London Borough of Hounslow (202228688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228688

London Borough of Hounslow

30 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Concerns around defective windows.
3. Concerns around squirrels in a loft.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The information seen suggests the resident is a fixed-term tenant. Her tenancy began in February 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident occupies the property with her young children. Some of the children have vulnerabilities relating to their physical and mental health. They include asthma and other breathing conditions.
The landlord emailed its repairs team on 28 September 2018. It said it had seen the resident that day. In addition, she reported the roof had been leaking since her tenancy began and no repairs had been completed. The landlord responded that the matter was with a major works team. Later, a repair record from mid-November 2019 said a new roof had been fitted (to the block).
Subsequent repair records show several rooms in the property, including both bedrooms, were impacted by related leaks, damp and mould. For example, the landlord’s repair notes said, “a lot of mould works were completed under (a roofing works order)”. The records suggest the landlord completed associated internal repairs to the property around March 2020.
The resident reported damp and mould again in late 2022. Related repair records said she was expecting a baby. In addition, she was concerned about the baby’s health due to black mould in a bedroom. An inspection in early December 2022 recommended treatment works to the property’s bedrooms and bathroom. Subsequent records show the works were delayed. They referenced a “damp and mould backlog”.
In January 2023 the resident approached the Ombudsman. Her complaint referenced: leaks, damp and mould, defective windows, and squirrels in the loft space. The resident said her baby was ill and nurses attributed the situation to damp and mould in the property. She also said she had previously complained to the landlord. We relayed her concerns to the landlord on 31 March 2023.
The landlord replied the resident had not previously complained. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 26 April 2023. This was around 17 working days after the Ombudsman’s email. The landlord acknowledged roof repairs were delayed and mould treatment works were not completed within its relevant timescale. Though the complaint was upheld, no compensation was awarded.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 June 2023. She said, following several interactions with the landlord’s complaints team, a number of repairs were completed. However, other repairs were outstanding and the operatives “left the property in a mess”. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 July 2023. This was around 24 working days later.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2. Its response only addressed the mess left in the property and the outstanding repairs. The landlord said the images provided by the resident confirmed its operatives had not taken reasonable care. In addition, outstanding decoration works had been scheduled for 8 September 2023. It awarded the resident £50 as a “goodwill gesture”. Other key points were:
1. In relation to the mess, feedback was given to the landlord’s repairs manager.
2. A supervisor would post inspect the operatives’ work within days.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 24 May 2024. She said there were ongoing damp and mould issues at the property. She reiterated her related concerns about her young family’s health. She also said the landlord had not resolved her concerns about the windows or squirrels in the loft. The resident’s other key points were:
1. After the roof leak, the resident eventually replaced a damaged carpet herself. The landlord never attempted to address the damage.
2. The property’s built in wardrobes were unusable due to mould. The resident had to buy her own furniture to prevent the family’s clothes being damaged.
3. The landlord’s operatives often attended without a prescheduled appointment. The landlord ignored the resident’s request for operatives to call when they arrived.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.
During the timeline, the resident told the landlord she wanted to move on health/welfare grounds. Her subsequent medical transfer application did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. However, it may help to explain that rehousing requests based on health/welfare grounds are typically outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is usually better placed to consider related complaints.

Policies, procedures and other relevant information

The landlord provided a sample document with its standard tenancy terms. It said the document applies to the resident’s tenancy. The document shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The resident is obliged to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs. When access is required, the landlord will provide at least 24 hours’ notice.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its relevant complaints policy. As a result, we searched our case records for an applicable document. We found a policy document effective from December 2017. It shows the landlord aimed to respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.

