Newham Council (202123428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123428

Newham Council

4 November 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. overcrowding;
   2. damp and mould;
   3. the replacement of her kitchen;
   4. pest infestations.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

5. It is evident that the resident raised concerns regarding overcrowding at her property. In its formal response, the landlord has given advice about how it approaches allocations, and has signposted the resident towards her options for moving.
6. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints relating to how a local authority allocated its properties. These complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
7. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding in her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
8. The resident may be able to refer this element of the complaint to the LGSCO at www.lgo.org.uk.

Background

9. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
10. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 24 March 2021 in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It found that the cause of this was condensation and it carried out works in March and April 2021 to improve ventilation.
11. The resident also reported a pest infestation on 14 July 2021. The landlord’s pest control service inspected this and recommended work to seal possible entry points.
12. In August 2021, the resident also raised repair concerns regarding her kitchen. The landlord carried out an inspection and agreed to carry out works to the kitchen units. The resident declined these works as she considered the kitchen should be replaced.
13. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 15 August 2021 about the continued presence of damp and mould. The landlord inspected the property again on 8 September 2021. The landlord also attended on 15 and 17 September 2021 to carry out a pest inspection and seal entry points in the kitchen.
14. The landlord provided the resident with the proposed schedule of works to address the damp and mould and also to repair the kitchen as part of its stage one complaint response on 5 October 2021. The resident, however, was dissatisfied with the proposed works as she considered a new kitchen was required. She also considered that the surveyor had not been accurate in their assessment.
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 November 2021. She disputed that the kitchen did not need to be replaced and advised that its proposed works to clean and treat the mould had already been carried out two years ago and had been ineffective. On 12 January 2022, the resident declined an appointment for the proposed works.
16. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 24 January 2022 and determined that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom should be renewed. It issued its final response to her two days later in which it offered her £150 for its late response in dealing with the rodent proofing works and £100 for its late complaint response. The landlord confirmed that it would now replace the kitchen and bathroom and, at the same time, carry out the previously proposed works to address the damp and mould.
17. The resident informed this service on 2 February 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied as she felt that the landlord had not adequately addressed the issue of damp and mould in the property. To resolve her complaint, she wanted it to remedy the ongoing damp issues and increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

18. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property. As such, it would be expected to carry out any repairs to structure of the property which were giving rise to damp and the formation of mould, such a leak. The landlord also has a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to assess a property for potential hazards to a resident’s health. One such hazard is the risk to health from damp and mould. Therefore, it had a responsibility to carry out any work to the structure of the property and mitigate any issues which were contributing to the damp and mould.
19. When a landlord receives a report of damp and mould from a resident, its first action should be to inspect the property. In this case, the landlord inspected the property on two occasions in response to damp and mould reports, firstly on 24 March 2021, and then again on 8 September 2021.The first inspection found that the damp and mould was the result of condensation. It subsequently carried out reasonable works to mitigate this by replacing the extractor fans on 30 March 2021 and installing air bricks on 16 April 2021.
20. After the resident’s complaint escalation, its second inspection was carried out by a different surveyor, who instructed further investigation of the drainage for the property. This was completed on 24 October 2021. Its surveyor raised a schedule of remedial works which included remedying a leak in the bathroom, treating the mould in the bedroom, and overhauling an extractor fan. These were reasonable attempts to address the resident’s damp and mould issues and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to addressing the hazard posed by mould and assessing whether any structural issues, which it was responsible for, required repairing.
21. The works proposed by the surveyor were not completed until 7 April 2022, however, the Ombudsman notes that initially the resident declined these works as she was concerned the previous works had already proven to be ineffective. This, coupled with landlord’s decision not to replace her kitchen, led her to refuse repair appointments until the situation was reassessed. Consequently, the delays in completing the repairs to address the damp and mould were outside of the landlord’s control.
22. In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and it would not be proportionate to hold it responsible for the persistence of the damp and mould if the resident declined its proposed repairs. While the resident was of the opinion that the damp and mould were the result of a defect within the wall, the landlord had two different surveyors assess the property and determine the issue was condensation related. In the absence of contrary evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff in ascertaining the cause for the damp and mould. If, however, the resident still experiences issues with damp and mould in the property, the landlord should consider instructing a damp specialist. A recommendation about this has been made below.

