Kirklees Council (202325823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325823

Kirklees Council

4 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs including damp and mould, removal of polystyrene ceiling tiles in the hallway, repairs to the kitchen ceiling, repairs to the windows and clearing the rear gutter at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident shares the property with one of her children and young grandchildren.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident has reported damp and mould in her property to it since 2018.
An independent surveyor completed an inspection of the property on 19 October 2022 as the resident wished to start a legal claim for disrepair. The surveyor drew up a Scott Schedule, dated 9 November 2022. The Scott Schedule found that there was no evidence of visible or structural dampness in the hall, or kitchen. It found minor surface mould to the grouting in the bathroom. It said that the bathroom extractor fan was fit for purpose and that the skirting board in the hallway had no defects and was free from mould. It recommended that the landlord remove polystyrene tiles from the hallway ceiling as these could pose an increased hazard were there to be a fire. It also recommended that the landlord replace 1 square metre of plaster board on the kitchen ceiling to remedy damage from a historic leak. It found that the windows in the property were generally in good condition but recommended that the landlord replace a friction plate to the bathroom window as this could be allowing cold air to enter the property. It recommended that the landlord replace the double-glazing units in the kitchen and the rear bedroom windows. It also recommended that the landlord clear the rear gutter at the property. It found no evidence of a cockroach infestation.
On 23 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been living with large amounts of condensation on her windows for years. She had to wipe the condensation away and mop up pools of water. She kept the central heating on and left her windows slightly open day and night to try and reduce the condensation, but these measures did not help. She said a surveyor had advised that she needed new windows and that the lack of ventilation had caused surface cracks on the kitchen walls. She had to use mould spray throughout the property. She wanted compensation for damage caused to the woodwork, and wallpaper which had been stripped away. She said there was a mix of paint colours in the property due to the landlord’s operatives using magnolia paint instead of the original paint colour, after they had treated mould.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident in response to her concerns about the condensation. It said someone would contact her. The same day one of the landlord’s operatives repaired the shower pull switch as this had been tripping the electrics in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 December 2022. She was unhappy as the landlord had done nothing to improve the condensation. Its operative had recommended a better extractor fan and that she keep the windows open.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord offered to send the resident a liability insurance claim form in relation to her request for compensation for damage to her possessions.
The landlord’s contractors carried-out a damp and mould survey on 16 February 2023. They recommended that the kitchen ceiling and walls should be treated for mould. On 6 March 2023, the landlord called the resident to arrange to visit her in relation to the condensation she had reported. The landlord’s records state that the resident declined this visit and said she was happy to wait for its operatives to carry-out damp and mould treatment.
On 8 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord had not resolved the damp, mould and condensation in her property. It had advised her to leave the windows slightly open, to wipe the condensation away, and to put the heating on. She reiterated that she was already taking these steps, but they were not effective.
2. The lack of ventilation had caused surface cracks on the kitchen walls.
3. A surveyor had recommended that the windows in her property needed replacing and that ventilation should be installed.
4. The landlord’s operatives had used paint that did not match her original paint work.
5. She was requesting compensation for damage to woodwork and wallpaper being stripped away.
6. An operative had fitted a new pull switch to the shower but had left her without the use of a shower. Another operative had recommended that she needed a better extractor fan.
7. The landlord had told her that it had a backlog and therefore it would not be able to treat the mould in her property anytime soon. She requested that the landlord carry-out the works recommended in the report.
Between her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord seeking updates on when it would treat the condensation, damp and mould, and when it would carry-out the work recommended in the Scott Schedule.
On 25 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out a further damp and mould survey. It recommended that mould treatment was needed to the window reveals in the kitchen, bathroom, third bedroom, dining room and lounge. It also recommended mould treatment to the kitchen ceiling, a wall on the landing, to a wall, doorframe, and around the tiles and the toilet in the bathroom.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023. It said:
1. Condensation occurred due to factors such as an imbalance in temperature and furniture being placed too close to walls. It had attached a leaflet with advice on how to control condensation.
2. It said its operative had booked an appointment for 5 May 2023.
3. It would install kitchen and bathroom fans if there was adequate space to do so.
4. It had offered to inspect the resident’s bathroom given the concerns she had raised about mould. The resident had declined this inspection as there was already an appointment booked to inspect the mould in her property. It had a large number of properties awaiting mould treatment therefore there would be a minimum of 8 weeks wait.
5. It was not due to replace windows at her property. The resident had not reported that any repairs were needed to her windows for over 5 years.
6. It had taken all necessary steps to remedy the condensation she had reported therefore it would not award compensation.
On 28 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She asked the landlord to replace blinds and a cot, which had been damaged by mould. She requested that it replace floorboards that had rotted due to the condensation and mould. She asked the land lord to award her compensation so she could hire a decorator to paint the bathroom, kitchen and hallway where its operatives had used magnolia paint.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported to it on 3 May 2023, that the vents in the windows did not open or close. The landlord arranged to check the vents in the windows on 24 May 2023, however its records state that the resident would not allow its operative access to check the working of the vents.
