North West Leicestershire District Council (202310423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310423

North West Leicestershire District Council

19 June 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. response to the resident’s concerns about repair issues at the property, including damp and mould;
2. complaints handling and offer of compensation.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a two-bedroom terraced house.
The resident lives with her partner and her two young children. The resident reported that she was pregnant during the period of the complaint. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
On 7 January 2022, the resident made a report to the landlord about outstanding repairs required to her property. She advised that she had reported the issues previously, but nothing had been done. Her report included damp near the front door and crumbling plaster in the boiler cupboard that appeared to be constantly wet. She made a further report on 9 February 2022, about a split joist and a small hole in the roof.
The landlord arranged for a specialist to carry out an inspection of the damp and the roof on 14 February 2022. The inspection report included the following:
1. There was rising damp by the front door.
2. There was rising damp in areas within the dining room and kitchen.
3. A second joist had been installed alongside the split joist in the roof. The split joist was therefore not a concern.
4. It recommended:
  1. the affected plaster on the walls to be removed;
  2. damp proof course works to be carried out;
  3. to replaster once the appropriate works had been completed;
  4. to fit new skirting boards.
The landlord’s contractor completed the required works on 27 May 2022.
Following the completion of the works, the resident reported her dissatisfaction. The resident has advised this service that she contacted the landlord “multiple times” from May 2022 onwards to report her concerns; however, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the reports until August 2022.
The landlord carried out a post inspection on 9 August 2022. It advised that no remedial works were needed and that the works had been carried out to a high standard. It also said that the reason for mould in the resident’s kitchen units was due to the extractor fan being off. It confirmed that it had discussed this with the resident, and it had turned it on during its visit.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord’s records show that, following reports of mould in the base of the resident’s cupboards, it had raised a damp, mould, and condensation inspection. However, it is not evident that this inspection took place.
On 16 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint, as she felt the issues she had raised were not getting resolved. The landlord acknowledged her complaint and requested an extension for its response on two occasions.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 17 April 2023, which included the following:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. It noted the resident’s concerns about damage to her possessions during a visit. It acknowledged that its contractor’s behaviour was not of the standard it expected, and it should have taken additional measures to protect her belongings. It had spoken to its contractor about this.
3. It noted her concerns that the new skirting board was mismatched. It agreed that it could have provided a closer match and apologised that it had not.
4. It acknowledged that there was mould growth present in her kitchen and that a further investigation was needed. It further acknowledged that it should have requested that the kitchen units be removed to check for dampness behind them when it carried out a survey.
5. It apologised that the resident had needed to chase it for updates, with little action taken or contact returned.
6. It advised that, during its visit, it had identified an open joint to the ridge between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s. It would therefore need to carry out an inspection to the loft space and ceiling joist.
7. It advised that the flaking paint in the middle of the reception room did not appear to be caused by damp, but more of a reaction to previous paint that had been on the wall. It would arrange for operatives to attend to repair the wall as a resolution.
8. During its visit, it identified a number of repairs that needed to be carried out. It listed these and advised that it would arrange for the necessary appointments. The repairs included:
  1. To prepare the living room for decoration, sand the walls, and add stain block.
  2. To create an inspection hole to the back of the kitchen units to assess for dampness to the wall behind. The inspection results would then determine whether further damp proofing works were required.
  3. To repair the open ridge joint to the roof.
  4. To reinspect the split ceiling joist.
9. It offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
On 3 May 2023, the resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation. She advised that she felt its offer was not reflective of her experience and the impact it had on her. The resident also said that the landlord had not considered her reported financial losses in relation to replacement food due to mould in the kitchen cupboards and the cost of medication she reported had been prescribed as a result of damp and mould within the property. The resident, therefore, escalated her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 17 May 2023. It said that its compensation policy stated that “in the event of any claim, we require receipts or other evidence from the claimant to justify the value of the loss.” It said that, despite this, it had reviewed its offer of compensation and increased it to £250 for the “disruption caused,” and this was the maximum it could offer under the time and trouble element of its policy.
