Thurrock Council (202223907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223907

Thurrock Council

29 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and associated damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with an introductory tenancy beginning September 2021. The property is an end of terrace house with a porch and garage attached to the front of the property. Google street view shows that both the porch and garage have a flat roof.
The resident, his wife and daughter all have health issues, with some case notes saying that the resident is registered disabled.
The resident had raised previous formal complaints in relation to damp and mould in his property and the property being cold. This information provided contextual background which is useful, however this assessment focusses on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint of 24 November 2022.
The property has a Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit for ventilation which is designed to operate continuously.
Manufacturers of Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) say they “provide fresh filtered air into a building whilst retaining most of the energy that has already been used in heating the building”. It works by “extracting any damp, moist, stale air from an area”.
Since 1 April 2020, landlords can no longer let or continue to let properties covered by the MEES (minimum energy efficiency standards) Regulations if they have an EPC rating below E, unless they have a valid exemption in place.
An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was carried out at the property on 26 August 2021, the property’s current energy rating is D. Features get a rating from very good to very poor, based on how energy efficient they are. Ratings are not based on how well features work or their condition.
A breakdown of the property’s energy performance was provided as follows:
1. The roof is pitched with 50 mm loft insulation and rated as poor.
2. The windows are mostly double glazing and rated as poor.
3. All other features such as walls and heating system were rated as good or very good.

