Norwich City Council (202103925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103925

Norwich City Council

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the report of damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the damp and mould in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a two bedroom ground floor property. The resident has held their tenancy with the landlord since 2005.
On 26 January 2021, the resident called the landlord and reported that the guttering required repair and was allowing water into their property.
At the time of the resident’s contact, the landlord found that its contractor attended to clean and repair the gutters prior to the report and that the fascia’s were rotten. The landlord noted however, that this information was not relayed to its property services team.
On 25 February 2021, repairs were raised for a missing roof tile, a hole and large crack to the brickwork which was reported to be allowing water into the property.
On the 16 April 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in the property. They raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 24 May 2021. They complained that they believed that the damp and mould was a result of the roofing repairs being outstanding for several years. They said that the landlord had informed them that works to renew the roof would be carried out within the next year, but they were unhappy with this timeframe. They requested that the landlord provide reassurance that it would deliver the roofing repairs promptly.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the flat roof and the walkway on the first floor. The contractor reported back they had carried out temporary repairs but the roof and fascia were in a poor condition and required renewal. It received confirmation from the landlord that the roof was already on the replacement programme for renewal in 2022/2023.
The operatives were unable to gain access into the resident’s property on the day however, the resident provided photographs of the damp and mould within their flat, for them to pass to the landlord. The contractor advised the landlord to therefore arrange a survey to investigate the damp and mould.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 9 June 2021. It reported that its contractor was unable to complete two repairs as the resident had not allowed access. It did not specify what repairs it was referring to. It confirmed that the roof was on a replacement programme and in addition to this, a general repair was requested to the roof. It advised that it required access into the property to investigate the internal issues the resident reported.
The same day, the landlord wrote to the resident with an appointment for a surveyor to attend and inspect the damp and mould, on 16 June 2021.
During the visit on 16 June 2021, the surveyor found mould on the external walls in the living room and the bedrooms, as well as on the bedroom ceilings and windows. The surveyor reported that they used a moisture meter on the affected areas but no moisture readings were recorded. They noted that there was no visual damage or staining to the plaster to indicate that there was damp and stated that the resident’s bedroom was cluttered.
The resident believed that the lack of moisture readings on the day of the visit was due to the dry weather conditions at the time. The surveyor agreed to revisit two days later, as rain was forecasted. During the visit on 18 June 2021, the surveyor advised that it was raining and saw that the gutters were leaking from every joint. The surveyor did not get any moisture readings from this visit but offered to attend again another day.
A third visit was carried out by the surveyor on 2 July 2021. Again, they got no damp readings from the moisture meter. The surveyor concluded that the mould growth was the result of condensation due to the resident’s lifestyle. The resident did not agree with this and remained of the view that the issue was the result of the defective guttering. The landlord agreed that the guttering and fascia would benefit from renewal but said that, given the absence of the moisture readings, they believed the cause of the damp and mould was a condensation issue.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2021 to escalate the complaint as they were expecting contact from the landlord on either 24 or 25 June 2021, about the possibility of bringing the roof replacement works forward but had not been contacted.
The landlord provided the resident with its final complaint response on 12 August 2021. It found no record of a request for it to contact the resident on 24 or 25 June 2021. It apologised for the confusion caused. It said that the staff member, who the resident was expecting to speak to on those dates, confirmed that they had spoken with the resident and informed them of the landlord’s conclusion that the cause of the damp and mould was believed to be condensation due to lifestyle, and not the guttering.
The landlord advised that its contractor attended in January 2021, cleaned the guttering and replaced the leaking joints and downpipes. It confirmed that the roof replacement work could not be brought forward, as it had to do a leaseholder consultation. In reference to the surveys that took place to investigate the mould between June and July 2021, it advised that no moisture readings were found by the surveyor during the three visits, despite the wet weather. It said that because of this, it did not believe that the property was suffering with damp.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 August 2021. They clarified that the agreement for the call back on 24 or 25 June 2021 was made verbally. They disputed that the member of staff spoke with them about the landlord’s belief that the mould was the result of lifestyle factors, as the landlord stated in the response. They advised that shortly after the repairs were carried out to the roof, the last time, water continued to leak through the guttering and into the ventilation bricks of the property. The resident mentioned the surveys that were carried out to the property in June and July and advised that they reassured the surveyor that the property was kept ventilated. They said that the surveyor acknowledged that the roofing works were required and questioned what evidence the landlord had that the mould was the result of their lifestyle.
After the exhaustion of the complaints procedure, the parties continued communication about the works to the roof and the damp and mould in the property. The landlord undertook a further survey of the property in December 2021 and the parties maintained their differing opinions on the cause of the damp and mould. Given the differing opinions, the landlord suggested that a survey be carried out by an independent contractor not related to itself or its contractor. The resident agreed to the independent inspection in March 2022, and the inspection took place on 19 April 2022.
From the independent survey findings, the landlord agreed to complete various works to the internal and external areas of the property, including the renewal of the roof and guttering works. This Service understands that the recent status of matters is that works are still required to the external areas and internal areas. On 29 November 2022, the landlord confirmed to this Service the works it has completed and the outstanding works to the property. We have been made aware that there have been instances of the resident not providing access to pre-arranged visits in October and November and an appointment has been arranged for the landlord to visit the resident on 2 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised to landlord within a reasonable period, which is usually six months of the issues arising.
The resident has mentioned in their complaint that the landlord has not repaired the guttering since it was first identified in 2017. However, prior to this complaint that was raised to the landlord in May 2021, there is no evidence of any formal complaints to the landlord that exhausted the complaints procedure or that were brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.
This investigation report will, therefore, consider events from January 2021 onwards, on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and the evidence provided to this Service.
The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made to it prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
This investigation will review those matters which have been raised and reviewed within the landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service has noted the events which have taken place after the complaints process for context but will not be able to review the landlord’s handling of said matters, as the landlord has not had the opportunity to review these matters through its complaints procedure.