The landlord provided limited evidence about the initial roof leak or the associated damp and mould. Given the lack of information, it was difficult to assess the issue. For example, the landlord only addressed the matter briefly during its stage 1 response. The response said the landlord was sorry it did not complete the repair in good time. However, it was glad the matter was resolved. It briefly referenced repairs completed by the resident’s father, and damage to the resident’s carpet. The response did not attempt to explore these issues.
The landlord’s approach was concerning given the apparent duration of the leak and its potential impact to the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling will be considered in the relevant section below. Nevertheless, the stage 1 response shows the landlord accepted it was responsible for delays in relation to the roof leak. It did not raise any objections to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. For example, the landlord did not say it would not consider the complaint because too much time had passed since the events in question.
On that basis, we made our own assessment based on the evidence available. The evidence shows the resident has consistently said she reported the leak early in her tenancy. Repair records suggest a new roof was fitted around November 2019 and internal repairs were subsequently completed around March 2020. The records show several rooms were impacted and a significant amount of damp and mould works were completed under roofing repair orders. The above points to a related impact period of around 26 months.
This was based on the period between February 2018 and March 2020. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs. As a result, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 25 months. In the meantime, the resident reported she had used mould wash for a year but she was unable to contain the mould in a bedroom. This information was from a repair order raised around April 2019. Corresponding notes said the landlord was unable to access the property to complete a repair.
While this was a mitigating factor, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced during the above identified delay period. In addition, given the rooms that were affected, she had limited respite from the situation. The evidence shows concerns about her family’s health were a source of considerable anxiety for the resident. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay proportionate compensation to put things right. Our award will be based on the evidence we have seen.
In line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, our calculation will include separate elements to reflect the loss of amenity and the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of amenity aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given her reduced enjoyment of the property. It will be based on a flat rate of £80 per month. This is broadly based on £20 per month for each affected room. Repair records from December 2019 suggest the kitchen and lounge were also affected by the roof leak.
The evidence points to other serious failures in relation to the leak. Specifically, there was no evidence to show the landlord handled the resident’s concerns around damages appropriately. For clarity, where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to their health or personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance team. Alternatively, a landlord can investigate reports of damaged items through its own complaints process. In this case, the landlord failed to adopt either of these approaches.
In addition, the evidence shows the landlord’s apology was highly disproportionate given what went wrong. Given the impact to the resident, the landlord should have made a fair attempt to put things right for her. This included making a reasonable effort to award proportionate compensation. Ultimately, the landlord failed to address its failures accordingly. It’s approach was both unfair and inappropriate. The above were significant failures on the landlord’s part. They amount to severe maladministration by the landlord.
The resident has said she raised damp and mould again in September 2022. In contrast, the landlord’s stage 1 response referenced delays from December 2022. Since it was not clear what prompted the landlord’s inspection at this point, our assessment used the resident’s timeline of events. In any case, the evidence confirms there were further delays in relation to the resident’s 2022 report. During internal correspondence on 9 May 2023, the landlord said it took “way too long to resolve the damp and mould, which (remained) unresolved”.
At this point, the landlord also said the case should be referred internally to learn from the resident’s experience. This was an appropriate step given the circumstances. Repair records show the landlord completed some related damp and mould repairs on 13 May 2023. This suggests an initial delay of around 7 months based on the period between September 2022 and May 2023. Since damp and mould are potential health hazards, this timescale was inappropriate. The resident’s report included concerns about her baby’s health.
The evidence shows there were quality issues with the landlord’s above works. The Ombudsman has seen several images of these issues. Repair records suggest the landlord attempted to address these issues on 30 October 2023, but it was unable to gain access to the property. Overall, the records show there were around 7 no access incidents between July 2023 and January 2024. There is also evidence the resident was staying with relatives during this period. The parties’ correspondence suggests this was due to her son’s illness.
The information seen suggests follow up repairs to the property are still outstanding to date. For example, repair notes said related repair orders were eventually closed and the resident should call the landlord to reschedule an appointment. It was noted the resident has said the landlord did not give advanced notice of appointments. It was also noted the landlord gave her a direct contact number for its repairs team in August 2023. Overall, the access issues were considered to be a mitigating factor in completing the outstanding repairs.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s response to the resident’s more recent report was also inappropriate for similar reasons. Given the duration and impact of the additional delays between September 2022 and May 2023, the landlord should have awarded the resident a proportionate amount of related compensation to put things right. Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The landlord only offered the resident a £50 goodwill gesture based on the mess left by its operatives around May 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around defective windows

