Newham Council (201913856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913856

Newham Council

7 January 2021

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 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 the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom causing mould, damp, and damage to the flooring.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a Secure Tenant.

The property was a two-bedroom ground floor flat, occupied by the resident and her daughter.

The resident ended her tenancy in late February 2020. The Ombudsman has reviewed the resident’s end of tenancy notice or Tenant’s Notice to Quit, in which the resident was asked her reason for moving. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s intention to “move to private / own accommodation / make own arrangements”.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.

Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Tenancy agreement

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the tenancy agreement. This details both the resident’s and the landlord’s responsibilities for the maintenance of the property, and indicates that:
1. The landlord will maintain the structure, outside and shared areas of the resident’s home. It will maintain the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation, as well as installations for space heating and heating water.
2. The landlord will carry out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time.
3. Secure tenants may make improvements, alterations, and additions to their homes at their own expense, including laying laminate flooring, as long as permission is obtained in writing.

Repairs

The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repair responsibilities as published on the landlord’s website. Of particular relevance, the Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s plumbing responsibilities which include, but is not limited to:
1. Water service pipes, overflow pipes and water tanks.
2. Blocked sinks, baths and hand basin waste pipes
3. Blocked toilets (the first time only, unless the drain is faulty)
4. Showers

The landlord’s website indicates that as per the government’s right to repair scheme, it must arrange for repairs to be completed within a specified time. Failure to do so could result in the resident being eligible for compensation.

Corporate complaints policy

The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy. This explains that regardless of the route or method of complaint, the landlord will:
1. Assess and acknowledge the initial complaint within two days.
2. Attempt early resolution where formal investigation is not required, and a quick solution is possible.
3. Respond to the complainant at stage one within 20 working days. The complaint will either be Upheld, Not Upheld or Partially Upheld, and where things have gone wrong, the landlord will explain how they will be put right.
4. Respond to the complainant at stage two, if they remain dissatisfied, within 15 working days.

Scope

The Ombudsman notes that part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and substandard bathroom repairs in 2017. The Ombudsman can see that this was complained about on 13 October 2017 and responded to/closed by the landlord on 7 December 2017. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the resident was still dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, this should have been brought to the Ombudsman Service for investigation within a reasonable amount of time. This would normally be within 12 months of completing the landlord’s complaint process. As this was not done, the Ombudsman has only commented on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint(s) in 2019 and the events which took place in the months prior. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Furthermore, the resident has asserted that as a result of the landlord’s lack of action in addressing the leak /damp in her property, her daughter’s asthmas severely worsened. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and any deterioration in the – daughter’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the tenant wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

On 27 February 2019 a repair was raised to address a leak coming from the WC pan at the resident’s address. According to the landlord’s records, this was due to be addressed on 1, 4, and 23 March 2019 however the landlord was unable to gain access.

On 7 May 2019 the resident submitted a complaint and request for compensation to the landlord’s repair team. She explained:
1. She had waited for over a month however nobody had returned to her to fix her tap. An engineer had attended her property but did not have the patience to diagnose the problem correctly. She was now experiencing a water leak from the toilet and explained that each time she had a shower, the bathroom floor flooded.
2. The damp in the property was out of control. She had explained, prior to moving into the property, that her daughter suffered with asthma. Her health had been severely impacted since living at the property.
3. She had arrived at the property expecting a bath (as she asserted had been advertised). She stated that she would not have accepted the property if the bidding information had stated there was no bath.
4. There was significant damp in the bathroom, despite the several wall vents and solutions she had attempted. This was also present in her kitchen and bedrooms. She subsequently had to throw away her blinds and curtains due to rotting. She explained that there was now a bad smell.
5. The property was unsuitable, and she felt she was rushed to take it.
6. It had been explained by a plumber and plasterer who visited that although the toilet was faulty and in the wrong place, it would not be fixed.
7. On several occasions, engineers had failed to show up. She requested compensation for this as she had previously been informed that she would receive £30 for each missed appointment but had never seen this credited on her rent account. She added that under the right to repair scheme, residents were able to request compensation where the landlord had failed to undertake urgent repairs within the appropriate timeframe. She therefore wished to do this.

