kitchen sink to ensure all was clear whilst another operative checked that the manhole was free flowing.
After the resident reported that the floor was starting to smell on 10 December 2020 the landlord raised an order for a cleaning contractor to “attend to carry out deep clean ASAP following back-surging stack in the kitchen”, and also for the electrics to be checked. It also made a request for temporary accommodation.
The cleaning contractor attended on 11 December 2020 to clean the property according to the landlord’s repair records (although its complaint correspondence indicate that it completed the cleaning on 17 December 2020 after the property had dried out). The resident has advised this Service that the contractor advised her to remove her carpet in the hallway and her laminate flooring in the living room due to the dampness and the risk of spores. The resident has further advised that the contractor spoke to someone on the phone to authorise the removal, whom she presumed to be the landlord, then subsequently removed and took away the flooring. Photographs provided by the landlord to this Service of the cleaning show that parts of the resident’s property had no floor coverings.
On 15 December 2020 the resident advised that she could not return to her property from temporary accommodation due to problems with her electricity and the boiler. It is understood that the condenser pipe from the boiler is connected to the kitchen waste pipe and that when water backs up into the condenser pipe, the boiler shuts down. The landlord’s records indicate that it was not made aware of the boiler issue on 10 December 2020 as the resident had stated. On 16 December 2020 it raised an order for its gas engineer to attend as there was no heating or hot water, “boiler fault F4”. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the job was completed on 21 December 2020.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord sent an insurance claim form to the resident, according to its internal correspondence. It resent the form by email on 5 January 2021.
On 22 December 2020 the resident submitted an online complaint form. She advised that a surveyor had agreed that the landlord would install a radiator in her kitchen and another at the end of her hallway. However, she had not been contacted since about the works.
The resident completed another online complaint form on 8 January 2021 noting the landlord had not sought to complete the works identified at the inspection of December 2019 aside from the installation of an extractor fan which had not been completed. She again noted that the radiators had not been installed but added that they would simply increase her heating costs as there was an underlying insulation issue, due to there being a void under the property. The resident also described how her property was flooded on 8 December 2020 after the blocked stack which had also caused the boiler to stop working, sockets in the living room to spark and which had contaminated her sofa, rug, footrest, living room laminate flooring and hallway carpet, which she disposed of. She noted that the boiler stopping working was a “recurring pattern”.
On 19 January 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint, also taking into account two emails the resident had sent to a councillor. The landlord:
1. advised that the Full System Appraisal was carried out on 10 December 2019, and noted heat was not distributed evenly. Additional snags were identified including in the boxing in of pipes; however, the resident had agreed and cancelled several appointments for this work. It would have arranged for a carpenter to complete the additional snags identified during the gas appraisal had the resident pursued them sooner.
2. accepted there had been a delay in installing a radiator in the hallway since the appraisal of 10 December 2019, although this was improvement works not a day-to-day repair. Its gas contractor had attended an appointment on 16 July 2020 to measure but there had been a delay in progressing the works.
3. outlined the action taken after the report of a blocked stack and back surge in December 2021. It did not identify any service failures attributable to it or its contractors, as the cause of the back surge was not due to any works it had carried out or omitted to do.
4. noted that it had unblocked the condenser pipe and left the boiler working on 21 December 2019. However, it was not able to gain access to inspect the electrics in the living room at a scheduled appointment on 8 January 2021 and had repeatedly advised the resident she would need to rebook the appointment.
5. noted that the resident had referred to damp and mould in her property which had ruined her possessions. There were no records of the resident requesting a damp assessment and it suggested that she do so when she returned to her property.
6. confirmed the resident’s request for the insulation of the void underneath her exposed floors had been passed to its Energy and Conservation Team. There was currently no programme to address the issue of uninsulated voids under the properties at the resident’s block.
7. advised the damage to the hallway carpet and living room laminate flooring was an insurance matter, and therefore outside the remit of the complaints and repairs departments.
8. offered £50 compensation, £25 for the delay in raising follow-on works for the hallway radiator and £25 for the delay in progressing the fitting of a kitchen radiator.
On 16 February 2021 the resident advised she was unhappy with the complaint response. She stated:
1. she had a severe skin condition that was exacerbated by living in an insulated and cold property. She was not able to work and had difficulty paying heating and other bills.
2. the landlord had not addressed her point about repetitive boiler faults, in particular, condenser pipe blockages and drops in pressure. She noted that her inconvenience was increased as she had to arrange two emergency jobs as a plumber had to unblock the water pipe before a gas engineer attended.
