London Borough of Redbridge (202125195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125195

London Borough of Redbridge

25 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
   2. Request to move the radiators in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom maisonette flat, and her tenancy started in September 2020. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

4. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2022 and said:
   1. She had concerns about damp and mould in her property, stating it was “unbearable”
   2. It had recently completed a “mould wash”, but this did not address the “root of the problem”
   3. It had not installed “normal radiators” as it had “promised”
   4. There was an ongoing leak from the property above into her bathroom, and the ceiling looked as it if was about to “collapse”
   5. The operative who had installed the new boiler the day before had explained there was an ongoing leak from the property above that needed addressing
   6. She asked to be placed into temporary accommodation until it resolved the repairs issues.
5. From the evidence available, it does not appear the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 2 February 2022.
6. The headteacher of the resident’s children’s school wrote to the landlord on 25 February 2022 expressing a concern about the living conditions on the resident’s property, and that the condition were affecting her child’s health.
7. On 1 March 2022, the resident called the landlord and asked for an update on the repairs at her property. She said its contractor had told her that they were waiting for it to authorise the works. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day to investigate the matter. The relevant team responded on 2 March 2022, and said the resident had cancelled the works, and a new job was being raised.
8. The resident completed a complaint form on the landlord’s website on 3 March 2022 and said:
   1. It had been over a month since the landlord’s surveyor had visited about the issues at the property, and she had not heard back
   2. She was concerned the ceiling in the bathroom was about to “collapse”
   3. Its surveyor had “promised” to replace the radiators in the house and install an electric radiator in the downstairs toilet, but it had not done so
   4. She, and the operative who installed the boiler, had reported a leak from the flat above, but it had never investigated the issue
   5. The leak had contributed to the mould in the property, and the landlord had done a mould wash, but the mould had returned
   6. It had offered another mould wash but she had refused because she wanted it to solve the main issue contributing to the mould first
   7. She had emailed the surveyor who visited to raise her concerns, but they had not responded
9. On 6 April 2022, the landlord instructed a contractor to complete a series of works at the resident’s property which were:
   1. Install a new bathroom suite (including flooring), and replaster the ceiling
   2. Check and repair any leaking pipework while fitting the bathroom
   3. “Treat mould” in the main and second bedrooms
   4. Fit a new handle to the kitchen window, fit new kitchen units, and decorate
10. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2022 and said:
    1. It outlined the works it had raised on 6 April 2022, and said they were booked to be completed on 13 June 2022. Its contractor would bring the date forward if it had any cancellations
    2. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in repair works being raised, following the inspection, and apologised
    3. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she was unhappy with its response.
11. The landlord’s repair log shows the above works were marked as complete on 20 June 2022.
12. A representative for the resident (Ms A) contacted the landlord around the 29 June 2022 (the exact date is unclear). Ms A asked the resident’s complaint to be taken to stage 2, as she was unhappy with its response. The landlord emailed Ms A on 29 June 2022 and asked the resident to complete a consent form for Ms A to be able to discuss the complaint with it. The resident sent the landlord the completed consent form on 14 July 2022, it is unclear whether the landlord responded.
13. The resident contacted this Service on 16 August 2022, and said that the landlord had not issued a stage 2 complaint response. This was despite sending the information it had asked for, including the consent form. This Service wrote to the landlord on 16 August 2022, and asked it to issue a stage 2 complaint response by 31 August 2022.
14. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 14 September 2022 and said:
    1. It outlined the works it had completed to install the new bathroom and repair the ceiling
    2. It had “treated” the mould in the main and second bedrooms
    3. In the kitchen, it had installed a new window handle and restrictor, and treated the mould
    4. In relation the resident’s concerns about the blocked kitchen window, it had investigated and found that she had asked it to remove the extractor fan within the window, so it could open fully. It explained it could not do this as the extractor fan was there to “combat condensation”
    5. It noted the resident’s concern about the placement of the radiators
    6. It could not move the radiators in the property, due to the positions of the pipes under the floorboards, and it was unable to change this
    7. It partially upheld the complaint due to not all repair works being completed to an appropriate standard, which it cited as: a hole in the floorboards that was not repaired.
15. The resident contacted this Service on 10 October 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. The resident said that damp and mould was still an “ongoing issue” in her property, and the landlord had not installed a radiator in the downstairs toilet as it had said it would.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

16. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
17. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
18. The repairs guidance on the landlord’s website states that it aims to complete routine repairs, that it is responsible for, within 28 days. For “urgent” repairs it aims to complete them within 5 working days.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days, and issue its response within 10 working days. The policy states it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
20. The landlord’s housing compensation policy states that it can award compensation from “time and trouble”. It says it should do so if it has failed to offer an “appropriate remedy” at an earlier stage, or a complaint has not been investigated properly at stage 1.

Leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs

21. Neither the landlord’s repair log, nor any other evidence provided for this investigation, indicates it responded to the resident’s email of 2 February 2022, which was a failing. It is concerning, particularly considering the conditions the resident described, including potential hazards, that the landlord has no record of conducting an urgent inspection at that time.
22. The resident’s email of 2 February 2022 also asked it to provide her with temporary accommodation while it investigated/completed the reported repairs. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord formally responded to this request. Given the concerns the resident had raised about the conditions at the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond and set out its position. That it did not caused an inconvenience, as the resident was left not knowing its position on the matter.
23. It is apparent that sometime during February 2022 works were raised to be completed at the resident’s property, as the internal email of 1 March 2022 suggests the resident cancelled them. From the evidence available, it is not possible to determine what works the landlord proposed, or when it visited to establish what works were needed, or if/when the resident cancelled. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s repair log does not detail any works relating to damp or mould around this time. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of adequate record keeping around this time contributed to the delays in its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs.
24. The landlord did not instruct a contractor to complete the proposed works until 6 April 2022, which was well outside of its target timeframe of 28 days to complete repairs. The evidence indicates that the works were not completed until June 2022, another 2 months later. It is noted that, due to issues with its contractor, this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, that the works were completed 4 months after the resident had put it on notice, was unreasonable and well outside of the timeframes set out on its website. The resident was evidently distressed about the conditions at her property, the delay contributed to the distress experienced by the resident.
25. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord was proactive in communicating with the resident about the delays, or the issues it was having with its contractor. This was unreasonable and caused an inconvenience to the resident. She was cost further time and trouble of needing to chase the landlord up for the repairs in late February and March 2022.
26. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted the above failings, that there were delays in booking repairs, and it appropriately apologised. The stage 1 response lacked any assessment of its handling of the matter, and how the delays had happened. This was a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. Given it admitted failings, it would have been appropriate to assess its actions and outline what it would do to stop similar issues happening again. Its lack of meaningful assessment of its actions caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
27. In terms of the damp and mould itself, the landlord’s stage 1 response was also inappropriate. The landlord outlined that it would “treat” the mould, but it did not outline in any detail what that meant. In her email of February 2022, and her complaint of March 2022, the resident had raised concerns about its approach to the mould. The resident expressed a concern that its approach of completing a “mould wash” did to get to the “root” of the problem, and it kept returning. It is not clear whether the treatment set out in its complaint response was a further mould wash. However, the lack of detail or explanation of what it intended to do was inappropriate.
28. Given the concerns raised by the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out, in detail, what works it intended to do. If it were only offering a mould wash again, it could have set out why it felt that was appropriate. The lack of detail in its complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. That it was silent on the resident’s concerns about the “root” cause of the issue, and what it would do to identify possible causes was also inappropriate. This caused the resident further distress, as it did not respond to specific concerns she had raised.
29. The resident expressed a concern about the lack of investigation into the causes of damp and mould in her property. She specifically cited a leak from the property above as a possible cause. The complaint response was silent about the leak, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. It is noted that the works order referenced the need to check the pipes in the bathroom for leaks, but was silent on doing any check from the property above.
30. The evidence available indicates the landlord did not take a proactive approach in seeking to identify the causes of the mould and simply sought to treat the mould present. Its approach was contrary to that set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. The Spotlight Report states landlords should adopt a “zero tolerance” approach and be “proactive” in diagnosing the causes of damp and mould. The evidence available indicates the landlord was not proactive in seeking to determine the cause of the mould in the resident’s property, or her concerns about a leak from above. As such an appropriate order is set out below.
31. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also dismissive in relation to the resident’s concern about damp and mould. It is noted that it outlined that it had “treated mould” in the property. Again, its response lacked any meaningful assessment of what it had done, or why it felt its actions were appropriate to tackle the issue. Considering the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, it is concerning that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked detail. That it did little to assess its own actions up to that point was inappropriate.
32. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position in relation to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen window. It explained why it could not remove the extractor fan, due to the need to ventilate the kitchen. The Ombudsman appreciates this decision was disappointing for the resident, but the landlord’s approach was reasonable, and sought to manage her expectations.
33. Despite completing some repairs associated with the damp and mould, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to proactively investigate potential causes. This includes a lack of meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns about a leak from above. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states that landlords should have the “appropriate expertise to properly diagnose and respond to reports of damp and mould”. The report also states landlord’s should decide when appropriate to instruct an independent surveyor and share the outcomes of such surveys with residents.
34. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord shared the outcomes of its own surveys with the resident, or sought any specialist independent advice on the concerns raised. Given what was reported by the resident, its approach was inappropriate. The resident suffered distress and inconvenience of not having specific concerns addressed, and the landlord failing to give any meaningful assessment of its actions. There was a lack of meaningful investigation into the root causes of the damp and mould, and its communication with the resident about the issue was dismissive. The landlord’s handling of the matter amounts to maladministration, and a series of orders are set out below.