On the same day, the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed that it would seek to resolve the resident’s issues by working with the teams responsible for the delivery of the service. If an investigation was necessary, it would aim to respond to the resident within 20 working days.

On 19 May 2019 the resident re-sent her complaint to the landlord’s repair team.

The landlord’s records suggest that on 30 May 2019, its repair team undertook works to address the leak at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman cannot see that a complaint response was provided, however.

On 25 July 2019 a further repair was raised to fix the WC bowl and locate / address a leak under the resident’s toilet. The landlord’s records show that the target completion date was noted as 22 August 2019. The Ombudsman can see that on 6 September 2019 the landlord made an attempt to undertake this repair however was unable to gain access.

On 23 September 2019 the resident registered a further complaint with the landlord’s repair team concerning damage to her flooring. She explained:
1. As a result of the several floods she had experienced in her bathroom, there was a terrible smell in her flat which, she asserted, was caused by damage to the underlay beneath the laminate flooring. The toilet had leaked for months and the wet room shower was still flooded on occasion. The resident explained that it had begun damaging her daughter’s bedroom walls. Adding to this, due to the smell of damp, her daughter was unable to sleep in her bedroom.
2. An inspection of the damage caused by the floods was required and payment for the landlord’s negligence. She asserted that she had received little support from the landlord and the repairs had never been completed in an orderly manner.
3. Her request for a bath had continuously been refused.
4. She was disappointed with the way in which the landlord had handled her previous repairs. There had been a number of failed appointments and she experienced difficulty in obtaining a morning slot for repairs as she resided outside of the borough.

On 21 October 2019 the resident again reported to the landlord that there were ongoing issued at her property. She explained that she intended to take her issue to the Ombudsman Service as she had been writing to the landlord since 2017. The resident asked the landlord to direct her to the relevant person who could deal with her complaints regarding the outstanding repairs.

On 22 October 2019 the landlord responded. It advised the resident to make contact on its main number to register a complaint and to obtain a case reference.

On 23 October 2019 the landlord’s records suggest that it again attempted to undertake the repair of the outstanding issues however was unable to gain access.

On the same day, the resident made an online complaint submission. Within this, she reiterated that since July 2017 she had experienced several issues with her bathroom and several missed appointments. She noted that in December 2018 a new shower had been fitted, however she remained unhappy as there had been a constant leak in the property causing mould under the floorboards and on the skirting boards. The resident expressed that she had not been supported by the landlord and that there were still outstanding works to be completed. She reminded the landlord that her daughter suffered with asthma and that mould now affected her daughter’s bedroom walls as a result of poor ventilation. The resident additionally included details on the ongoing issue with her flooring. She requested that the landlord assist her in putting in a claim to buy new flooring and to replace the blinds that she had thrown away.

On 1 November 2019, following a visit from the landlord, the resident sent the landlord several pictures of the damp and damage in her property. The landlord confirmed receipt of this on 4 November 2019.

On 12 November 2019 the resident received a letter confirming that a repair, allegedly requested on the previous day, had been passed to the landlord’s contractor. It stated that it would inspect or undertake works to address the WC bowl and locate / repair the leak under the toilet. This would be completed on 16 December 2019.

On 13 November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord and questioned this letter. She explained that she had not reported anything on 11 November 2019 and so could not understand why she had received this. The landlord explained that as the individual dealing with the resident’s case was out of office until the following week, it was unable to offer an explanation. It would provide an update in due course.

The landlord’s records show that the resident spoke with the Complaints Department team at this time and confirmed that the leak had stopped, however still sought compensation for the damage.

On 16 December 2019 the landlord’s surveyor undertook an inspection of the damp, mould, and outstanding issues at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman is unable to locate the surveyor’s report, or any correspondence sent to the resident with the outcome / next steps following the survey. The Ombudsman has noted, however, that on 17 December 2019, the landlord’s surveyor informed the landlord that the following works were needed:
1. Removal of the laminate flooring to dry out water underneath
2. Repair of the blocked drain in the wet room
3. 22MIL thermoboard for bedroom wall – straight over the wall and skim to a smooth
4. Resident will not be happy unless decoration of the property. Wash down mould with a fungicidal paint and coat twice with biocide paint.