Tenancy agreement

The landlord has the responsibility for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including guttering and roofing.
The resident raised concern about the guttering which they believed was causing water penetration to their property, in January 2021. The evidence provided shows that, during the call, the landlord realised that the contractors finding of the rotten fascia’s, prior to the resident’s report, had not been passed to its property services team for actioning. This suggests there was a communication issue between the landlord and its contractor in relation to the relaying of follow up works.
The landlord received another report about the roof a month later, but there is no evidence that it attended to the roof in the period between the two reports. The earliest date there is evidence that it attended is 7 June 2021, five months after the initial report about the defective guttering. This is an unreasonable length of time to respond to the issue, particularly given the resident had reported a damp and mould issue in mid-April 2021.
The landlord has a repair responsibility for the external areas of the property, including the roof and its components. It failed to act within a reasonable time despite being notified by the resident when they made the first report, that they believed the defective guttering was allowing water into their property.
When the contractor attended in June 2021, the contractors attempted to inspect the internal areas of the property, which was necessary given the reports the resident had made about the presence of mould in the property. However, the resident did not allow access but provided photographs of the of the property which resulted in the contractor’s recommendation for a damp inspection.
While the resident’s refusal of access to the contractor in June 2021 contributed to a slight delay in the inspection of the damp, the majority of the delay was the result of the landlord’s lack of proactiveness to address the reported issue. It became aware in January 2021 that the defective guttering was believed to be contributing to water ingress in the property but it took six months to inspect the internal areas of the resident’s property. This was inappropriate and meant that the landlord failed to offer any reassurance to the resident as to how it intended to investigate his concerns about his living conditions.
The landlord inspected the internal areas of the property on three occasions. Given the warmer weather conditions for the period of June 2021, it was reasonable that it decided to attend during a period of wet weather. This would have increased the likelihood of it observing any water ingress to the property.
The landlord concluded from the surveys it carried out that the cause of the mould in the resident’s property was due to condensation as a result of the resident’s lifestyle. Its justification for this conclusion was that it recorded no moisture readings or visual indications of water penetrations on the walls of the property. While that may be the case, its conclusion that the matter was the result of condensation due to the resident’s lifestyle was not founded by any evidence.
During the visit, it confirmed that the resident made it aware that they kept the property ventilated. It was noted in the surveyor’s report that the resident’s bedroom was found to be cluttered (often noted as a contributing factor to condensation). However, said clutter was not noted to be observed throughout the property and the bedroom was only one of several rooms in which mould was found to be present. This suggests that other factors could have contributed to the issue and the landlord’s failure to consider this meant that its investigations were inadequate.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, made recommendations that landlords should consider what mitigations can put place to support residents in circumstances where structural remedies, related to the property age and design for example, are not appropriate.
In this case, the landlord concluded that the mould was the result of the resident’s ‘lifestyle’ but it made no attempt to inform the resident of what specific measures they could take to address any factors the landlord believed was contributing to the alleged condensation in the property.
It accepted that works were required to the roof and guttering and when it visited on 18 June 2021, it saw that the gutters were still leaking even though repairs had been carried out to the guttering five months before.
This Service understands that it may not have been practical to bring the roof renewal work forward, as a leaseholder consultation was required in advance of the work and the timeframes for this process are beyond the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to mitigate potential further damage to the property as a result of the continued leak from the guttering. It did not arrange either a responsive repair or a recall of the inadequate repair that was carried out to the guttering five months before.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord rightfully confirmed that the roof required renewal and the financial year it anticipated to do this work. It provided a reasonable explanation as to why the roof replacement works could not be brought forward. However, within its response the landlord failed to recognise that it in the first instance, the lack of communication between it and its contractor meant that it was unaware that the fascia’s were rotten until the resident reported the guttering on 26 January 2021. It also did not take into consideration that it took several months to attend to review the issues the resident reported to it about the roof and internal areas.