Summary of events

The resident reported damp and mould in the downstairs toilet and all the bedrooms on 10 January 2022.
A contractor attended on 25 January 2022 advising that a mould treatment would be required of the toilet, bedrooms, hallway and porch and all windows to be resealed in the bedrooms. The case notes say a contractor confirmed all works were complete on 14 February 2022.
The repair log shows that on 26 January 2022 the resident reported there was damp in the “rear rooms”. The case notes say this was due to 2 holes in the loft felt. This was evidenced as complete on 4 February 2022 with the felt and ridge tiles being replaced.
On 14 February 2022 the repair log shows a works order was raised in relation to the extractor fan not working. A contractor attended on 24 February 2022 and advised a new extractor fan was needed.
On 8 March 2022 the repair log shows that a works order was raised in relation to the extractor fan and an appointment confirmed with the resident for 19 May 2022. The case notes say the extractor fan was removed on this date and a board made to cover the hole.
On 20 June 2022 the resident reported that the garage roof was leaking again and affecting the property internally as “it backs on to the house”.
The landlord’s contractors attended on 24 June 2022 and noted that a mobile tower was required to the front of the property to apply the lead flashing to the areas by the front door and rear wall of the porch. Therefore another appointment was made and the works were completed on 4 July 2022.
On 22 August 2022 the resident reported that there were holes in the house roof whereby daylight could be seen through. The repair was evidenced as complete on 25 August 2022.
The repair log shows that a “recall” was required in relation to the above repair. The notes says that a contractor attended on 7 September 2022 to clear the gutter and outlet. Also, that some asphalt skirting was replaced.
On 11 September 2022 a repair order was raised in relation to the garage roof. The repair log shows that a contractor attended on 21 September 2022 erected a mobile tower, renewed eves with filler and blocked holes to the back of the garage.
On 3 November 2022 the resident reported that the porch roof leaked when it rained. A contractor attended on 4 November 2022 and found that the outlet was blocked, this was cleared. The repair log notes go on to say that sealant was applied to the felt flap.
As a result of the leak mentioned above a works order was raised to repair the porch ceiling on 11 November 2022. The repair log shows that the appointment was scheduled for 1 December 2022 however the works could not be carried out as the ceiling was “still very wet” and “required further works by a roofer”.
On 24 November 2022 a mould wash was carried out in the hallway ceiling and a works order was raised for the bathroom extractor fan to be replaced.
The same day the resident reported that the porch was flooded as a result of a leaking roof. The repair log evidenced this was attended to as an emergency with the case notes saying “the operative reported back that a roofing contractor was required to assess the roof to the porch and garage as water was coming through when it rains into the downstairs WC”.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 November 2022 saying that:
1. There were a number of issues again at the property and he was “suffering”. These included:
  1. Mould in the bathroom and downstairs toilet, as there was no ventilation.
  2. The bathroom extractor fan was broken.
  3. The “ventilation system” had not worked since he moved in and was in pieces in the loft.
  4. There was a hole in the loft.
  5. The porch was leaking and had mould.
2. It was not the first time he had reported it.
3. He had not put the heating on since last year as he said the house does not contain the heat as there are draughts everywhere.
4. Some personal belongings were damaged in the garage due to a leak.
5. The issues were taking a toll on his mental health.
The resident sent a follow up email in relation to his complaint on 25 November 2022 saying:
1. Any work that had been done had been “bodged and solved an issue at the time” but never really resolved the problem.
2. The issues not being fixed was “making him and his family mentally ill and affecting their health.
3. When the resident moved into the property the “insulation was done” in the loft but he was not sure that it was effective.
An inspection was carried out on 28 November 2022. The repair log notes said there was no roof leak evident, the felt was still in good condition and it appeared to be bad condensation. Following this, a referral was made to a supervisor to advise of the above findings and to see if any recommendations could be made to stop the condensation.
The repair log shows that on 3 December 2022 an electrician attended and disconnected and removed the bathroom extractor fan. A board was fitted where the hole from the extractor fan was.
A further visit was made on 5 December 2022 to investigate these issues further. Following this visit it was agreed for a roofing contractor to return to carry out any required repairs to the porch roof as it was concluded that issues were being caused by a leak and not condensation as originally identified.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 8 December 2022 saying that:
1. A contractor carried out an inspection on 28 November 2022 but there was no evidence of a leaking roof and the roof felt was in good condition. Therefore, it considered the mould in the porch being experienced was being caused due to an issue with “severe condensation”.
2. A referral was made to a supervisor and an inspection carried out on 5 December 2022. Following the visit it was confirmed there was a leak in the porch roof and that a roofing contractor would return to carry out any required repairs.
3. A further leak to the garage was reported on 20 June 2022 which was also affecting the property internally. The works were scheduled to be carried out on 24 June 2022 however could not be done at that time due to the lack of “mobile tower” to access the area. The work was then carried out on 4 July 2022.
4. A recall works order was raised on 22 August due to further reports that the garage roof was leaking. A contractor visited on 7 September 2022, to clear the gutter and outlet and also renew two meters of asphalt skirting.
5. It was clear that those additional repairs were not correctly identified on the initial attendance on 4 July 2022, resulting in a further unnecessary visit and delays in concluding the works. The landlord “extended its apologies for any inconveniences this may have caused”.
6. A works order was raised on 17 November 2021 in relation to mould on the ceiling in the hallway. A contractor attended on 24 November 2021 and treated the mould affected area.
7. In relation to the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of extraction system and non-working extractor fans, it confirmed that instead, a MHVR unit was in situ and therefore extractor fans were not required. Using both simultaneously would be counterproductive and lessen the effectiveness of the MHVR.
8. Upon investigation into the resident’s complaint, it confirm that a works order was raised on 8 March 2022 to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom. This was then submitted to the council on 22 March 2022 for approval.
9. It was clear there had been a delay in the submission, therefore it would like to extend its apologies for delays and inconvenience that may have been experienced in this regard. It went on to say, reiteration had been made to all staff that where approval was required, it must be submitted in a timely manner to prevent delays.