Radiators

35. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on the concerns raised by the resident about the radiators in her property. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, and caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident was evidently distressed about the radiator issue, and felt the landlord had not acted on what it said it would. That it did not address these specific concerns raised by the resident amount to a failing in its handling of the radiator issue, and its complaint handling.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the above failing right. It clearly outlined its position on moving the radiators. The landlord explained its decision, and the reasons why. The Ombudsman appreciates its decision was disappointing for the resident. However, its explanation was appropriate and sought to manage her expectations, and explain the reasons for its decision. That it did not acknowledge its earlier failing in its handling of the matter was a shortcoming in its stage 2 complaint response.
37. However, the stage 2 complaint response was, again, silent on the resident’s query about the radiator in the downstairs toilet. This was a further shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to use its final complaint response to formally set out its position in relation to the matter. The inconvenience caused by its failure to address this concern is evident, as when asking this Service to investigate, the resident specifically expressed a concern this matter was still outstanding.
38. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about the radiators. The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right. The stage 2 complaint response failed to apologise or acknowledge the earlier failing, and was silent on the issue of the radiator in the downstairs toilet, which caused further inconvenience. The landlord’s handling of the radiator issue amounts to service failure, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

Complaint handling

39. In her email of February 2022, the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the outstanding repairs. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time was unreasonable. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction” however made. The resident was unhappy with its approach up to that point, that it did not open a complaint investigation at the time was a failing in its complaint handling.
40. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in March 2022. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, as its policy and the Code state that complaints must be acknowledged. This caused an inconvenience to the resident as she missed an opportunity for the landlord to explain its understanding of the complaint.
41. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent well outside of the timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. The response was sent 38 working days after the resident complained, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord, appropriately apologised for the delay. However, its response lacked a meaningful assessment of why there was a delay in responding, or what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. The landlord also failed to offer any redress for the delay in issuing a complaint response, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. This approach failed to adhere to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
42. It is unclear exactly when Ms A first asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It appears this was sometime in late June 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask for a form from the representative to satisfy itself of its data protection obligations. That it did not open on stage 2 complaint investigation on receipt of the requested form, in July 2022, was a further failing in its complaint handling. Its approach created an unfair and hard to access complaints procedure which caused an inconvenience to the resident.
43. The landlord’s failure to open a stage 2 complaint investigation was unreasonable. The resident was caused a further inconvenience by needing to contact this Service in order to get the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint. Despite an intervention from this Service on 16 August 2022, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 14 September 2022. This was a further delay and 14 days outside of the timeframe requested by this Service, and amounts to a further failing in its complaint handling.
44. Despite sending its stage 2 complaint response well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. This was inappropriate and a further failing in its complaint handling, as it failed to consider the detriment the resident experienced, due to the delay.
45. As outlined earlier in this report, both complaint responses admitted failings in its handling of the substantive issues of the complaint, and lacked evidence of learning. The stage 1 complaint response also acknowledged the delay in issuing a stage 1 complaint response. The lack of a meaningful assessment of its actions, and offer of redress when admitting failings, was unreasonable. This was a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right, as well as its own compensation policy, in its complaint responses.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move the radiators in the property.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

49. There were delays in raising repairs, after the landlord had inspected. The landlord accepted this failing, but failed to show appropriate learning, or offer redress for its admitted failing. Its approach to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould was dismissive, and lacked a meaningful investigation of reported causes.
50. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about the radiators, which was a failing. The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right, but failed to apologise or acknowledge the earlier failing. Its stage 2 complaint response was also silent on the issue of the radiator in the downstairs toilet, which caused further inconvenience.
51. The landlord created a protracted and hard to access complaints process for the resident. Its complaint responses lacked a meaningful assessment of its actions and were dismissive of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. It appropriately apologised for the delay at stage 1, but failed to do so at stage 2. Its complaint responses failed to offer redress for admitted failings.

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report
    2. Pay the resident £675 in compensation, made up of:
       1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould
       2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience cause by its handling of the resident’s request to move the radiators in the property
       3. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling
    3. Write to the resident to formally outline its position in relation to her request for it to install a radiator in the downstairs toilet
53. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property to identify potential causes of damp and mould, and make appropriate recommendations to rectify the issue. The inspection should also investigate the resident’s concerns about a leak from the property above.
    2. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the damp and mould issue including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
       1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner
       2. How its poor record keeping contributed to the issue
       3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on: Damp and Mould; Knowledge and Information Management
    3. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks
    4. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff. The training should focus on:
       1. Complaint handling timeframes set out in its policy and the Code
       2. The importance of formally acknowledging complaints, and proactively updating a resident if there is a delay
       3. The importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and offers appropriate redress
    5. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.