St Albans City and District Council (202115679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115679

St Albans City and District Council

30 May 2023

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reported repairs including reports of damp, and issues with the front door.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 2 November 2015 and the property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. 
4. On 8 November 2016 the landlord sent a letter to the resident acknowledging receipt of the resident’s right to buy application. In the letter it stated that during this proceeding it would not carry out any improvements to the property and would only undertake emergency repairs. It explained that, if the resident withdrew the application, its repairs service would revert back to the general maintenance work programme.
5. On 20 December 2017, following the resident’s reports of damp, the landlord arranged for a survey to take place. The report was unable to conclude if there was rising damp due to the high levels of condensation in the property. It also noted that external issues could be contributing to the internal dampness to the outer wall and recommended the following:
   1. Clear all gutters and downpipe.
   2. Inspect the adjoining shed roof covering and porch covering.
   3. Inspect the gaps between the door frame and door.
   4. Repoint on external walls especially where damp proof course is positioned.
6. Recommendations were also given to the resident to help alleviate the condensation in the property. It stated the resident needed to reduce the condensation issues first, before it carried out any damp proofing works.
7. The landlord arranged for several repairs to be carried out during 2018. It also explained that some repairs may not fall under its remit if the right to buy application was still active. The resident then informed the landlord that he wished to withdraw his right to buy application as he was unable to afford the property. The landlord informed him this withdrawal would need to be in writing.
8. During April 2018, the resident complained about delays in reported repairs. The landlord arranged a visit to the property to address the issues. Following a damp survey, it was concluded that the damp issue appeared to be caused by blocked guttering and high levels of condensation. The landlord stated that the repair would not be undertaken given the right to buy circumstances, and once the withdrawal letter had been received it would revisit the situation. Following this, on 15 May 2018, the landlord sent a letter to the resident confirming his right to buy application to purchase the property had been withdrawn.
9. Subsequently, the resident reported repairs to the shed, utility meter, boiler flue route, leaking pipe, front door frame and mould within the property. An inspection was undertaken, and the following works were identified as being required:
   1. Install soak away to front down pipe.
   2. Ease and adjust front door.
   3. Replace ceiling rose for a batten holder – to prevent fitting hitting door.
   4. Repair/replace leaking external waste pipe to kitchen sink.
   5. Repair flashing to side shed as this is causing damp to penetrate in the children’s bedroom.
10. The landlord stated it would raise all the works, except for the shed as further checks were required. Later works were raised to renew the shed roof.
11. During 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about repairs. Later repairs to the fan, door, and pathway were completed.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident in 2019 to explain that on inspection, it noticed the damp proof course was not 150mm above a patio which the resident had installed. It explained this was needed to prevent damp from rising up the walls. As the patio was too high, it explained it needed to be reduced or the damp issues would keep recurring. As an alternative a shallow drain filled with pea shingle would need to be installed to enable water to run away from the property.
13. During September 2020, two repairs were completed, these were for a fan replacement and to replace the cartridge in the basin in the bathroom. Following this in November 2020, a property survey was completed.
14. On 14 June 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said that he had ‘suffered’ living in the property for the past 5 years. When he first moved in, the property was a ‘mess’ which resulted in him borrowing money to decorate. He was unhappy with the number of repairs needed to his home and explained in total this was over 40 visits from contractors, surveyors and the housing manager. He said that he felt the condition of the property was ‘uninhabitable’. In the email he listed the following issues: 
    1. There was an ongoing leaking wall, which the landlord had not been able to resolve.
    2. The front door had been looked at multiple times, but the issue remained.
    3. The recent fixing of the boiler was wrong.
    4. He did not agree with the installation of insulation plaster board in the bathroom.
15. He explained that he was on the transfer list and bidding, however did not feel his living circumstances were acceptable. He wanted the landlord to look at the history of the property and refuse to let it out further until all issues were resolved.
16. Following the complaint, the landlord gathered information to look at the reported repairs and works carried out from 2019 until 2021. This included the following:

1. Walls plaster boarded and skimmed – Completed 02/04/2019.
2. Front door eased and adjusted – completed 06/06/2019.
3. Extractor fan found to be working, however humidity stat turned off, reset sensor tested and all working – completed 06/06/2019.
4. Request to change extractor fan – No Access 18/06/2019.
5. Repair or replace extractor fan – No Access 11/10/2019.
6. Repair or replace extractor fan – Hallway light not working properly – Extractor inspected and overhauled not replaced, left in working order. Light pendant replaced – completed 18/10/2019.
7. Roofing Works – It was waiting on confirmation from contractors but believed this was completed 25/11/2019.
8. Report of bathroom extractor fan not working. Replaced with new fan with a new back plate – completed 07/09/2020.
9. No hot water from wash hand basin. Replaced cartridge – completed 08/09/2020.
10. Smoke alarm beeping needs new battery, new smoke alarm fitted –  completed 19/03/2021.

17. The landlord arranged an inspection, which was conducted on 17 June 2021. The surveyor raised a further inspection for the roof to check for water ingress as they noticed a small damp patch to the corner of the roof which was adjacent to the neighbour’s property. It acknowledged the front door had been attended to but raised further works to have the front entrance door eased and adjusted. In the event this did not fix the problem then it recommended having the door replaced. The surveyor noted mould on the concrete, but explained this was caused by moist air meeting the concrete, it informed the resident that internal decorations would be his responsibility. With regards to the boiler and plaster board, the surveyor explained this had been correctly installed and explained no repair issues were present.
18. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 13 July 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained this was because of unexpected absences. It understood the resident to be unhappy with the service which he had received in the five years of living in the property. The landlord explained that, after reviewing photos of the property when he moved in, it met the lettable standards it was using at the time.
19. The landlord said that it could not find any record to show that concerns were raised by the resident at the time he was offered the property. It explained that during 2016 the resident had raised repairs, in response to which the landlord arranged a survey inspection, and throughout the tenancy several repairs had been requested and authorised.
20. The landlord explained it reviewed the completed property survey conducted in November 2020 and was concerned that the following repairs had not been attended to. It said it would follow these up with its repairs contractor:

1. Install fire door to the kitchen.
2. Consider options for the fan in the bathroom.
3. Install smoke detector to living room.
4. Supply and install a mains heat detector.

21. Following the stage one response, the landlord looked into the repairs and found that the smoke alarm had been replaced.
22. As the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, he requested for the complaint to be escalated that same day. He explained that he laid the patio himself two years ago, but the issues concerning damp to the property existed prior to that. He further stated that he would be willing to remove the patio himself if needed. The resident said he felt he was ‘blamed for the wrongdoing of management’. He further stated its reply was very ‘aggressive’ and ‘aimed at his choices and freedom of speech’.
23. During August 2021 the landlord arranged a visit to the property to discuss the repairs further. It also arranged for contractors to attend and rectify issues with the resident’s and neighbour’s gutters in an attempt to resolve the leak. 
24. During the visit the resident had stated he did not want internal works to be carried out, but was happy for the external works to the gutter to be completed. The landlord explained this may require scaffolding.
25. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 13 August 2021. It understood the resident felt the response only focused on his right to buy application and patio rather than the numerous repair visits over the years. It explained it reviewed the record of repairs and noted these had been raised a few months after moving into the property. It explained timescales were impacted as a result of inspections and surveyors being involved after the withdrawal of the resident’s right to buy application. It also explained that repairs to water ingress and damp required a specialist company which would have also impacted timescales.
26. The landlord reiterated the internal and external repairs which were required as per the inspection, however it acknowledged the resident had advised he did not wish for the internal repairs to be carried out. It agreed to conduct the external work and also agreed to clean the neighbours’ gutters to prevent overflow.
27. The landlord explained to the resident that, prior to the tenancy commencing, there were no records of reports concerning damp, and that since the resident laid the patio, this had breached the damp proof course. Therefore it was recommending this be rectified, which work the resident agreed to carry out himself.
28. On 31 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord informing it that he wanted the property to be inspected and to be decanted. Repairs had still not been conducted, as the resident did not wish to have internal repairs done and wanted to move instead. Again, on 10 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord stating that he wished to be decanted as the property was in disrepair and not fit for purpose. He was also seeking to claim back two years of rent.