10. It was at this point it was confirmed that these works were not required due to a MVHR unit being in situ which had been serviced previously and confirmed as working. As a result, it was requested for the fan to be removed and boarded up, with an appointment scheduled for 19 May 2022.
11. The resident made further reports on 24 November 2022 that the extractor fan needed repair, with a contractor attending on 1 December 2022 advising a replacement was necessary. This resulted in a discussion with the electrical supervisor, and due to reasons stated above the works order was subsequently cancelled.
12. It again confirmed that a works order had been raised to remove the extractor fan and make good the surrounding area. It said its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to complete these required works.
13. In relation to the resident’s reports that the ventilation system was not working it made a referral for the relevant contractor to arrange for a mutually convenient appointment to inspect and carry out any required repairs to the ventilation system.
14. It would continue to monitor it along with all other outstanding works to ensure they are completed in a timely and satisfactory manner.
The same day the resident requested his complaint be escalated. He said that:
1. The house was cold and that was “due to the windows”. They had not been resealed.
2. The “front room” was the only room in the house where he could keep warm.
3. A supervisor told him the porch issues were due to condensation as there was no ventilation in there. He wanted to know what the landlord planned to do to rectify it and to install ventilation in the porch.
4. A supervisor inspected the garage roof where the old leak was and not the section that was adjacent to the neighbouring property. This was where the resident believed the leak to be.
5. The work to address the mould had not been complete as there was still mould in all the bedrooms and downstairs. He said that the only action taken was to paint over the mould spots.
6. He had explained to the supervisor on 5 December 2022 that the mould was still a problem and also getting worse in the bathroom.
7. The MVHR unit was not serviced as there was no power going to it and therefore an electrician had to attend. Furthermore the control for the unit did not work and that the electrician was going to raise an order for this to be looked at.
8. He was advised that the extractor fan was working and therefore not “boarded up” as he would have not have ventilation at all, as at the time the MVHR unit was not working.
9. The “empty promises” were becoming tiresome as the same issues did not get resolved to a satisfactory standard.
10. The issues were causing the resident and his family stress and financial implications.
On 19 December 2022 an inspection was carried out of the roof and the repair notes say the roof was in good condition, and the damp and mould was caused by condensation.
An inspection was carried on 23 December 2022 of the windows with the repair notes saying that the windows were beyond repair and recommended new windows were installed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 January 2023 saying that:
1. In relation to the mould in the porch, its records showed that a further inspection took place at the property on 19 December 2022, and it was found that the issue currently being experienced was related to condensation only and not related to any leak or water ingress. As no defects were identified, no further remedial repairs were identified at that time.
2. There were works required in relation to the MVHR unit within the property and the need for roof vents, which would allow for adequate airflow. This would also assist in reducing condensation build up and mould forming.
3. It was clear that there had been delays in the works relating to the roof vents being progressed for which it “sincerely apologised”.
4. With regards to the extractor fan, it said that an appointment was attended on 3 January 2023 and that all works were completed as required, including removal of the fan and transformer, and a board fitted and sealed in its place.
5. In relation to remaining issues with the garage roof a supervisor had confirmed that at that time there were no further remedial repairs required to the garage roof.
6. The resident disagreed that the windows had been sealed and was unhappy with the way the mould had been dealt with.
7. It apologised and hoped it had offered some reassurance to the resident that the works identified in relation to the vents and MVHR unit would resolve the issue.
8. Its records show that the works completed in February 2022 included mastic being applied to the internal frames of the windows. A further works order was raised for its contractors to attend and further inspect the windows for any additional repairs that may be required.
On 12 January 2023, the repair log says 2 house roof tiles were fixed in position and a roof vent installed.
The repair log says that on 13 January 2023 “the resident refused the dehumidifiers”.
The case notes show a mould wash was carried out on 2 February 2023, the same day a works order was raised saying “window: repoint silicone to PVC frame”.
The landlord advised that on 3 February 2023 a new MVHR unit was installed.
On 6 February 2023 the repair log shows that the PVC window reveals and cills to all bedrooms were renewed. Also the roofing drip edging was renewed to the garage roof and silicone sealed.
The resident reported the garage roof was leaking on 30 March 2023. An inspection was carried out on 11 April 2023. The repair log says that the roof sheets had been installed incorrectly and needed to be removed and installed in the correct way. This was evidenced as complete on 9 May 2023.
This service has been unable to establish from the resident if there are any issues currently outstanding. However the landlord wrote to this service on 7 July 2023 and confirmed all required works had now been completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair policy provides the following timescale for repairs:
1. Emergency – within 24 hours
2. Urgent – within 5 working days
3. Routine – within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. It is required to maintain the structure and exterior of the property to a good standard of repair.
2. that capital improvement works include replacement of key components such as kitchens, bathrooms, boilers and external elements such as windows and doors.
3. Where such works are programmed for a property, repairs responsibilities and completion time might vary. This may mean repairs will be restricted to emergency or make safe repairs only until capital improvements are completed.
In relation to damp and mould its repair policy says:
1. It will review all reported mould or dampness to a dwelling, depending on the severity of the issue.
2. For severe cases of dampness or mould growth within a property a survey will take place by a building surveyor – any required repairs identified by the surveyor will take place as routine repairs within the 20 day target time
3. Minor mould growth caused by condensation and attributed to housekeeping will be addressed under a batch programme following a review by its contracted delivery partners
4. All tenants have a responsibility to maintain the property to a good condition. This includes managing the environment in the home to prevent the occurrence of condensation related mould. If mould does occur residents should clean this down using a fungicidal wash solution.

