Manchester City Council (202301791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301791

Manchester City Council

1 July 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:
1. handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord’s records do not show that the resident has health conditions, but the repair records indicate that the resident has a disability.
On 14 April 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with progressing her complaint about damp and mould within her property. The resident said that she verbally raised her complaint to the landlord in December 2022 but had not received a response.
On 23 May 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said that it had received her complaint via the Ombudsman, and that it wanted to arrange a survey to be completed by its surveyor. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange this.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord instructed a contractor to carry out a fitness for human habitation survey on the resident’s property. The survey was completed on 2 June 2023.
On an unknown date the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said that:
1. Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation, it arranged for a fitness for human habitation survey, which found:
  1. The damp was condensation was located on a small section of the bathroom ceiling and was due to limited ventilation.
  2. The risk was minor, and the property was habitable.
  3. It recommended that the landlord should inspect the existing extractor fans to ensure they operated correctly and inspect the rear elevation roofline.
2. In order to resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord would:
  1. Remove the mould on the bathroom ceiling within 4 weeks of receipt of the letter.
  2. Inspect the existing extractor fans and undertake any repairs within 6 weeks of receipt of the letter.
  3. Appoint a heating engineer to inspect and repair a radiator in the lounge which was not working.
  4. Offer £150 compensation for its failure to manage the complaint in accordance with its policy.
On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that the landlord had not completed any repairs in her property. In order to resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to repair her bathroom fully, including replacing the shower and tiles. She also wanted the landlord to replace the bathroom and kitchen ceiling and increase its compensation offer.
On 18 December 2023 the landlord raised orders for various internal and external works, which included a mould wash in the bedroom and bathroom.
On 26 January 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that the landlord kept sending operatives to complete works which could not be done until other works were completed.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s roof. It determined that there was no roof leak and that the mould was low level condensation. On the same day the landlord raised orders to overhaul the extractor fan and reskim a wall in the bedroom.
On 17 June 2024 the landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update. The landlord said that the resident had declined a number of works as she wanted the roof to be inspected first. Following the roof inspection, the landlord said it had been making ongoing attempts to try and arrange to complete the outstanding works.
The landlord also said that in light of delays, it had revised its compensation offer to £650. It is not clear whether this has been communicated to the resident or if the amount included that £150 offered at stage 2 of the complaint process.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation.