3. she believed the landlord was liable for the back surge and therefore the damage to her property as the stack pipe did not have a backflow preventer safety valve. Also, the action taken by the landlord the following day confirmed to her that insufficient preventative maintenance had been carried out beforehand by its previous contractors.
4. it had taken over six hours for the emergency contractor to attend during which time she had to continuously bail out water. She had called the repairs service on several occasions and had to wait over 90 minutes for someone to take her call.
5. The landlord had agreed to install both the kitchen and hallways radiators at the inspection of December 2019. The radiators had not been installed but would in any event increase her costs whereas insulation would reduce her costs.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord sent the Review to the Stage One response. It advised:
1. with regards to the resident’s health concerns, she should notify her GP and she also could request an OT assessment from Social Services. With regards to the resident not being able to meet her bills, its Tenancy Services Team could assist her with claiming benefits.
2. the last call out to repair the boiler was on 16 December 2020 and completed on 21 December 2020. It provided details of all previous call outs and noted that the Full System Appraisal of December 2019 superseded the callouts.
3. it did not accept liability for the back surge from the communal stack and damage to the resident’s property as the blockages were not the result of works it had completed or omitted.
4. the backflow preventer safety device would be classed as an improvement and therefore no follow-on works would be completed.
5. it accepted that it took its emergency drainage contractor six hours to attend on 8 December 2020, from 15:22 to 21.21, therefore it would offer compensation.
6. the installation of radiators in the hallway and the kitchen were improvements; however, there was a delay for which it would compensate.
7. It would increase the compensation from £50 to £225 to comprise:
  1. Delay in forwarding the review response – £25.00.
  2. Delay in progressing the fitting of the kitchen fan – £25.00.
  3. The 2-hour emergency works order attended to six hours later – £25.00.
  4. Inconvenience – £50.00.
  5. Time and Effort to complain –£25.00.
  6. Delay to install additional radiators to the kitchen and hallway since 10 December 2019 following the gas appraisal – £100.00.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that it raised an order to install the additional radiators on 30 March 2021 and that the works were completed on 15 April 2021.
On 20 April 2021 the resident reported that the kitchen radiator was leaking, and the bathroom radiator was not working at all. The landlord’s contractor attended an appointment on 23 April 2021. On 29 April 2021 the resident reported that her hallway radiator was not working. The landlord’s contractor attended an appointment on 18 May 2021.
On 27 May 2021 the resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord to escalate her formal complaint stating:
1. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern about the lack of insulation in the review letter. Hygrothermal issues – which were defined as damp and mould growth, excess cold and excess heat – were affecting the resident’s health and wellbeing.
2. The landlord did not address the core issue of why the back surge had occurred. The previous contractor had not adequately deal with historical reports.
3. The landlord had not adequately addressed the delay in attending to the emergency repair. Following the back surge, the resident had asked operatives to remove the damp carpet and she had been left exposed to concrete since.
4. The resident’s radiators were not working.
5. The resident would like an environmental health inspection to be completed.
On 6 July 2021 the resident reported that her bathroom and hallway radiators were not working. The landlord’s repair records confirm that its contractor attended on 14 July 2021, balancing the system and leaving the radiators working.
On 21 October 2021 the resident reported that the bathroom radiator was not working. The landlord’s repair records confirm that its contractor attended on 3 November 2021 replacing the printed circuit board and leaving the radiators working.
On 26 November 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. The landlord:
1. offered £75 for the delay in the response.
2. reiterated that insulation was a home improvement and that there was no current plan to insulate the resident’s block.
3. there were no records of the resident’s request for a damp and mould assessment.
4. stated it had carried out a deep clean on 17 December 2021. Due to the lack of information, it was unable to comment on the resident’s conversation with the operative who attended to complete the deep clean.
5. stated that it had addressed the core issue of why the back surge happened by carrying out dye tests on 9 December 2020 to the kitchen sink and by checking the manhole. It could not investigate the actions of the previous contractor as this related to 2018, which was over 12 months ago and therefore outside the time limit for raising a complaint.
6. advised that damage to the resident’s personal possessions was an insurance matter. It had provided forms and guidance on making an insurance claim.
7. noted the action it had taken to repair the resident’s radiators following the reports of 6 July 2021 and 21 October 2021.
8. offered £75 for the delay in the complaint response.
9. noted there was a shortfall in the calculation of the Stage 1 award for which it apologised. It would increase the compensation to £500, comprising:
  1. Delay in forwarding the review response – from £25.00 to £25.00.
  2. Delay in progressing the fitting of the kitchen fan – from £25.00 to £50.00.
  3. The 2-hour emergency works order attended to six hours later – from £25.00 to £25.00.
  4. Inconvenience – From £50.00 to £100.00.
  5. Time and Effort to complain – From £25.00 to £50.00.
  6. Delays in raising appropriate follow-on works for hallway and kitchen radiators – From £50.00 to £100.00.
  7. Delay to install additional radiators to the kitchen and hallway after gas appraisal on 10 December 2019 – From £100.00 to £150.00.