Assessment and findings

29. The resident requested for the landlord to move him to an alternative property. We have noted this in the report; however, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a housing transfer application which involves a local authority, such as the landlord in this case, as such complaints would be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. 
30. The resident wanted the Ombudsman to look at the number of repairs conducted to the property over the years, and we recognise he stated he has experienced ongoing issues for five years and says the property is ‘uninhabitable’.. It is noted that the resident has referred to his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his repairs requests since the start of his tenancy, however this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 2020 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reported repairs, including damp, and issues with the front door.

31. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it stated that it was concerned that it had not yet addressed the recommended repairs raised in the property survey conducted in November 2020. We have not seen a copy of the property survey which was completed, however, it appears that several recommendations were noted. On reviewing the landlord’s repairs history, we can see that the smoke alarm was replaced, however no further repairs were listed or completed.
32. This service has reviewed the landlord’s internal correspondence and can see that, following its completed property surveys, it stated all the works had been risk categorised and were being worked on in order.
33. Whilst the works recommended from the landlord’s property survey were not repairs the resident had raised, it is still important that any repairs needed are clearly documented on the repairs logs. Therefore, we will be making a recommendation regarding the landlord’s record keeping for repairs, to ensure that any such recommendations are captured and recorded accurately.
34. The resident has expressed concern about the landlord’s delays in dealing with reported repairs. We can see that he has reported several repairs since moving into the property and also complained in 2018 about the landlord’s delays.
35. The evidence shows that, when the resident initially reported repairs, he had put in an application in 2016 for the right to buy. Right to buy is a scheme which allows tenants to buy their council home at a discounted rate. With regards to repairs, the landlord’s policy states it will not carry out any improvements to the property and will only undertake emergency repairs during a right to buy process.  This service has not seen evidence to show the resident had withdrawn this application until the landlord’s acknowledgement of a withdrawal in 2018. Therefore, and whilst we recognise the resident’s frustration with the landlord not dealing with repairs during this period, as these repairs were not deemed emergency repairs, there was no service failure by the landlord in not actioning a repair during this period. We can see that the landlord appropriately informed the resident of its position in 2016, and again in 2018.
36. The landlord has explained that once the resident’s application was withdrawn it proceeded to look into the reported repairs. The evidence shows that a number of repairs were requested and completed in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
37. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord explained that it was unaware of any outstanding or unresolved problems until the resident’s complaint on 14 June 2021. We have reviewed the landlord’s repair records and can see that the only reported repair in 2021 before the resident’s complaint was on 17 March 2021 and this was to repair the smoke alarm. This was repaired on 19 March 2021.
38. The record shows that there were several repairs reported in 2020, however these were all completed. This was for the following repairs:

1. Roof replacement.
2. No hot water.
3. Issues with the bathroom fan.
4. Asbestos removal.

39. We have considered the available information and cannot see that the resident had reported any other repairs within the previous six months of raising the complaint which the landlord did not look into. The only outstanding work was that which the landlord identified in its property survey.
40. Following the resident’s reports in June 2021 about water cascading off the roof when it rained, the evidence shows that the landlord rectified the leaking gutters, and removed vegetation for the resident and the neighbouring property in an attempt to prevent the leaking. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issues were proactive.  We have not seen evidence to suggest that the issues concerning water cascading remained and therefore we are satisfied the landlord’s actions were appropriate.

Issues with the front door

41. The resident said the landlord had attended to issues concerning the front door on several occasions in the past, however the problem reoccurred. The inspection in June 2021 also noted the issue with the door. We have reviewed the repairs history which shows that the landlord has eased and adjusted the door several times following the resident’s reports. In accordance with the landlord and tenant act and the landlord’s repairs policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to address these issues each time the resident reported it. Whilst we recognise there have been multiple visits and it is unfortunate that the issue was reoccurring, the landlord’s attempts to repair the door were appropriate.
42. The resident then stated he did not wish for any internal work to be completed, therefore the landlord was not able to address any further concerns. If the issue remains, the resident should inform the landlord, and as per his tenancy allow access for the landlord to conduct a repair. In the event the repair is unsuccessful the landlord should then look at alternative options to ensure the issue is resolved permanently.