The landlord’s operatives attended on 14 June 2023 and 3 July 2023. They did not find any mould on the grout or windows, but treated some mould found on silicone sealant. They fitted a sink in the kitchen and cleaned the windows in the resident’s property.
The landlord removed polystyrene ceiling tiles in the hallway on 19 July 2023 and skimmed the ceiling. It also repaired sealant in the bathroom. The landlord made appointments to replace the glazing in the windows at the property and to repair a damaged kitchen wall unit on 14 August 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused to the resident. It said:
1. It had appointed a designated staff member as a point of contact for the resident in her complaint. It had asked the designated staff member to contact her about the compensation.
2. The bathroom extractor fan was working correctly, however there was no space to fit an extractor fan in the kitchen.
3. The resident had requested that the landlord replace the skirting board. Its operatives inspected the hallway skirting but did not inspect the bathroom skirting board as the resident did not mention this to them during their visit to her property.
4. It had resolved an issue with her washing machine.
5. It had raised repairs to the bath panel, boxing and grab rail in her bathroom, but it needed to investigate to see if further works were needed.
6. It acknowledged that there had been a lack of coordination between its various tradespeople and its specialist damp contractor. It was updating its processes to improve coordination in future.
On 4 October 2023, the resident told the landlord she was not satisfied with its stage 2 complaint response. She said it had not acted on her request to replace the windows. It had replaced windowpanes, but she believed the condensation would continue. She asked for compensation for having to live with polystyrene ceiling tiles, for the mould spray she had had to buy, and for the mouldy blinds. She requested that the landlord replace the rotten floorboards. She said it had not completed work to the gutters.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023. She said an operative had told her they had managed to clear most of the window vents but had not managed to open the vent in the small bedroom window.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 30 and 31 October 2023. She said she had had to live in an unhealthy environment due to mould, condensation and polystyrene tiles. The landlord had not removed polystyrene tiles in the bedroom, nor had it removed polystyrene coving on the hallway and stairway ceilings. Problems with the gutter at the property had gone undetected. She wanted the landlord to replaster the surface cracks in the kitchen. She wanted the landlord to install new kitchen units as these were suffering from wear and tear. She wanted windows with improved ventilation, a better bathroom extractor fan and an extractor fan in the kitchen. She also asked that the landlord consider moving her to a property with better ventilation.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for the length of time it had taken to respond to her complaint. It again offered to send the resident an insurance claim form.
The landlord’s repair records show that it completed repairs to the gutter on 9 December 2023.
On 21 October 2024, the landlord carried out a survey of the resident’s property. The survey reported that cracks in the kitchen ceiling needed repairing. The landlord’s repair records state that this work was carried out on 22 October 2024.
The resident told the Service on 27 November 2024, that the landlord had arranged for an operative to remedy the surface cracks in the kitchen that day. The operative told the resident that the new plaster would be a pink-brown colour. The resident said she told the operative she did not want the work to go ahead as her kitchen was currently white. She said the landlord had now agreed to install a small extractor fan in her kitchen, however she said this would not be suitable as it would not be big enough. The resident clarified that the floorboards were not rotten, however she said there was mould on the beading holding the floorboards in place in the hallway.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident raised issues with damp and mould in her property dating back to 2018. There is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint about this at that time (the Ombudsman would usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising). The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, although the historic events give context to the more recent issues, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould from November 2022 onwards.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that its operatives had resolved an issue with the resident’s washing machine and had raised works to repair the bath panel, boxing and a grab rail. The resident did not raise these issues in her stage 1 or stage 2 complaints; therefore, they are outside of the scope of this assessment. Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident has told the Ombudsman she wants the landlord to remove polystyrene tiles from the bedroom and polystyrene coving round the hallway and staircase ceilings, install new kitchen units, and consider moving her to a different property. These issues are also outside of the scope of this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. Its policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 25 working days. The policy states that internal painting and decoration, and minor defects in the plasterwork are the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its complaints policy states that at stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. The policy states that if the landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint, any extension of time for it to respond will not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 and will not exceed 20 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

The landlords handling of the repairs to the resident’s property

The Scott Schedule, issued on 9 November 2022, identified that there were no signs of structural damp and apart from minor surface mould in the bathroom, there were no other signs of mould in the resident’s property. However, the report recommended that the landlord replace the double glazing in the kitchen window and the rear bedroom window. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to replace all the glazing to 13 windows in the resident’s property. In going beyond what the Scott Schedule had recommended, the landlord demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns about condensation in her property, seriously.
However, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord replacing the double glazing in the windows. It is accepted that replacing double-glazing may take longer to repair than the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy for routine repairs of 25 working days. This is because windows need to be measured to ensure that the correct size of windowpanes are ordered, and the new panes generally need to be fitted by specialist glazing contractors. However, the landlord did not replace the windowpanes until 14 August 2023. This was over 10 months after the Scott Schedule had recommended that the landlord replace the kitchen and rear bedroom windows. This was an unacceptable delay which will have likely caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
The Scott Schedule report also recommended that the landlord replace a missing friction plate to the bathroom window. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord replaced or considered replacing this missing friction plate. It would have been good practice for the landlord to carry-out this work particularly as the recommendation formed part of a disrepair claim. The landlord is ordered to inspect the bathroom window and replace the friction plate if necessary.
The resident raised the issue of condensation on her windows on 23 November 2022 and again on 21 December 2022. On receiving the resident’s report on 23 November 2022, the landlord should have arranged to carry-out an inspection of her property within its timescales for completing routine repairs of 25 working days. It did not arrange an inspection until 16 February 2023. It is accepted that the landlord may have been delayed in arranging an inspection due to the Christmas and New Year bank holidays. However, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to advise that it would not be able to inspect the condensation in her property within its usual timescales for carrying-out inspections. This will have likely caused the resident further time, trouble, and inconvenience.
The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for damage to woodwork and the wallpaper in her property. She asked that it reimburse her for damage to window blinds, a cot and beading. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident she could submit a liability claim to it if she believed that it was liable for this damage. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims because the landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord.
The landlord acted reasonably on 6 March 2023 in offering to visit the resident’s property to inspect the mould she had reported in her bathroom. It is understandable that the resident declined this inspection as the landlord had already agreed it would treat the damp and mould it had identified. However, in offering the resident a further inspection, the landlord demonstrated that it was seeking to fully understand the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that there would be a minimum of 8-weeks wait before it would carry-out the work to remedy the damp and mould in her property. This was unreasonable. The works to remedy damp and mould in the resident’s property, mainly consisted of applying anti-mould treatment to window reveals and walls, and therefore should have been completed within the landlord’s timescales for completing routine repairs of 25 working days. It is accepted that the landlord said it had a large number of properties awaiting mould treatment. However, it would have been reasonable for it to increase its resources relating to the treatment of damp and mould therefore, so that it could comply with its repair obligations and meet its timescales for completing routine repairs.
It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with information about preventing condensation. It is acknowledged that the resident had already told it she had been keeping the windows open and the heating on to reduce the condensation in her home. However, it was good practice for the landlord to provide her with advice about how to prevent condensation, as there may have been useful information that the resident was not aware of.
The landlord told the resident that there was not enough space to install an extractor fan in her kitchen. However, given that condensation can build up rapidly in the kitchen due to evaporation during cooking, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there were alternative measures it could take to increase the ventilation in the resident’s kitchen. As noted above, the landlord has said it will now install an extractor fan in the kitchen. The resident has told the Service she is not happy with the size of the fan. She has said it is not big enough and will not be effective. The resident is not obliged to agree to the installation of this fan. However, we cannot find a failing in relation to the fan the landlord has proposed, as it is entitled to install the size of fan it considers appropriate as there may be reasons why a larger extractor fan is not feasible. It is recommended that the landlord set out in writing to the resident, the reasons it cannot install a larger extractor fan in the kitchen.
It was appropriate that the landlord arranged to check the vents in the windows in the resident’s property as she had reported that these did not open or close. However, its records of 24 May 2023 state that the resident did not allow it access to inspect the window vents. The Service is not questioning the reasons why the resident did not allow access, but the landlord could not be held responsible for any delays arising from a lack of access. The resident reported that a landlord’s operative had overhauled the vents sometime in October 2023, however, they had not managed to open the vent in the small bedroom window. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange to repair or replace this vent if its operative could not open it. The landlord is ordered to inspect this vent to see if it can be repaired and if not, to replace the vent in the small bedroom window.
In her complaints to the landlord, the resident said that the windows needed replacing. She said that surveyors and operatives who had attended her property had advised her of this. The Service does not doubt the resident’s testimony; however, we have not seen evidence that either a surveyor or any operatives advised the landlord that this was the case, and the landlord can only be expected to act on information it is given. Furthermore, the Scott Schedule stated that the windows were in good condition overall. Landlords are not obliged to replace items such as windows if they can resolve issues by completing repairs as this ensures value for money and reduces costs which would otherwise be passed on to residents through their rent and service charge.