After the complaints procedure

On 20 November 2022 the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that she had received the landlord’s response of 26 November 2021 and remained dissatisfied as:
1. she was unhappy that the landlord had no plans to insulate her property. She had lost many items due to damp and mould in her property including her mattress. Coldness affected her skin condition.
2. the landlord’s solution to install two radiators was insufficient as her home did not retain heat and the underlying issue of the lack of insulation was unresolved. Furthermore, the landlord did not take responsibility for her hallway and living room having no warm floor covering after they were removed due to the damage from the sewage back surge.
3. She believed that the landlord was responsible for the back surge as its previous contractor did not maintain and keep clear the drain before the incident. Therefore, the landlord should take responsibility for making good the damage, including replacing the carpet in the hallway and laminate flooring in the living room, rugs and a footstool. Moreover, she had returned her insurance form but not heard back. (The resident has not advised this Service when she returned the form)
4. The stack would still get blocked which caused her boiler to fail. The landlord had not explained why the back surge happened or taken steps to prevent recurrence, therefore she did not feel that she could redecorate.
5. The hall radiator and bathroom radiator did not work at the same time.
Following a request by a councillor on 17 November 2022, on 23 November 2022, the landlord carried out a damp assessment of the resident’s bedroom. The survey found that “All external walls and floors were tested for penetrative dampness with a protimeter survey master 2 in both Wood moisture Equivalent and Relative damp modes. No wet readings were found to the walls and floor. The walls were cold to touch. The trickle vents were found to be closed and the beds and items were found to be against the radiators in all rooms. The curtains were long and draped over the radiators. There is cold bridging between the interior and exterior of the property due to a lack of thermal insulation. There were also no carpets laid in the property, leaving bare exposed floors.” The surveyor recommended a heat loss survey and the installation of thermal board insulation to the external walls to the bedroom and living room.
On 19 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she did not think the works to apply thermal board insulation identified at the inspection of 23 November 2022 would be sufficient, as the problem mainly stemmed from the floor in the flat, where condensation formed. On 23 January 2021, the landlord cancelled the job to install thermal boarding due to “no contact made”.
A more recent damp assessment on 28 February 2023 concluded “The property has no issues with ceilings, most walls are internal with ones that have no issues and the walls that are external having acceptable readings as per documents and requiring no further works”. However, the assessment noted that “The flooring below the property backs onto the ceiling of some open and exposed cold areas. These floorings are reading as condensation or high risk of condensation”. As a result, the landlord has agreed a quote from its contractor to install 100mm insultation to the ceiling of the bin chute/skip area and the pump room ceiling, which were below the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

This investigation has focused on those complaints that the resident pursued through all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure and subsequently to this Service. The investigation has focussed on matters occurring up until the final response of 26 November 2021. However, matters occurring after this date have been mentioned to put the complaints in their current context and to inform the orders and recommendations made.