The delay in the landlord taking steps to attend to the property would have undoubtedly caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. This was further exacerbated by the fact that the landlord indicated that it found the cause of the mould to be the resident’s lifestyle without any substantive evidence to support this claim.
As noted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, the term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice to live in that way and, in this case, the landlord was unable to demonstrate what factors within the control of the resident it believed to be the cause of the damp and mould.
In addition, when it provided the final response, the landlord was aware that the damp and mould was outstanding and it did not provide the resident with any recommendations or plan of action of what could be done to address the issue. It did not believe that the roof and guttering was the cause of the issues but failed to offer an alternative diagnosis beyond a general conclusion of ‘lifestyle’ and did not share with the resident any measures that it (or they) could take to alleviate the damp and mould.
This Service is aware that, after the complaints procedure was finalised, the repair matters have progressed and the roof renewal works have been completed but some internal and external repairs remain outstanding.
Nevertheless, during the course of the complaint, the landlord did not proactively seek to address the damp and mould issue the resident raised. It also did not seek to provide interim repairs to the defective elements of the roof that it identified even though, if left unattended, would have worsened the condition of the property.
When it did take action, it did so several months after the reports from the resident and it drew conclusions about the mould being the result of the resident’s lifestyle with no substantive evidence. The landlord has failed to recognise the shortcomings in how it responded to the issues the resident raised and the impact the repair has had on the resident overall.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reported damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52(f) of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

There was a delay of five months in the landlord attending to the property to inspect after it received the initial report of damp from the resident. When it attended it concluded that the mould was the result of the resident’s lifestyle, inferring blame on the resident and it had no evidence to support its claim.
When it responded to the complaint, it accepted that the roof was in a poor condition and confirmed what it would do to address this. This was a reasonable approach but it failed to take any interim actions to address the ongoing leaks from the guttering despite the risk of this causing further damage to the property. In its responses, the landlord also did not recognise the impact of the repair issue on the resident being able to live comfortably in their home.
This Service is aware that months after the complaint finalised the procedure, the landlord confirmed a repair action plan with the resident following the independent survey that took place in April 2022. Nevertheless, when it provided the final response to the resident, it was aware the mould remained an issue and provided no plan of action to address this at the time it responded to the complaint. As a result of this failure to put things right, there were further delays before it eventually took steps to progress matters and arrange the independent survey.

Orders

That within That within 28 days calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £900 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £600 for the failures identified in this report in relation to its response to their reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. £300 for its communication with the resident about the damp and mould. Specifically, its inference of this being the result of the resident’s lifestyle with no evidence to support this.
2. Following the upcoming visit on 2 December 2022, provide this Service and the resident with an update on the proposed start dates for the outstanding works and confirm how it intends to post-inspect these repairs to ensure they have been successful.
3. Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould and consider an overall framework or policy to address damp and mould. Specifically, the landlord needs to review the tone of its communication, use of language and advice it provides to residents in relation to its findings from its investigations into reports of damp and mould.

The outcome of this review is to be reported to this Service.