On 2 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She thanked the landlord for sending a surveyor to her property and noted that the surveyor had advised it would come back to her in a few days. The resident questioned whether she would be reimbursed for her losses. She explained that she could no longer use her bed as the damp and mould had worsened, also impacting three chests of drawers, a wardrobe and the flooring. She informed the landlord that she wished to open a claim for compensation. She requested advice on how she could proceed with this.

On 8 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested to know who she could speak to in relation to terminating her tenancy and pursuing her outstanding complaints.

The landlord responded on 10 January 2020 providing the resident with a copy of its guidance for terminating tenancies. No comments were made in relation to the resident’s outstanding complaint.

Following a subsequent email in which the resident pointed out that the landlord had again overlooked her complaint, the landlord requested the resident’s best contact number. The resident asserted however that it was too late for this. She explained she would be taking her complaint to the Ombudsman Service.

On 28 February 2020, this service wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident. The landlord was encouraged to make contact with the resident to provide her with an update on her outstanding complaint and to confirm the action that it would be taken to resolve her complaint.

On 20 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate her complaint. She explained that there had been uncompleted works and whilst an inspection had been carried out in December 2019, she had never received any details on what was discovered or how it was to be rectified. She stated that she had been left with no option but to leave the property. She therefore wished to request compensation for the damages and the neglect that she had experienced.

This service wrote to the landlord again in March 2020 and for a third time on 16 April 2020. The landlord was encouraged to provide the resident with a complaint response before 23 April 2020.

On 22 May 2020 the landlord provided a final response. The landlord apologised that the resident was disappointed with her former property and explained that an investigation had been undertaken of her complaint. The landlord noted that enquiries were made with its Repairs and Maintenance Service (RMS) and that following a decision to raise further repairs for the resident, it was confirmed by the resident that the leak had stopped and so the complaint was closed.

The landlord noted that the resident’s property had historically had a condensation damp issue, however explained that the surveyor had identified this to be the result of poor management of the heating and ventilation systems. The landlord stated that the surveyor had advised the resident on condensation control, lifestyle and the need for adequate ventilation.

The landlord explained that during the survey undertaken on 16 December 2019,it was found that following a blocked drain in the wet room, water had seeped under the laminate flooring (installed by the resident) and into other rooms, preventing the floor from drying. The landlord stated that it held no record of the resident requesting permission to lay this flooring or of this being granted. It nonetheless explained that, in occurrences such as this, the resident would be liable for the removal of the floor coverings. The landlord advised that its surveyor had suggested lining the resident’s wall with thermal board to reduce the condensation mould in her daughter’s bedroom, however explained that the resident had ended her tenancy before this could take place.

The landlord asserted that it could find no history of a building defect which it had failed to repair in accordance with its obligations. It listed the repairs that had been scheduled since 2017 and explained that works had either been completed or aborted due to a failure to gain access. It noted that repairs had been raised following the survey in December 2019, however the resident had terminated her property shortly after. It therefore concluded that it could find no fault in its service. It noted that within the form submitted by the resident to end her tenancy, there was no mention of the issues raised.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom causing mould, damp, and damage to the flooring

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to respond in good time where there is a need for repair. The landlord should determine whether the issue(s) in question falls within its remit, and where it is found to be responsible for the repair, should take steps to address this promptly. This approach is supported by the landlord’s repair guidance, as detailed on the landlord’s website. The Ombudsman has considered the evidence provided however, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to adhere to these obligations.

The Ombudsman recognises that the resident alerted the landlord to her issues of damp and mould as early as May 2019, however it does not appear that this was investigated and/or commented on, until several months later. While the landlord maintained that it had explained [to the resident] the cause of the damp and mould, and offered the resident advise on condensation control, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. In any case, the Ombudsman is notes that by this time, six months had passed. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, this was still unreasonable.

