Kingston upon Hull City Council (202125791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125791

Kingston upon Hull City Council

20 December 2022

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 repairs to the property relating to damp.
This report also examines the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a four bedroom semi-detached house.
The tenancy agreement states that ‘most repairs’ are carried out by the landlord but minor day-to-day maintenance is the responsibility of the resident. It specifically states that the landlord;
1. is required to keep in repair the structure of and exterior of the premises in a good state of repair
2. will arrange for works to be carried out by a competent tradesman within target times notified to the tenant upon reporting of the repair.
The landlord advised it does not have a repairs policy but does provide information about its repairs service online. Its website advises that the landlord works with specialist contractors who do their best to complete all repairs on the first visit. Where this is not possible, then the contractor will explain what needs to be done next and will arrange further visits with the resident to resolve. No detail of timescales are given for repairs appointments.
There is some information on the landlord’s website about condensation, damp and mould. This information details what actions the resident can take to help stop condensation.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It advises that on receipt of a complaint, an acknowledgement will be sent within three working days, and a full response within ten working days. If the resident is unhappy with the stage one response, they are able to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. In this stage, a different representative of the landlord will look at the information and provide a further response within 20 working days. If after stage two, the resident remains dissatisfied, they are able to request either a panel hearing with elected members of the landlord, or they can refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman of its claims process with regards to compensation. This document sets out an insurance claims process for alleged damage caused to a resident’s home by failing to carry out repair works. It explains that damage to property claims are investigated by the landlord or its partner contractors. If the claim exceeds £500, then it will be referred to the landlord’s insurer.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided repairs records dating back to 19 July 2021, where it advised the resident first reported the repair issues directly relating to damp in her home. On 30 July 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended and advised he witnessed powdery deposits on the surface of brickwork around the lounge chimney breast and damp in the downstairs toilet but could not find any leaks in the affected areas. He referred this to a surveyor for inspection.
The landlord instructed a surveyor to attend on 11 August 2021. At this appointment he advised that the fire suite needed disconnecting and one square meter of plaster needed hacking off from either side of the fireplace, this was to be renewed. He also said that anti-sulphate paint needed be applied to the downstairs toilet.
A subcontractor attended to carry out the works to the plastering. When the electrician then attended on 14 September 2021 to re-connect the fire suite, he reported to the resident that the plasterwork was not straight. She in turn reported this to the landlord. From 14 September 2021 there are multiple records of attempts made by the landlord to chase the subcontractors to reassess the plasterwork, and a subsequent visit from a supervisor to review followed on 24 January 2022.
On 21 September 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint via email to her landlord and advised that she had been experiencing issues with the landlord’s repair service. She had also completed a webform on 28 September 2021 with the same information. The resident said that in December 2020, she was visited by two representatives from the landlord who said that planned work needed to be done to remove paint from the exterior of the property. They advised that the works would take approximately three days, and that scaffolding would be erected within the following few days. It was not until 6 July 2021 that the scaffolding was erected, and work did not start until 4 August 2021. During this time delay, the resident reported she was inconvenienced in a number of ways;
1. she was unable to hang out her washing
2. her partner was unable to store his bike at the side of the house as he normally did and had to take it to and from the inside of the home
3. she had to take down her security cameras to allow for the works to take place
4. it left her property feeling very dark and was affecting her wellbeing.
When the contractor came to start to remove the paint from the exterior of the property, they had protected the windows and doors as best that they could but pressure water was coming through every single window, and both exterior doors.
The resident explained that what followed was miscommunication between the landlord and its contractors. She advised that:
1. on 16 August 2021, a contractor’s surveyor noted salt still coming through the brickwork in the living room and by the front door. He advised the resident to report it
2. when a surveyor for the landlord went to inspect, he also noted salt coming through the downstairs toilet. He advised that the downstairs toilet needed treating and sealing, and plastering work done on parts of the living room wall and hallway
3. when the plasterer attended, he advised that he had only been instructed to carry out minor works to the chimney breast. The repair work he did later had to be re-done as the workmanship was not straight
4. on 3 September 2021 when the landlord’s contractor came to repoint the brickwork, he noted the condition of the living room and advised the resident that he thought that the whole living room should be replastered
5. the replastering work had not taken place.