The resident advised the landlord on 18 May 2023, that she still felt its offer was not reflective of her experience. She also said that she had not been contacted to arrange appointments for the completion of the outstanding repairs. On the following day, the landlord advised that the member of staff that had investigated her complaint was unavailable for a week, but that they would provide her with an update upon their return.
On 25 May 2023, the landlord provided appointments to the resident for some works to be carried out. The resident advised it about her availability and asked for confirmation that it would be replacing her kitchen cupboards due to them being wet and damaged. This service has not seen the landlord’s response to her question.
On 5 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident that the repair to her roof had been placed on hold due to its contract with its scaffolder ending. It confirmed that it had found the joists in the loft space were structurally sound, although it is not clear when it carried out its further inspection or whether any subsequent works were raised in relation to the repair to her roof.
On 13 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that an operative had attended on 9 June 2023, and removed a section of a kitchen cupboard. She advised that, since then, no one had provided any updates. She requested that it advise her about the outcome of the inspection, as she wanted the cupboards to be replaced as soon as possible due to having not been able to use them for over a year. This service has not seen any response from the landlord in relation to the resident’s contact.
The resident referred her complaint to this service on 22 June 2023. She advised that both she and the members of her family had been ill, which she considered to be as a result of the damp. As a resolution, she wanted the outstanding repairs to be completed. She also said that while compensation was not her main concern, she felt its offer had not taken into consideration the full detriment caused to her and her family.
This service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation in January 2024. The parties have advised that since the period of the complaint, the landlord carried out further inspections in or around February 2024. The parties agreed to a scope of works and the landlord has committed to commencing works on 1 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her family’s health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her and her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a repairs and maintenance handbook. This notes that the landlord is responsible for extractor fans. It is also responsible for plaster that has perished or is affected by damp, mould, and condensation which is caused by a defect. It is further responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, including ventilation and roofs. It also details its various repairs timescales, including:
1. Urgent priority repairs. These should be completed within one working day. These include repairs needed when there has been a loss of or unsafe power, a gas escape, or a loss of water from the heating supply (unless caused by service provider).
2. High priority repairs. These should be completed within three working days. These include roof leaks.
3. Tenant’s choice repairs. Where a repair is not high priority but needs to be completed relatively quickly. The resident chooses from the available dates and the timeframe to complete the repair will be determined by the appointment that was selected by the resident.
4. Scheduled works. These are large scale repairs or replacements which are sometimes grouped together to create economic programmes of work and may require scaffolding or skips. The starting date for the work will be agreed with the resident within 20 working days from receiving their repair request and should be completed within no more than 60 working days.
5. Inspections. When a full diagnosis is needed to determine the extent of work required. An inspection appointment will be agreed within 10 working days from the resident reporting the repair.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and achieving an effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. They should also share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on the accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At stage one, it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and aim to provide a response within 10 working days from its acknowledgment. It also states that it may provide its response in a variety of ways, depending on the nature of the complaint and the resident’s needs. Possible methods may include verbal, face to face, email, or in writing. Following an escalation request, it will acknowledge the request within five working days and aim to provide a stage two response within 20 working days. If it is unable to provide a response within these timescales, it will update the resident every 10 working days until a response can be provided.