In her complaint of 8 March 2023, the resident said she wanted the landlord to complete all the repairs set out in the report, meaning the Scott Schedule. The Scott Schedule of 9 November 2022 recommended that the landlord remove and repair 1 metre section of kitchen ceiling and remove polystyrene ceiling tiles in the hallway, and that it clear the rear gutter at the property. The landlord did not remove the polystyrene ceiling tiles in the hallway until 19 July 2023. This was over 8 months after the Scott Schedule had recommended that the landlord remove the polystyrene tiles in the hallway. The landlord did not clear the rear gutter until 9 December 2023. This was over a year after the Scott Schedule had recommended that it clear the rear gutter. A survey carried out on 21 October 2024 noted that the cracks in the kitchen ceiling had not been repaired. The landlord’s repair records stated that the landlord replastered the ceiling on 22 October 2024. This was nearly 2 years after the Scott Schedule recommended that this repair was needed. These delays were unacceptable and will have likely caused the resident considerable inconvenience as she repeatedly had to chase the landlord for updates as to when these repairs would be carried out.
The Scott Schedule reported that there was no evidence of a cockroach infestation in the resident’s property. The landlord was entitled to rely on the information provided in the Scott Schedule, and it was reasonable therefore that it took no further action. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to advise in its complaint responses to the resident that the surveyor had found no evidence of an infestation. Alternatively, it could have asked the resident to provide evidence of the infestation, as she had continued to raise the issue, despite the surveyor’s findings.
The landlord offered the resident a decoration allowance of £150 and the resident has accepted this. This was reasonable as it would have allowed the resident to remedy the mismatched paint and the areas with stripped-off wallpaper.
As noted above, the resident has told the Service that she has refused the work to replaster the kitchen. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to set out whether the plastering it was due to carry-out on 27 November 2024, was to address the surface cracks on the kitchen walls. If the resident informs the landlord that she would like this work to go ahead, the landlord should complete this work within its timescales for completing routine repairs. The landlord is not obliged to redecorate after this work as internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility.
The resident has clarified to the Service that it is the beading holding the floorboards in place in the hallway that is mouldy, not the floorboards themselves. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states that its operatives inspected skirting boards at the resident’s property. However, due to the lack of clarity as to where exactly the mould was, it is recommended that the landlord inspects the beading securing the floorboards in the hallway and remedy any mould, if necessary.
The Service has found the repair records that the landlord has provided to it, to be inadequate. Whilst its repair records contain descriptions of what work is needed and completion dates, they do not record what work was actually carried-out. The landlord has acknowledged to the Ombudsman that its record keeping in this case was poor. It has said that it has learnt from this and will ensure that for all future cases it has adequate records of all actions and communication with residents, including all surveys.
The errors highlighted above, amount to maladministration by the landlord. Where maladministration has been identified, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. This is in addition to the decoration allowance of £150 which the landlord offered previously.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident told the landlord on 21 December 2022, that she was unhappy it had not taken any action in relation to her report of condensation. As set out above, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that landlords should treat any dissatisfaction as a complaint. It would have been reasonable therefore, for the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the resident contacting it, setting out what actions it would take in response to her concerns about condensation in her home.
The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023. This was 26 days outside of its timescale of 10 working days for responding to stage 1 complaints. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s records of 30 May 2023, show that it called the resident to request an extension of time to respond to her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it can request an extension of up to 20 working days to issue a stage 2 complaint response. However, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023 which was nearly 3 months after the extended deadline for it issuing a response. This is likely to have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience, as she was kept waiting for a response to her concerns for much longer than she should have been.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, set out above, highlights the importance of landlords responding to all aspects of residents’ complaints. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about being left without the use of a shower, the surface cracks in the kitchen or the mis-matched paint in her hallway, kitchen and bathroom, or that the beading connecting her floorboards was rotten in its complaint responses. It is accepted that the resident did not raise the issue of not having a shower, again. However, the landlord’s failure to respond to all the issues she had raised, may have made the resident feel that the landlord was not listening to her. The landlord is ordered to carry-out staff training in relation to responding to complaints to ensure that it responds in full to all points raised.
The landlord has offered the resident £75 compensation for its delays in responding to her complaints. However, as noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified, £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to offer the resident an additional £75 compensation, bringing the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £150, including the landlord’s earlier offer of £75. This amount better reflects the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs including damp and mould, removal of polystyrene ceiling tiles in the hallway, repairs to the kitchen ceiling, repairs to the windows and clearing the rear gutter at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 5 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect the bathroom window and replace the friction plate if necessary.
2. Inspect the vent in the small bedroom window to see if it can be repaired and if not, it should replace the vent.
3. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to her property.
4. Pay the resident an additional £75 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
5. Carry-out staff training in relation to responding to residents’ complaints to ensure that it addresses all complaint points raised.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Sets out in writing to the resident, the reasons it cannot install a larger extractor fan in the kitchen.
2. Confirms to the resident what plastering it is due to carry-out to her kitchen. If the resident contacts it to say she would like the plastering to go ahead, the landlord should carry-out this work within its timescales for completing routine repairs.
3. Inspects the beading securing the hallway floorboards and if necessary, remedies any mould.