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said one of the landlord’s operatives told her the property’s windows were beyond repair. From her correspondence, it was unclear when she felt this information was given. She also said the windows were “bowed” and there was a draft in every room. In contrast, the landlord’s responses did not address these concerns directly. The landlord only referred to windows in its stage 1 response. The response said the landlord had scheduled a appointment to complete repairs on 10 May 2023.
In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a history of window repairs from 2018 onwards. It shows adjustment and resealing works were completed on a number of occasions. Broadly, it shows the landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports within a reasonable timeframe. However, we checked the repair history for any evidence to support the resident’s assertion that the windows were all deemed to be beyond repair. The contents of a repair order from March 2020 were noted.
The order said, “the fanlight window is draught free but the opening casements are bowed in the centre of each frame and cannot be repaired any further so we have measured for new PVC-U window and will submit price…”. This wording indicates the operative was concerned about a single window. A subsequent repair order, from October 2020, referenced further window works. It said, “(the resident) refused to have works carried out until bedroom window has been replaced…”. There were no other references to a replacement window in the repair history.
In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said its surveyor subsequently determined that the property’s windows could all be repaired. The information seen suggests the landlord reached this conclusion based on a visit that occurred in June 2023. The timeline suggests the visit was prompted by the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman was not given a copy of the surveyor’s specific findings. As a result, the surveyor’s rationale was unclear.
Given the circumstances, it was difficult to make a fair assessment of the issue. Nevertheless, the information seen shows the resident was given conflicting information about the need for a replacement window. Given its position changed, the landlord should have explained its rationale to the resident. Similarly, the evidence points to an overall lack of communication from the landlord. For example, no information was seen to show it updated the resident after a replacement window was recommended in March 2020.
The evidence shows the resident was left expecting at least one replacement window from this point onwards. Based on the timing of this assessment, this represents a period of around 50 months. It is accepted the resident declined window repairs in October 2020. Nevertheless, the situation was both unfair and inappropriate. In summary, the lack of communication and conflicting information represents maladministration by the landlord. At least, the parties’ interaction in October 2020 should have prompted the landlord it to issue an update.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around squirrels in a loft

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she made a number of reports to the landlord about squirrels. She also said the problem was ongoing because, even though squirrels were caught, traps were not replaced during the treatment works. Again, the landlord did not directly address these concerns. Its stage 1 response said there were “no follow on actions” after a pest control visit in November 2022. The response also said the landlord had arranged a further pest control visit. This was likely in response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman suggests:
1. Old squirrel traps were found during the treatment works in 2022.
2. A squirrel was caught during further treatment works in June 2023.
3. The second course of treatment “ended with 2 no access visits”.
4. The operative recalled light was coming into the loft from outside.
Given the above, there was conflicting evidence about this complaint point. Specifically, the landlord has indicated that no follow up works were needed in 2022. In contrast, the operative’s comments suggest an entry point for pests may have been left unaddressed. Ultimately, the Ombudsman was unable to make a full and fair assessment from the information provided. This was largely because the landlord’s own investigation was inadequate. For example, there was no evidence the landlord attempted to establish the overall infestation timeline.
Similarly, there was no indication the landlord attempted to establish the impact on the resident. These issues point to procedural failures in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. Based on our complaint handling findings, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to raise a new complaint to fully address the resident’s related concerns. However, from the information seen, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. This finding was based on our inability to make a full and fair assessment from the information available.