In her complaint to her landlord, the resident advised her concern was that information appeared to keep being lost between departments. As a resolution she advised she wanted;
1. the whole living room replastered. At the time the plaster was so loose she could not hang mirrors or pictures
2. works to reseal all of the windows
3. two new exterior doors fitted
4. the scaffolding removed
5. compensation for the disruption.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint. It offered an apology that the delays and standards of service fell below the resident’s expectations. It advised that upon investigating the complaint, it could confirm the following;
1. the scaffolding wasn’t taken down as planned due to an admin error and in the time since, further works were identified to the pointing around the property and chimney stack. This meant it was required to remain in situ. It assured the resident that as soon as these works were completed, the scaffolding would be removed
2. the salt that the resident was describing was ‘bloom’ and indicated that the property was drying out from the sand blasting which had removed some of the external mortar. This was what the pointing would resolve.
3. the external doors had been ordered and an appointment would be arranged in due course
4. that the landlord’s contractor had tried to make contact for a supervisor to attend to inspect the property but had been unsuccessful in making contact with the resident. It urged her to get in contact with them directly to arrange an appointment.
5. the complaint was partially upheld on the basis that there was miscommunication between departments and an apology had been offered for this.
On 2 December 2021, the landlord’s housing service team received an internal email advising that the resident remained unhappy with her repair works and they responded that they would be logging the response at stage two.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two response. It apologised that the resident remained unhappy, and that ongoing repair works continued to cause inconvenience. It advised that contrary to what the contractor had told the resident, in the opinion of its surveyor, the whole living room did not need reskimming. It recommended that if the resident was struggling to hang items on the wall, that she considered drilling and using wall plugs. It said that repairs had been booked for 17 February 2022 to:
1. renovate and skim three square metres of plaster in the living room and party wall
2. renovate and skim a small area of the front hallway
3. renew skirting boards following these works.
The landlord advised that the downstairs toilet had been inspected and that no repairs were required. It recognised that works were required to make good around the back door and had arranged this for 11 March 2022.
The landlord referenced a separate issue with a delay in taking away rubbish left at the property following works completed on 8 December 2021 which were not collected until 25 January 2022. It apologised for this and said that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld owing to this.
On 8 March 2022, the resident lodged a housing condition claim via her solicitors to her landlord. Although the claim was later withdrawn as the resident wished to approach the Ombudsman, it prompted the landlord to send a disrepairs surveyor to the property.
The surveyor’s assessment of the property on 20 April 2022 confirmed the following:
1. the hallway was experiencing dampness as a result of suspected issues with the bridging of the damp proof course (DPC) and replastering around the right-hand side of the entrance door were recommended
2. the living room walls had staining and spoiled decorations across every perimeter. Damp meter readings were elevated to the defective areas, and it was suspected that there were issues with the bridging of the DPC. It recommended that 400mm of the full parameter of the living room be replastered, renewal of skirting and decorating on completion
3. the downstairs toilet had salting to the exterior gable wall and high damp meter readings. A chemical DPC had been carried out in the past, so the salting could relate to that, or it could have been exacerbated by the recent exterior works done to remove the paint. It was recommended that work be done including application of tanking slurry, plaster boarding and skimming of the walls.
4. repair works were required to the kitchen, including plastering and stain blocking to where a leak had occurred in the ceiling
5. bedrooms one, two and three required repair work including treating surface mould on window reveals, renewing blocked plaster vents and replacing missing window latches
6. exterior works were required including repointing mortar, replacing trickle vents to two bedrooms, securing a loose rainwater hopper, and removing bricks to allow bridging of DPC.
On 12 May 2022, repair orders were issued to contractors. In recognition of the failures it had identified, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it would like to offer the resident an £800 ex-gratia payment. This was on the assumption repair works would be completed in July 2022.
In contacting the Ombudsman, both the resident and the landlord confirmed that some repair works remained outstanding, and an appointment had been arranged on 28 November 2022 to establish what these were.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns regarding delays to a number of repairs at her property, including floor levelling and damp in her shed. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether these two specific repairs are directly related to main cause of damp in the rest of the property and notes that they did not form part of the original complaint to the landlord. Therefore, the specific concern of floor levelling and damp in the shed are outside of the scope of this investigation. If the resident wishes to complain about these elements specifically she is encouraged to raise a complaint directly to her landlord.
In any event, the Ombudsman notes that the rest of the repairs noted by the resident were related to the overall condition of the property as a result of damp and these have been considered for investigation.