Repairs

The landlord received reports about damp and mould in the resident’s property on 7 January 2022. Given that damp and mould issues can vary greatly, the landlord should have satisfied itself that the issues were not urgent. It should have also explained its position to the resident to measure her expectations. It is not evident, however, that this was considered at the time.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that its scheduled repairs should be completed within 60 working days from having been reported. In this case, it took 26 working days for an inspection to occur and a further 70 working days for the works to be completed. While the Ombudsman understands that it can take time to arrange for specialist materials or operatives, it is not evident that any reason for the extended timeframe was discussed with the resident. It is also not evident that any mitigating steps were considered, such as dehumidifiers, to address the ongoing issues with damp. This meant that the resident was left in a damp property for longer than was reasonable.
Following the works, it is not disputed that the resident reported her dissatisfaction with the works completed in relation to the damp in May 2022. The landlord failed to take any action following the resident’s report until August 2022, when it arranged for a post inspection to be carried out. This was only following the resident having made further contact to advise of its lack of action. While the landlord later appropriately acknowledged in its formal response that there had been delays to its replies, its lack of action at the time caused the resident to have to wait 48 working days before a post inspection was carried out. This would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as her having to take more time and trouble to contact the landlord to chase updates.
When the landlord’s contractor carried out their post inspection, they told the landlord that the mould in the resident’s kitchen cupboards had been as a result of the extractor fan having not been in use. While this may have been a contributing factor, it is not evident that an in-depth inspection took place in order to reach this conclusion or that any further inspections were arranged to ensure the proposed solution had been successful. Additionally, its inspection in February 2022 had indicated that there was rising damp in this area, indicating that the issues were not condensation alone. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that it should have arranged for the kitchen units to be removed to check for damp behind them at the time of its inspection. This nevertheless meant that it missed the opportunity to resolve the issue for the resident at the earliest stage.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a further damp, mould, and condensation inspection to be carried out in the kitchen on 28 November 2022. Its records also show that the inspection was not completed, but it did not record its reasons for this. It is also not evident that this was communicated to the resident or that any other arrangements were made for a new inspection. The landlord should have robust systems in place to enable it to monitor any outstanding repairs or inspections up to their completion. It should also keep detailed and comprehensive notes to evidence any actions taken. By failing to complete the inspection, it missed a further opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident at the earliest opportunity. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and prolonged the time she was unable to store food in her kitchen cupboards.
As noted above, in its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to carry out further investigations into the cause of the mould in the resident’s kitchen cupboards. The response was sent in April 2023; however, this appointment was not arranged until 9 June 2023. This was 10 months after the resident made her initial report of mould to the landlord. Given that the resident had been reporting the inconvenience this was causing her, along with the time that had elapsed, the landlord should have considered if a more urgent response was necessary. However, it is not evident that it did so, nor is it evident that it discussed any options to mitigate the impact in the meantime.
As noted above, the landlord has a responsibility under the HHSRS to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. In the landlord’s repeated failings in its handling of the reports of mould growth in the kitchen, it failed to show that it was taking its obligations seriously and acting in line with the HHSRS.
In addition to the damp and mould, the resident reported that there was a small hole in her roof as well as a support beam being damaged in the loft space. While the landlord confirmed in its inspection carried out on 14 February 2022, that the joist in the roof posed no problem, it did not address the issue raised in relation to the small hole. There has been no evidence seen by this service to show that the matter was acknowledged by the landlord until it provided its stage one response on 17 April 2023. It is also not evident that the landlord made any enquires as to the detriment this hole was causing. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete repairs to leaks in the roof within 3 working days from having been reported. It therefore should have made relevant enquiries or inspections with the resident when it received the reports. Its failure to do so was not in line with its policy and added to the distress caused to the resident.
Following the period of the complaint, the landlord resolved to complete the outstanding works it had identified and to carry out further inspections. However, it is concerning to note that its pattern of poor communication and record keeping continued. For example, despite having the opportunity to confirm dates for further appointments in its stage two response, it failed to do so, leading the resident to have to chase updates on 18 May 2023. While it subsequently provided dates, it failed to keep her updated about the outcomes of its inspections or when cancelled works would be arranged for. This demonstrates that it had not learned from the outcomes of its previous complaint investigations.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property, including damp and mould. It failed to follow its own procedures and repair timescales on multiple occasions when arranging inspections and repairs, causing excessive and unreasonable delays. It also showed poor communication with the resident and inadequate record keeping, it failed to take its obligations seriously and in line with the HHSRS, it missed several opportunities to resolve the repairs as soon as possible, it failed to take full responsibility for its failings, and did not offer the resident any additional assistance. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has now committed to complete the outstanding works in July 2024. An order has been made for the landlord to provide a single point of contact for these works who will oversee their completion and keep the resident regularly updated throughout.

Complaints handling and offer of compensation

Following the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord visited the resident to discuss her concerns. While this caused the landlord to need to extend the timescales for its response, it demonstrated that the landlord wished to thoroughly investigate the issues, with the aim of resolving the complaint. The landlord also appropriately communicated these delays with the resident throughout this period, in line with its policy. This was also in line with the good practice set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is also evident that the landlord’s stage two response was provided within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s escalation request.
While the landlord’s stage one response appropriately addressed the concerns raised by the resident, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did not address any of the issues raised by the resident previously, and it was predominately just an increased offer of compensation. While this was a primary concern of the resident, it is clear she still had other concerns about the ongoing works. This showed that the landlord missed the opportunity to carry out a thorough stage two investigation, and its response did not follow the good practice outline in the Code. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord and led the resident to have to chase answers outside of the complaint responses.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised, acknowledged there were shortcomings, and offered £50 for time and trouble taken by the resident. While it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for the resident’s time and inconvenience, its offer was not proportionate as it did not fully recognise the impact caused to the resident as set out above.
Additionally, the resident subsequently made requests for her expenses to be considered. In its stage two response, the landlord noted it would expect to be provided with receipts in order to consider an offer of compensation for expenditure. However, it is not evident that it informed the resident of this until its final response, at which point it was too late for the resident to provide these.
While it appropriately increased its offer of compensation to £250, it did not provide a breakdown for this offer. Given the resident had experienced multiple issues, this made it difficult for her to understand what was being offered, as only references to “time and trouble” had been made. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it should consider multiple factors, such as poor communication and direct loss and damage. This lack of a breakdown of its offer would therefore have added to the resident’s confusion and was not in line with its policy.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and compensation offered. It missed the opportunity to put right its failures identified in its stage 1 complaint response as it failed to make a proportionate offer of financial redress to the resident. It also failed to properly consider the resident’s concerns about expenses, and its offer at stage two both failed to provide a breakdown and remained disproportionate to the overall distress and inconvenience caused. An order for a further £500 compensation has therefore been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about repair issues at the property, including damp and mould;
2. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,200, comprising:
1. £700 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in resolving the damp and mould issues;
2. £500 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Prior to the commencement of the works in July 2024, the landlord is to provide a single point of contact for these works who will oversee their completion and keep the resident regularly updated throughout.