The landlord’s complaint handling

As indicated, the timeline points to serious issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Significantly, its responses showed an inappropriate lack of engagement with the resident’s key complaint points. For example, its stage 2 response only addressed a mess left by the landlord’s operatives and some outstanding decoration works. When compared to the resident’s other concerns, the impact of these issues was relatively limited. It is reasonable to conclude this approach can be interpreted as both selective and dismissive.
In any case, the landlord’s responses were inappropriate overall. In general, stage 2 is an opportunity for landlords to rectify any procedural or investigation issues that occurred beforehand. By failing to complete a more detailed review at this point, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord reduced its chances of resolving matters successfully through its own internal complaints procedure. To avoid similar issues going forwards, the landlord should sense check its stage 1 decisions (at stage 2) to ensure a fair outcome was reached.
As mentioned, there were significant problems with the landlord’s approach to redress. For example, at stage 2, the landlord referred to its £50 offer as a goodwill gesture. Given the circumstances, this description was incorrect. The response wording confirms the award was issued as compensation for the landlord’s failure to “protect (the resident’s) furnishings and belongings from excessive dust for the duration of the works”. Its “goodwill” approach was not consistent with an open and transparent complaint handling culture.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord was reluctant to award compensation. This was concerning given the landlord was aware of evidence that pointed to significant and impactful failures on its part. Similarly, its responses often resembled updates. This is broadly because they mainly focussed on any outstanding issues. However, the landlord should have also attempted to rectify the previous failures it identified. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers an apology sufficient to address small one-off failures.
For example, an apology can be used to address short delays of 2 or 3 days. In this case, there were similar delays at each complaint stage. Since the landlord failed to recognise them, it failed to address the delays accordingly. This is further evidence that it failed to consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. For clarity, any overlooked issues are a technical failure. They are likely to result in an adverse finding from the Ombudsman. To avoid this outcome, the landlord should address any complaint handling delays.
In summary, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Although it was aware of evidence that pointed to significant delays and failures, the landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s key complaint points. It appeared reluctant to award compensation and adopted an inappropriate approach to redress. The landlord also failed to consider its own complaint handling. Its brief responses resembled updates rather than complaint resolutions. Its approach was both unfair and inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. Complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around defective windows.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around squirrels in a loft.

Reasons

The evidence points to several serious failures in relation to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. For example, there were extensive delays even though the resident raised health concerns during the timeline. Given the duration of the delays and the corresponding impact to the resident, the landlord’s subsequent apology was highly disproportionate. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of damaged personal belongings.
The resident was given conflicting information about the need for a replacement window. Since its position changed over time, the landlord should have explained its rationale to the resident. There was no indication it did this. Similarly, the evidence points to an overall lack of related communication. It suggests the resident was left expecting a replacement window for around 50 months based on the timing of this assessment. This was both unfair and inappropriate.
There was conflicting evidence in relation to the squirrels in the loft. Ultimately, the Ombudsman was unable to make a full and fair assessment based on the information provided. This was largely because the landlord’s own investigation was inadequate. While there was insufficient evidence to support a related failure by the landlord, our orders will ensure the matter is investigated fully.
Although it was aware of evidence that pointed to significant delays and failures, the landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s key complaint points. It appeared reluctant to award compensation and adopted an inappropriate approach to redress. The landlord also failed to consider its own complaint handling. Its brief responses resembled updates rather than complaint resolutions. Its approach was both unfair and inappropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to complete a full inspection of the property and the loft within 4 weeks. The inspection should be completed by a senior surveyor. It should establish the current situation in relation to leaks, damp and mould, any ongoing repair quality issues, the condition of the windows, and whether there are any squirrel points of entry into the loft. The landlord should share its inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,400 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,000 for the loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s inappropriate response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £750 for any related distress and inconvenience.
3. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns around defective windows.
4. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks to gather information about her damaged items and any cleaning costs. This is with a view to refunding her accordingly. Since it failed to follow the appropriate procedure in the first instance, the landlord should avoid onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damages. During this contact, the landlord should also provide its insurance team’s details. This is in case the resident wants to claim for any health impacts.
The landlord to raise a new formal complaint to address the resident’s concerns around squirrels. As part of this process, the landlord should contact the resident to gather the full details of her concerns. This includes details of the complaint timeline and the impact to the resident. The landlord should share its new complaint reference number with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 55(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: extensive leaks, damp and mould delays, failure to address the resident’s damaged belongings, failure to engage with key complaint issues, inappropriate approach to redress, and failure to consider its own complaint handling. The landlord is free to include other issues. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the relevant timescales.