The resident’s report of a sewage leak in their home and her concern that it did not adequately investigate the cause

It is not disputed that following the emergency repair raised, the landlord’s contractor took six hours to attend. This was well outside the timeframe for responding to emergency repairs, which was two hours. Compounding this there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident during this period, and she has stated that she had difficulty making contact with the landlord when seeking updates herself. This exacerbated her distress and uncertainty whilst waiting for the emergency contractor. Therefore, whilst the landlord offered £25 compensation to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint, this was not a proportionate amount.
The leak was particularly distressing for the resident as she had to continually bail out water from her property, which demanded physical effort. She has referred to the caretaker helping her for a period. However, this was a result of the caretaker happening to be on site and not as a result of the landlord appreciating the worsening situation in the resident’s property and actively mitigating the impact of the delay. This represents a shortcoming in its handling of emergency repairs.
It is not disputed that the landlord resolved the emergency repair after it attended, and then took further steps to ensure the drainage situation had been resolved at that time by carrying out a dye test and inspecting the flow of wastewater under the manhole. However, the resident conveyed her concern that there was a general problem with drainage, which sometimes had the effect of causing her boiler to switch off from the back surge of water. She reiterated this in her escalated complaint of 16 February 2021. The landlord in response simply noted its actions in response to the emergency report and stated that it could not link its actions to any incidents. The landlord did not seek to establish whether there were any underlying chronic issues with the drainage at the block, such as by reviewing the history of repairs reported, which might suggest an intervention on its part such as works to improve the drainage at the block. As such the landlord did not take reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and reassure her.
The resident in particular requested that the landlord consider repairs referred to the previous contractor and the actions it took in response. In deciding not to do so on the basis that it was too late for the resident to complain about the previous contractor, the landlord misunderstood that the resident was essentially requesting that it consider whether there was evidence to suggest that the leak could have been prevented and that it consider whether there were steps it could take to prevent the recurrence of drainage problems.
The resident also suggested that it install a preventer safety device. Whilst the landlord was correct in stating such works would constitute an improvement, a blanket rejection of the works without having investigated the drainage situation at the resident’s block, or even establishing why the incident on 8 December 2019 occurred, was premature and therefore unreasonable.

Handling of the resident’s report of items disposed of after the leak

The resident in her complaint in January 2020 advised that flooring and other furnishings were damaged by the leak, which required their disposal. It was in line with the Housing Compensation Policy that the landlord directed the resident to make a claim against its insurers as she believed the landlord was negligent in its management of drainage issues and in its response to the report of the back surge.
However, the resident through her complaint highlighted the circumstances surrounding the removal of her flooring, stating the flooring was removed on the advice of the landlord and carried out by its contractor. The photograph taken by the landlord at the time of the cleaning indicates that, at the very least, it was aware of the removal of the flooring at the time. As this was a particular concern of the resident it was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide its version of events, and position on the matter. Simply stating that there was a lack of information without advising what steps it had taken to receive information needed to reach an informed view was an unfairly dismissive response. For instance, the landlord did not make clear if it had received any contact from its cleaning contractor about the flooring, or whether it had interrogated the contractor following the resident’s complaint.
The landlord did not acknowledge that the flooring had not been replaced and exacerbated the coldness in the resident’s property, according to her. Thereby, the landlord failed to recognise that the dispute over the flooring was connected the resident’s complaint about insulation and damp and mould. This lack of joined up thinking contributed to the resident’s perception that it did not appreciate her circumstances and lacked empathy.
The landlord has stated that it has not received a completed claim form from the resident whilst the resident has advised this Service that she submitted a form. Whilst it is the resident’s responsibility to submit the claim, the landlord has a wider responsibility to proactively seek to resolve disputes, as exemplified in this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles – Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. As such the landlord missed opportunities to support the resident in making her claim, such as enquiring with her whether she had sent the form and if so to what address and when. It could also have checked with its insurance team whether the form had been received. Simultaneously, the landlord also missed an opportunity to consider its own learning.