The Ombudsman has noted that a solution to the damp / mould was recorded by the landlord’s surveyor within the surveyor’s internal emails on 17 December 2019. Still, on 20 March 2020, the resident reported being unaware of the landlord’s intentions. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate that the resident was updated (most specifically on the intention to apply anti-fungal paint and to install a thermoboard), or that the work order had been raised. The Ombudsman has therefore taken the view, in the absence of evidence, that the landlord failed to formally recognise the need for repair and to communicate / orchestrate a plan of action. The Ombudsman cannot see that any of the findings from the inspection [on 16 December 2019] were shared with the resident or that the resident was informed with a likely timeframe for resolution. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate.

Adding to this, the Ombudsman is further dissatisfied that the works identified by the surveyor, which included the need to repair a blocked drain, were never completed during the resident’s tenancy. The Ombudsman notes that within the landlord’s final response, the landlord alleged that works had been raised and later cancelled due to the resident terminating her tenancy. While this may be the case, in the Ombudsman’s view, these works should have reasonably commenced (and completed) before the resident left in late February 2020. Over two months had passed from the date in which the landlord had identified the need for repair at the resident’s property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord therefore allowed a reasonable length of time to elapse and failed to uphold its repair obligations. The Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s departure, two months later, to be an adequate reason for the lack of works.

In relation to the resident’s bathroom leak, the Ombudsman can see that on 25 July 2019 a repair order was raised to address the issue. Contrary to the obligations set out above however, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was delayed in taking steps to address this. The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s records that attempts were made to locate and resolve the source of the leak in September / October 2019 and that in November 2019, following correspondence from the landlord, the resident confirmed that the leak had stopped. Still, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s first attempt to undertake the works was not until 6 September 2019, almost a month and a half after the order had been raised. The Ombudsman has seen, from the landlord’s records, that the intended completion date for this work was 22 August 2019 and cannot see that an acceptable reason was provided for the landlord’s delay. The Ombudsman has therefore considered this to be inappropriate.

Finally, on two occasions, the resident reported that as a result of the leak, the flooring/underlay had been significantly damaged and caused a smell in her property (on 23 September and 23 October 2019). The Ombudsman cannot see, however, that the landlord took any steps to inspect / address this or to assist the resident in resolving the matter. The Ombudsman is satisfied that as per the tenancy agreement, the resident was liable for the costs of replacing the flooring. It was not until 16 December 2019, however, that the landlord undertook an inspection, noting the water underneath it and satisfying for itself that it was not responsible for the removal of the floor. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have, and could have, identified this as early as 23 September 2019 following the resident’s request for an inspection. Instead, the landlord unreasonably delayed in acting and subsequently delayed the resident. What’s more, upon identifying the issue, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord informed the resident of her responsibility for the removal of the laminate flooring prior to the final response in May 2020. The resident was subsequently unclear on her available options.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence provided and has identified a number of complaints which the landlord failed to manage in line with its complaints policy and good practice. As per the landlord’s complaints process, where a complaint has been made, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days of receipt. With the exception of the complaint raised by the resident in May 2019, the Ombudsman cannot see, however, that the landlord done this. Not only was this contrary to the landlord’s process, this also resulted in additional reports of dissatisfaction following the resident’s complaints. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was inappropriate.

Following this, the landlord failed to implement the next stage of its complaints process. As per its complaints policy, where early resolution has not been achieved, the landlord should formally offer a response to the resident (within 20 working days) at stage one. The Ombudsman can see that this was also advised by the landlord, in May 2019, upon receipt of the resident’s complaint. Despite this, however, it appears that the landlord failed to provide the resident with a stage one response. The landlord was provided with a further email (and therefore a second opportunity) on 19 May 2019, which detailed the resident’s dissatisfaction for a second time, however this went unacknowledged. The Ombudsman has subsequently concluded that the landlord acted inappropriately here. The landlord failed to offer the resident a formal response under its stage one process and to adhere to the timescales/process set out within its policy.

Similarly, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response following her complaint on 23 September 2019. The Ombudsman notes that on 23 September 2019 the resident expressed her concerns regarding her flooring and her disappointment in the landlord’s service / handling of her previous repair requests. Still, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint or indeed offered the resident a formal response under its complaints process. There was no recognition of the issues experienced by the resident and no communication to record. This was unacceptable.