Kitchen replacement

23. As confirmed by the landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident, it is responsible for the fixtures and fittings in the property which it provides, such as the kitchen units. It therefore would be obliged to carry out any repairs required to these fixtures. However, a landlord would not be expected to replace a kitchen until it has become impractical or uneconomical to repair. The landlord has a duty to ensure that it makes the best use of its resources to provide an appropriate standard of service to all residents.
24. As mentioned above, a landlord must rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff. Therefore, when its surveyors considered on 10 August 2021 and 8 September 2021 that the kitchen did not require a full replacement, it was reasonable for it to propose to only repair or replace those components in need of repair.
25. When the kitchen and bathroom were inspected again by the landlord’s surveyor on 24 January 2022, it was found that they required replacement and the Ombudsman understands that these works were completed by 7 April 2022. The result of this later inspection did not evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably or incorrectly in its earlier inspections. Given the period of time that had elapsed since its earlier inspections, it was reasonable for it to conclude that sufficient wear and tear had since occurred to merit the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom.
26. In summary, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out inspections and seek to carry out repairs in the first instance and there was no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for the replacement of her kitchen.

Pest infestations

27. The landlord’s website states that it provides pest control services for its tenants for rats, mice, and insect pests. It is not disputed that the landlord’s pest control service attended the resident’s property on 14 July 2021, in response to the resident’s report of an infestation of flies. It attended on three further occasions on 15 and 17 September 2021, when it removed rodent carcasses and sanitised the area, and on 26 January 2022 when it found no rodent activity.
28. The landlord’s first visit on 14 July 2021 noted that holes around the sewer pipe needed to be filled and its final complaint response acknowledged that it had taken an excessive period of time to so this, completing the work on 19 September 2022. There was no evidence that it did not attend within a reasonable time for its other visits.
29. The landlord, in its final stage complaint, offered the resident £150 compensation for its delay in resolving the recommended repairs from its first visit. This offer was in accordance with its complaint compensation policy guidance, which provides for compensation offers of between £50 and £150 where the resident experienced delay and distress.
30. The offer of £150 was also in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for awards of compensation from £100 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but which had no permanent impact. It is noted that the pest control service found no evidence of further rodent activity on its inspection on 26 January 2022. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of £150 adequately recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay of approximately two months between the identification of the pest infestation and subsequent rodent-proofing works being completed in the property to tackle the pest issue.

Complaints handling

31. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one is it to provide a resolution or response within 20 working days; at the final stage it is to provide this within 15 working days.
32. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 15 August 2021 to the Mayor of the local authority, which was forwarded onto the landlord on 17 August 2021. As per its policy, it should have provided its stage one complaint response to her by 15 September 2021; it advised her of this in its stage one complaint acknowledgement on 26 August 2021. The landlord did not provide the resident with its stage one complaint response until 5 October 2021, 34 working days later.
33. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 2 November 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the following day, advising that it would provide its response to her by 24 November 2021. It provided its final response to her 1 February 2021, 62 working days later.
34. Therefore, the landlord exceeded its timeframe for complaint responses at both stages of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding to the complaint in its final response and offered £100 compensation.
35. This was a reasonable offer of compensation from the landlord, which was in accordance with its complaint compensation policy guidance, mentioned above. This recognised that the resident would have been left uncertain of whether her complaint would be resolved satisfactorily and that she expended excess effort to chase the complaint response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was therefore reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

36. As noted above, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding in her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. damp and mould;
    2. the replacement of her kitchen.
38. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about pest infestations;
    2. its complaints handling.

Recommendations

39. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to:
    1. reiterate its offer of £250 compensation made in its final complaint response;
    2. carry out a follow up inspection the property for damp and mould, now that remedial works have been completed;
    3. consider instructing a damp specialist to inspect the property if the damp and mould have not been alleviated by the remedial work.