Installation of extra radiators in the resident’s home and subsequent repairs

The landlord accepts that it first identified that it should install a radiator in the hallway on 19 December 2019. However, it did not raise an order for the works at this time causing a delay. The landlord did not raise an order to install the hallway radiator, and also the kitchen radiator until after the inspection of 9 June 2020, six months later.
The resident stated that the kitchen radiator was also agreed at the initial inspection of 19 December 2019. It is not clear exactly what the landlord advised the resident as it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of this inspection. This is a significant failing as clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. Accurate and complete records enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents, and to the Ombudsman when requested.
The landlord did not complete the installation of the radiators after raising a works order on 9 June 2020. The fact that its records state incorrectly that the works were completed in July 2020 indicates a failing in the oversight of the works and that it made related errors in its record keeping. It was not until 30 March 2021 that the landlord re-raised the works order and not until 15 April 2021 that it installed the radiators. This was 17 months after the inspection of 19 December 2019. Whilst the installation of a radiators was an improvement that fell outside the timescales applicable for completion of responsive repairs, the landlord had clearly raised the resident’s expectations that the works would be completed on a responsive basis. As such the delay of 17 months for the installation of the hallway radiator and at least 11 months for the installation of the kitchen radiator was wholly unreasonable. The lack of updates in the interim compounded the distress, inconvenience and uncertainly experienced by the resident, prompting her to make a formal complaint.
The landlord accepted that there were delays in its handling of the additional radiators and offered a total of £250 compensation as redress. Whilst the landlord evidently sought to resolve the complaint through the award of compensation, its award does not align with its Corporate Compensation Guidance, which suggested a minimum of £500 compensation. Therefore, its award did not constitute reasonable redress.
The resident has advised this Service that since the installation of the new radiators, all radiators have not functioned correctly at the same time. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident reported several radiator repairs between April 2021 and October 2021, but none thereafter. When receiving the reports. the landlord completed repairs to the heating system within its timeframe for routine repairs on each instance, thereby ensuring that the additional radiators were properly integrated into the overall heating system. Nonetheless, the delay in the installation of the radiators in the first instance remains.

The resident’s request to insulate their home, and related concern about damp and mould in her property

The resident requested that the landlord insulate her flat, in particular under her property. Whilst the landlord recognises the importance of insulating properties in order to meet climate change and energy efficiency goals, insulation projects are major works that it schedules under a major works programme according to its repairs policy. Generally, it is necessary for the landlord to consider all major works required across its stock and for the insulation of the resident’s block to be prioritised accordingly, taking into account limited budgets. The landlord was therefore not obliged to install insulation on a responsive basis.
However, underlying the resident’s request for insulation was her concerns about the coldness of her property, and related concerns about damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and to therefore carry out interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this. The landlord, as confirmed by its Stage 1 response, was aware that the resident had concerns about damp and mould in her property but relied on the resident arranging an appointment on her return to the property from temporary accommodation. Thereby, the landlord demonstrated a passive approach that meant it did not take the opportunity to inspect and take steps to eradicate any dampness at the earliest opportunity. By failing to inspect, the landlord was not able to make an informed assessment whether there was sufficient reason to complete insulation works on a responsive basis at this stage.
Moreover, the landlord did not seek to make arrangements to inspect the damp upon the resident’s return. Given the possible impact of the damp, including the loss of possessions noted in the Stage 1 response, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not act proactively.
Furthermore, in escalating her complaint the resident referred to health issues exacerbated by the condition of her property, in particularly hygrothermal issues. The landlord was also aware that the resident’s property did not have flooring in parts that would have mitigated heat loss. Therefore, there was further reason for the landlord to proactively seek to inspect the resident’s property, assess the extent of the damp and mould and decide what further action to take to resolve the issue accordingly. However, the landlord did not take this action or even acknowledge that damp and mould remained an issue it should investigate. Ultimately, the landlord delayed unreasonably in identifying and addressing the resident’s underlying concerns about the coldness in her property, and damp and mould.
It is noted that following a member’s enquiry, the landlord carried out damp survey of the resident’s property on 17 November 2022 and a further survey on 26 February 2023. It noted that there was cold bridging due to lack of insulation and that the flooring showed readings of condensation or high risk of condensation. As explained above, the landlord missed opportunities to carry out these surveys before. Furthermore, it is not evident that the landlord has carried out the works identified therefore an order has been made in this regard.