The Ombudsman notes that this was also the case for the resident’s complaint raised on 23 October 2019. Despite several prompts from both the resident and Ombudsman Service to recognise and offer the resident a complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint; to offer the resident a stage one response (and within the suggested timeframe); and to supply the resident with a timely response at stage two. It was not until seven months after the resident’s complaint that the landlord issued its final response. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was a clear service failure and an absence of good complaint handling practice. This resulted in prolonged inconvenience and distress for the resident, and ultimately delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation. The landlord was provided with several opportunities to put things right (through encouragement by this Service to contact the resident) yet it failed to do so on multiple occasions.

The Ombudsman is further displeased as the landlord failed to respond to the many issues raised in the resident’s complaint correspondence. Within the resident’s complaints, she raised that she wished to pursue compensation for damages and for alleged missed appointments. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord was aware of this and that it was noted by the Complaints Team in November 2019. Still, the landlord failed to formally address this matter within its complaint response and to explain why, if it did not consider it appropriate, it would not cover the cost of the resident’s redecoration / furniture (excluding the floor) or for any alleged missed appointments. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have advised the resident on its position in relation to the compensation sought and where necessary, advised the resident on its claims process for reimbursement of damaged property (via its insurance).

Finally, within the landlord’s final response, it explained that following confirmation from the resident that the leak at her property had stopped, the resident’s complaint was closed. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to close the repair order and to cancel any planned works to address the leak. This did not, however, absolve the landlord of its responsibility to address and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction / further issues under her complaint. The Ombudsman is therefore displeased with the landlord’s decision and management of the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to offer due consideration until the complaint was reopened and responded to, several months later.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom causing mould, damp, and damage to the flooring.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord failed to uphold its repair obligations. The landlord was delayed in addressing the leak at the resident’s property and delayed in investigating and addressing the issues which arose as a result. Several months had passed before the landlord undertook an appropriate inspection of the resident’s property, however even then, the landlord failed to communicate its findings with the resident and to share a plan of action within a reasonable amount of time. The landlord took no action to address the issues identified following the inspection in December 2019 and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, allowed a reasonable time to elapse before the resident left the property. This was inappropriate and contrary to good service. The Ombudsman is equally displeased that the landlord unreasonably delayed in inspecting the resident’s flooring and satisfying for itself that it was not responsible for the damage. This would have enabled the landlord to advise the resident on her next steps at an earlier point.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint(s) was unacceptable and failed to adhere to the process set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge many of the resident’s complaints and later, to furnish the resident with stage one responses. Similarly, at stage two, the landlord unreasonably delayed in providing its response and a result of the landlord’s poor communication, the resident was unsure whether her complaint was being dealt with. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in a manner which was consistent with its policy and failed to respond to all of the issues raised within the resident’s complaints, such as the resident’s request to commence a compensation claim.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the maladministration detailed above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £500. This has been calculated as:
1. £250 to reflect the inconvenience, distress, delay, poor communication and management of the resident’s leak, the mould/damp within the resident’s property and the resident’s flooring.
2. £250 to account for the poor handling of the resident’s complaint and the subsequent inconvenience; the length of time which elapsed; distress; significant failure to honour internal complaint handling procedure; poor communication; and to engage with the substance of all complaints.
The landlord should also provide the resident with the appropriate information / documents to submit a claim for any damage to her personal belongings.
The landlord should ensure that payment is made within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should, in future cases, ensure that all complaint correspondence received is acknowledged and responded to within good time and in line with its complaints policy. The landlord should consider the substantive issues identified and engage in active communication with the complainant to establish how it can put things right. The landlord should review the failures highlighted within this report to improve its service moving forward and may wish to access the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman’s website.

Where reports of the need for repair are made, the landlord should ensure that prompt action is taken to inspect and address (where it is responsible) the issue. The landlord should share any findings / plans for action with the reporting party and should undertake works within a reasonable amount of time. The Ombudsman appreciates that there are sometimes reasons why the landlord cannot complete works within its prescribed timeframes. Where this occurs, the landlord should update the reporting party on the reason for the delay and the new target date, to keep them informed.