Issues concerning damp

43. In reference to the damp specialist report conducted on 20 December 2017, whilst we recognise the surveyor explained the resident would need to reduce condensation first before it carry out any damp proofing works, this was not an entirely appropriate response at the time. This is because we recognise there was uncertainty regarding the rising damp, and in cases concerning damp and mould we would expect the landlord is doing everything it reasonably can to help alleviate the conditions within the property. We have not made a finding in regards to this due to their being a pending right to buy applications at the time.
44. With regards to the resident’s complaint about leaking walls, the landlord correctly arranged for an inspection to take place. The evidence shows the surveyor reported there was a damp patch at a high level in the rear bedroom which was adjacent to an attached roof which is privately owned, however noted that the landlord had replaced the roof in the past to remedy the leak. He also noted small amounts of mould on the ceiling and edge of the wall in the bathroom.
45. The evidence shows that the roof had been replaced in 2020, and whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts at the time, it is clear the issues reoccurred in the corner of the bedroom and adjacent neighbours’ roof. In such circumstances the Ombudsman expects that landlords are actively seeking for a way to resolve the problem and are in reasonable communication with residents throughout the process. Therefore, It was appropriate for the surveyor to recommend a further specialist inspection to the roof to identify possible cause of water ingress. We recognise the resident did not want any internal works to be carried out, however it is important to note the resident has an obligation under his tenancy agreement to allow reasonable access to the landlord, to conduct repairs or inspections required. We are recommending that if the issue remains and the resident is willing to allow the landlord to conduct a specialist inspection report, this is completed within a reasonable period of time. It is noted that repairs or works to the neighbouring adjacent property would be subject to approval because it is privately owned. The landlord should therefor ensure it communicates with the neighbour to express the importance of having the repairs conducted. In the event the neighbour refuses, the landlord should look at an alternative solution to resolve the issues with specialist advice.
46. With regards to the ongoing concerns with damp within the property, we can see the landlord attended to this on several occasions over the years. The evidence shows the surveyor stated the patio which the resident installed had breached the dampproof course, and recommended this be removed. The resident agreed to remove this himself, however, we have not seen evidence to confirm if this was done.  

The landlord’s complaint handling

47. Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to resident’s complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
48. We understand the landlord has since revised its complaints policy and we have not seen a copy of the complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, in general we expect a landlord to respond to a resident’s complaint within a reasonable period of time. If it is unable to do so it should inform the resident of the new timescales.
49. In this instance the resident raised a formal complaint on 14 June 2021 and the landlord responded on 13 July 2021, Subsequently it issued its stage two response on 13 August 2021.
50. We have seen the landlord apologised for the delays in its stage one response and explained that this was due to unexpected illnesses. Whilst we recognise absence from sickness cannot be controlled, it is expected that a landlord is effectively communicating with residents and in the event of a delay this is fed back to the resident. In this case we cannot see that this was done.  We recognised the length of time to provide a stage two response was also longer than we would expect. However, the landlord provided an apology and taken altogether the delays did not in the Ombudsman’s opinion have a significant impact on the resident and therefore did not constitute a failure in service.

Determination (decision) 

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports, including reports of damp and issues with the front door.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

53. We recognise the resident has had several repair requests over the years, however we have not seen evidence to suggest there was any outstanding repair reports from the resident at the time of his complaint. There were outstanding repair from the landlord’s property survey of November 2020, however this was not in connection to the resident’s reports, and we understand the landlord conducted surveys on its properties and any repairs noted were being worked in order associated to risk. Whilst we have made a recommendation regarding the landlord’s repairs database and ensuring that all required works are logged, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair requests.
54. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident, and we find the delays did not have a significant impact to conclude in a service failure. 

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

55. The landlord to ensure that repair recommendations from property surveys are correctly addressed and documented in the repairs history sheet along with all other repairs. This will prevent required repairs being missed or delayed. 
56. If it has not done so already, the landlord to contact the resident to arrange an internal specialist inspection of the roof within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should ensure it communicates with the neighbour to seek approval of works to be completed if needed. In the event approval is denied, the landlord should look at an alternative solution to resolve the issues with specialist advice.
57. The landlord to contact the resident to confirm if the patio has been removed and if the damp issues in that area remain. In the event the issues are ongoing, the landlord to arrange an inspection to take place to ascertain the cause.
58. Where damp and mould specialist reports conclude condensation is the cause of damp and mould, the landlord should put measures in place to help alleviate the conditions of the property. It should also consider post inspection following any remedial works to ensure the cause was correctly identified and resolved.