Complaint Handling

The landlord originally responded to a complaint from the resident on 19 January 2021. This was within the timeframe for responding to Stage 1 complaints at the time. The Stage 1 Review response was sent outside the 10-day timeframe; however, the landlord provided reasonable redress by awarding £25 compensation in its response.
However, the landlord, as with other Stage 2 complaints it was dealing with at the time, unreasonably delayed in responding to the Stage 2 complaint, in this case taking six months after receiving the letter of 27 May 2021 from the advocate. This was considerably outside the timeframe for dealing with Stage 2 complaints. Compounding the delay, there was a general lack of contact by the landlord after the Stage 2 response letter was received, which added to the resident’s inconvenience and uncertainty. Therefore, whilst the landlord offered £75 compensation for the delay, this did not provide proportionate redress.
The response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaints procedure in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which specifies that stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. However, the landlord has published on its website its new complaints procedure, dated March 2023. The new complaints procedure confirms that Stage 1 formal complaints should be responded within ten days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 days. The new complaints procedure confirms that the landlord does not now require it to review the Stage 1 response before allowing the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. Therefore, the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
With regards to the handling of the substantive issues, as noted in the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service, a landlord’s complaints handling procedures should demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes, and the landlord should decide what is ultimately required to put things right. Furthermore, this Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time states that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. However, as noted, the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in this way, not adequately seeking to establish whether there were any underlying issues, missing opportunities to support the resident in resolving her claim for damaged possessions and delaying in addressing the resident’s underlying concerns about the coldness in her property and damp and mould. With regards to the latter point, the landlord did not carry out a damp survey of the resident’s property until November 2022; the landlord missed opportunities to arrange the survey when considering the resident’s complaint which led to unnecessary delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of a sewage leak into her home and her concern that it did not adequately investigate the cause.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of items disposed of after the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of extra radiators in the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to insulate her home, and related concern about damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in responding to the report of the sewage leak and did not offer proportionate redress. It did not seek to establish whether there were any underlying issues with the drainage at the resident’s block or even establishing why the incident on 8 December 2019 occurred.
As the loss of the flooring was a concern of the resident and had a significant impact on her it was unreasonable that the landlord did not, at the very least, provide its version of events, and position on the matter. The landlord failed to recognise that the dispute over the flooring was connected to the resident’s complaint about insulation and damp and mould. Also, the landlord missed opportunities to support the resident in making her claim.
The delay of 17 months for the installation of the hallway radiator and at least 11 months for the installation of the kitchen radiator was wholly unreasonable. The lack of updates in the interim compounded the distress, inconvenience and uncertainly experienced by the resident. Whilst the landlord offered compensation for the delays, its award was not proportionate.
The landlord delayed in making an informed assessment as to whether to complete insulation works on a responsive basis. More generally the landlord delayed unreasonably in identifying and addressing the resident’s underlying concerns about the coldness in her property and damp and mould.
The landlord significantly delayed in dealing with the resident’s complaint at Stage 2 and did not offer proportionate redress. Over and above delays in responses, the landlord did not meet good practice in complaint handling, in particular not exploring the actions needed to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in attending the emergency repair of 8 December 2019.
3. Pay the resident £510 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in installing the radiators in the kitchen and hallway. (This is calculated at £30 a month for 17 months).
4. Pay the resident £1,960 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in identifying and addressing her underlying concerns about the coldness in her property and damp and mould. (This is calculated as £20 per week for period 7 January 2021 when the resident complained about the lack of insulation to 23 November 2022 when the landlord carried out a damp survey.
5. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the delays and other failings in its handling of her complaint.
6. Review the drainage situation at the resident’s block taking into account her reports of water backing up, slow drainage and problems with her boiler, then advise the resident and this Service of the outcome, including any further action to be taken. This should include consideration of whether the installation of a preventer device is a proportionate measure to mitigate against a reoccurrence of a back surge rather than an improvement.
7. The landlord should replace or fund the replacement of the flooring in the resident’s property that was disposed of after the back surge, if its insurer does not accept liability and complete these works itself. (Whilst the landlord has not accepted the circumstances surrounding the loss of the resident’s carpet and laminate flooring, ultimately there was a back surge to the resident’s property – an infrastructure factor within the landlord’s repair obligations. This would have damaged the flooring. Moreover, the landlord delayed in responding to the emergency repair which would have exacerbated the damage.)
8. Complete the heat loss survey, the installation of thermal board insulation to the external walls to the bedroom and living room and the installation of insultation to the ceiling of the bin chute/skip area and the pump room ceiling.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to:
1. Keeping residents updated where there are delays in complaint responses.
2. The time taken to respond to complaints at stage two.
3. How it assesses what evidence is needed to fully consider a complaint.
4. Compensation offered for distress, inconvenience, delays and time and trouble.
The landlord should share the outcome of the above review with this Service within six weeks. This review should as a minimum include:
1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, which will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord reviews its process for dealing with emergency repairs, in particular considering whether it can improve its communication with resident’s awaiting a contractor and provide better support given the circumstances of the emergency.
2. The landlord confirms with its insurance section the status of her claim and advises the resident of its response. If further information is required, the landlord advises the resident of any further information that may be required from her and provides any information that it is required to.