Repairs to the property relating to damp

The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the structure, exterior and services of their property. The reports made by the resident would fall within the landlord’s obligation to maintain.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it has no repairs policy, therefore it is impossible to establish whether it was outside of its expected timeframes to attend and rectify reports of damp. Nonetheless it is noted it has taken over 16 months to resolve and has caused the resident disruption to her daily life, where in addition to living with damp within her property, has had scaffolding erected around her home for an extended period of time.
In the absence of a repairs policy, the landlord referred the Ombudsman to its website, which has a page specifically for condensation, damp and mould. The webpage, as of 19 December 2022, is aimed solely at what residents can do to help stop condensation themselves by providing four tips. It does not provide residents with any further guidance or support on what action will be taken by the landlord if these steps fail to resolve the issue, as the focus is very much on the lifestyle of the resident in its guidance. The information provided on the website does not reflect the landlord’s obligations, minimises the issue and disproportionately places sole responsibility on the resident to tackle condensation, damp and mould.
It is recognised that the landlord sent a number of contractors, supervisors and surveyors to the property over several occasions to inspect the damp that was affecting a number of rooms. It is clear that there was contradicting information from different operatives, with some suggesting the works required to repair the damp were more substantial than others. Whilst the landlord may choose to be reliant upon the information passed onto them by their specialist contractors, it is ultimately responsible for keeping their property in a good state of repair. The landlord should also have been proactive in confirming the scope and details of the works to be carried out and communicated this clearly to the resident to avoid confusion.
There appeared to be a lack of cohesion between the contractors and the landlord, which resulted in delays in progressing the repair works and contradictory information given to the resident by different operatives. From September 2021, the landlord chased a subcontractor several times about poor workmanship to the plastering before they sent a supervisor to attend to inspect four months later, in January 2022.
The landlord raised a number of repairs jobs for replastering to its contractors which focussed on small areas of the property. Its contractors attended these works but did not successfully resolve the damp. The resident then pursued a housing condition claim via a solicitor on 8 March 2022, after which the landlord instructed a disrepair surveyor to attend on 20 April 2022. This inspection survey following the disrepair action reported that a more comprehensive scope of works were required to resolve the damp issues. These were located beyond the areas within the home that the resident had complained about, for example, the bedrooms. This report is at odds with the landlord’s earlier inspection findings, which suggest misdiagnosis or incompleteness. Certainly the level of detail and scope, whilst welcome at this point, might reasonably have been expected prior to the disrepair action being taken by the resident.
Having noted the full extent of the works from the survey of April 2022, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the works were completed by the timeframe it provided, which was July 2022. This is in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles – “Be Fair, Put Things Right” and “Learn from Outcomes”. However, it failed to do so, exacerbating the earlier delays, and causing further inconvenience to the resident.
It is noted that the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it was willing to offer the resident an £800 ex-gratia payment in recognition of the failure in their repairs service. It was fair under the circumstances that the landlord should consider reasonable redress to put right the service failure for its repair service. The amount offered was calculated solely on which habitable rooms were affected and assumed that the repairs would be resolved by July 2022. It fails to include a remedy for the wider ongoing inconvenience that was caused to the resident, including the extended length of time she has had to live with scaffolding around her home owing to the landlord’s own administration error.
The amount calculated by the landlord did not recognise all the factors that would be reasonably expected within a comprehensive remedy. The claims guidance it provided the Ombudsman was not an overarching compensation policy but an insurance claims process. The absence of a compensation policy cannot but have hindered the landlord’s ability to put things right.
Furthermore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have monitored and progressed all the repair works through to completion in support of its complaints responses. With some repairs outstanding, there remains detriment to the resident who has the inconvenience of allowing further access to the landlord to complete the works.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first made their complaint on 21 September 2021, but the landlord did not issue a response until 26 October 2021, this was 26 working days later and therefore 16 working days later than the timescale set out in its complaints policy. Though the landlord advised it did not receive the complaint until 28 September 2021, the Ombudsman has seen sight of the original email sent to the landlord on the 21 September 2021.
There does not appear to have been an acknowledgement or communication with the resident between her complaint and their first response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to discuss her concerns in further detail in order to ensure all elements had been investigated and addressed.
In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she spoke to several members of the landlord’s staff to advise she was unhappy with the landlord’s first response and required an escalation to stage two. In internal email correspondence on 2 December 2021 between two departments, the landlord recognised that the resident remained unhappy and confirmed it will escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. However, it did not issue a stage two response until 11 February 2022, 49 working days later and significantly outside of the 20 working day timescale expected within the landlord’s complaints policy.
In its stage two response, the landlord offered an apology for its delay in completing repairs. It failed to identify what had gone wrong in the handling of the complaint itself, namely its delayed responses which protracted the complaints procedure and therefore failed to put things right. This amounted to service failure as the landlord did not offer adequate redress for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by having to speak to several members of its staff in order to get a response to her concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property relating to damp.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

Repairs to the property relating to damp

A full survey of the property at an earlier date would have better equipped the landlord to respond all concerns of damp in the property. The compensation offered by the landlord was calculated on the basis that the matter would be resolved in July 2022. It failed to take into account the inconvenience the resident had experienced and it did not review the compensation, despite works remaining outstanding.

Landlord’s complaint handling

There were significant delays in responding to the resident throughout the complaints process and in doing so it did not fully acknowledge its failure in service against its own policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. in addition to the £800 ex-gratia payment already suggested, pay the resident a further £400 in recognition of the delays and continued inconvenience caused in completing her repairs relating to damp. Payment to be made within four weeks of the date of this report;
2. pay the resident £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its failure in the handling of her complaint. Payment to be made within four weeks of the date of this report;
3. inspect the property and identify all works which are outstanding from the agreed works dated 20 April 2022 within four weeks of the date of this report;
4. set out in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman the outcome of the inspection and complete the works within the following four weeks;
5. carry out a review of this case to identify learning, improve its working practices and ensure its procedures for damp and mould are fit for purpose. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord’s review should as a minimum include clearly defining and communicating the responsibilities of both the tenant and the landlord, and service level expectations in its publications. The outcome of the landlord’s review should be shared with the Ombudsman in writing within six weeks of the date of this report;

Recommendations

That the landlord develops and operates a formal repairs policy in line with good practice and the regulatory standard that “registered providers shall ensure a prudent, planned approach to repairs and maintenance of homes and communal areas”.
That the landlord takes steps to ensure contractors report back any advice given at repairs visits so as to minimise the risk of contradictory information being given to residents.
That the landlord report back on its intentions regarding the recommendations above, within four weeks of the date of this report.