The resident said that she informed the landlord in December 2022 that she had an issue with damp and mould. The landlord said that it was not aware of the damp and mould until the Ombudsman made contact in May 2023. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident, it must make an assessment based on the evidence available which does not confirm that the landlord was aware of the damp and mould before May 2023. Therefore, based on the evidence, the investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould from May 2023.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation and space heating and heating water. The resident’s tenancy agreement also reflects these obligations.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. The assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from any hazards to be fit for human habitation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed).
The resident’s tenancy states that it must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises and it must carry out repairs within a reasonable time. It also states that residents must allow workers into the property to inspect or carry out repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation for service failure depending on the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When a resident reports a repair, including damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to take prompt action and inspect the property at the earliest convenient opportunity. It is then expected that the landlord has a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed. It is important to note that when trying to resolve issues with damp and mould, it can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted to fully resolve the problem.
Following the resident’s report of damp in May 2023, the landlord was obligated to arrange an inspection. The records show that the landlord wrote to the resident and asked her to make contact so that it could arrange for an in-house surveyor to inspect the property in the first instance. It is not clear whether this was completed, as the landlord also instructed an external contractor to complete a fitness for human habitation survey.
Following the inspection and in response to the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and informed the resident of the remedial works that needed to take place and appropriately gave her an estimated timeframe for completion. While the landlord’s repair policy does not give specific timescales, industry best practice suggests that, once identified, routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. Therefore, the landlord’s timescales of to complete and inspection and repairs within 6 weeks was reasonable.
There was an unreasonably long period of time between the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and the orders being raised, which the landlord states was due to not being able to contact the resident. The landlord has not provided any records to evidence this. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to keep accurate and up to date records of any letters or attempts to make contact with a resident so that a comprehensive audit trail is kept. As the landlord has not been able to evidence this, it has not shown that it followed the correct process for addressing the damp and mould as set out within its complaint response.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. It is recommended that the landlord review the way in which it records all interactions with its residents and ensure it keeps robust records in the future.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident did not want the landlord to carry out the repairs, in line with the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the landlord access to his property in order to carry out any repairs that have been identified. The Ombudsman further acknowledges that the resident felt that other repairs were required first, but the landlord should have been given the opportunity to put things right by completing the works. It is also reasonable for the landlord to make a decision as to whether it was beneficial to complete the works before it inspected the roof.
The evidence shows that the roof was inspected, but the recommended works remain outstanding. It is important to note that until the works have been the completed and monitored, the landlord is unable to determine whether additional works are required. If the scheduled repairs do not resolve the damp and mould, the landlord would then look at what further works are needed to resolve the issue.
The resident also wants the landlord to replaster her kitchen and bathroom ceilings, however a landlord is entitled to attempt patch repairs rather than a full replaster unless the area cannot be economically repaired.
Furthermore, it was also reasonable for the landlord to reply upon the advice and/or recommendations of an appropriately qualified contractor, when making decisions about whether to repair or replace items it has responsibility for. While this may not have been what the resident has requested, the landlord must consider what is efficient and appropriate – both economically and fit-for-purpose in line with its repair obligations.
It is clear from the information provided that the resident did not agree with the way in which the landlord handled the reports of damp and mould, the landlord should have taken additional steps to ensure it was doing all it could to resolve the issues of damp and mould. The landlord has been unable to evidence that it did this and that is a failure which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord reviewed its compensation offer and increased it to £650. The landlord has not specifically broken this down; therefore, the Ombudsman will assume that it is made up of £150 for complaint handling failures and £500 for delays with damp and mould.
While it is positive that the landlord reflected on its actions and increased its offer of compensation, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of their complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. As it is not clear whether the landlord has written to the resident with the revised offer, it appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. This was inappropriate.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay between £300 and £750 to represent instances of significant service failure that have a significant and long-term impact on the customer. Therefore, its offer of £500 was in line with this. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation awards in this range where the landlord has made errors which caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience but there may be no permanent impact from the errors. In this case there were delays which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience but there was no permanent impact as the landlord ultimately made contact and attempted to arrange repairs. Had the landlord made this offer at stage 2 of its complaints process, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress.
As it did not, the Ombudsman has determined that there was service failure by the landlord. The Service is content that the landlord has sought to put things right for the resident, however, the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord to resolve matters through its complaints process rather than afterwards.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy says that it operates a 2-stage procedure. It says that both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of being received, and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of being escalated.
Following the Ombudsman’s contact in May 2023, although the landlord wrote to the resident and provided a stage 1 complaint response within the published timescales, there are some issues with regards to the contents. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which can be found on our website, states that a complaint response must confirm the complaint stage, provide the Ombudsman’s contact details and inform residents of their right to escalate if they remain dissatisfied with the response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not include these details and acted a fact-finding response. This was a failing and may have left the resident feeling confused about whether this was a formal complaint response.
As previously detailed, the landlord has also been unable to locate a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation, which again suggests an issue with its record keeping. Without evidence of the resident’s escalation, it is difficult for both the landlord and the Ombudsman to determine whether it fully addressed all points the resident raised. This is a further failing.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider what the landlord should do to put things right. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies (published on our website).
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay between £75 and £300 in recognition of service failures that result in significant impact on the resident. In this case the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its failure to manage the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its own compensation policy and also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined that the amount offered was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so. The total is made up of:
1. £500 if offered in June 2024 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. £150 for the failures identified with its complaint handling, as offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and book in the outstanding works identified in its stage 2 complaint response, in line with its repair timescales, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report in damp and mould, unless it has done so already.
2. Review its record keeping practices in relation to complaint handling and records, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
3. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
4. Update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities and health conditions.