Leaks to the garage, porch and house roof and associated mould growth

An energy performance assessment was carried out in August 2021. Although the property is compliant in relation to its energy performance, the loft insulation and windows were rated as poor. In the resident’s email of 25 November 2022 he said that the “loft insulation was done” when he moved in however, felt it was not effective. It is unclear what works were involved and this service does not have expertise in relation to the energy efficiency of a building, however an order has been made in relation to this.
The resident reported on 20 June 2021 that the garage roof was leaking. The landlord responded within 4 working days and carried out the necessary repair works within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The resident reported holes in the house roof on 22 August 2022 and the necessary works were evidenced as complete on 25 August 2022. This was appropriate and in line with the landlords repair policy.
Nevertheless, an additional “recall order” was required following the above works as there were still issues with the roof. This required the gutters to be cleared and some asphalt replaced. This work was evidenced as complete on 7 September 2021, which was appropriate.
Further reports of a leaking garage roof were made in September and November 2022, both were responded to by the landlord which was appropriate and within its timescales.
Despite the works being carried out within its policy timescale, the number of return visits that were required to rectify the problem was not appropriate. This supports the concerns the resident raised, that the “issues did not get resolved to a satisfactory standard”.
An inspection was carried out on 28 November 2022 with the case notes saying there was not a leak and that the felt of the roof was in good condition. Therefore the notes said that the cause appeared to be condensation and was escalated to a supervisor. This was appropriate and in line with its policy in relation to damp and mould.
As a result a further inspection was carried out on 5 December 2022 by a roofing contractor who advised the issue with the roof was as a result of a leak and not condensation. Despite identifying this, yet another inspection was carried out on 19 December 2022, with the landlord reverting back saying the issue was caused by condensation. This confusing and contradictory information is a cause of concern given the landlord has not demonstrated its ability to properly investigate the matter.
Furthermore, the resident reported that the garage roof was leaking again on 30 March 2023. It was appropriate that an additional inspection was carried out however this identified that the roof sheets had been installed incorrectly and needed to be removed and reinstalled. This further evidences works not being carried out to a sufficient standard.
On 12 January 2023 it was evidenced in the repair log that 2 roof tiles were fixed back into position and roof vents installed. It was appropriate and in line with its repair obligations that the landlord carried out works to remedy these issues. However, it is not satisfactory that despite numerous visits and inspections the landlord could not clearly identify the cause of the damp and mould in the porch, hallway and toilet. Without clearly being able to identify the cause, it is unlikely that an appropriate repair could be carried out.
It is clear from the evidence that the contradictions and uncertainty in the landlord being able to identify the cause of the damp and mould issues was very frustrating for the resident. He said in both his stage 1 and 2 complaints that the issues were taking a toll on his mental health and causing his family stress and having financial implications.
The landlord identified in both its stage one and stage 2 responses that there had been delays in works to the roof being carried out and additional repairs not correctly being identified. Although it offered an apology it did not award any compensation which would have been steps to put things right. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate a resolution focused response.
In conclusion, the landlord did not adequately identify the cause of the roofing, damp and mould issues and therefore was unable to carry out appropriate repairs. This in turn caused unnecessary delays for the resident in addressing the repair issues.

Lack of sufficient mechanical ventilation and associated mould growth

When responding to the resident’s report of damp on 26 January 2022 the landlord responded within 7 working days. This was appropriate and within the timeframe set in its repair policy.
On 14 February 2022 the resident reported that the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. The landlord responded 8 working days later on 24 February 2022 identifying the need to replace the extractor fan. The landlord responded appropriately by inspecting the fan and within the timescale in its repair policy.
Following this, on 8 March 2022 a work order was raised, and appointment was scheduled for 19 May 2022. It is not clear the reason for the delay between March and May 2022 but the case notes say the extractor fan was removed and the hole boarded over on May 19 2022.
Nevertheless the resident’s formal complaint of 24 November 2022 said that the bathroom extractor fan was broken, indicating that it had not been removed in May 2022.
Furthermore, on 3 December 2022, the repair log says that an electrician attended and removed the bathroom extractor fan, demonstrating further that the fan had not been removed in May 2022.
The landlord did act appropriately when it explained in its stage 1 response, that after further investigation, the extractor fan was not needed. This was because a MHVR unit was in situ and using both simultaneously would be counterproductive and lessen the effectiveness of the MHVR unit.
It apologised that this was not identified earlier, as its staff had not submitted an approval request in a timely manner. It explained that as a result it had reminded all staff of the importance of raising requests promptly. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken steps to ensure it did not happen again. However, it failed to offer any compensation.
The resident advised in his stage 1 and 2 complaint of 24 November 2022 and 8 December 2022 that the MHVR unit was not working. The landlord advised this service that the unit was replaced on 3 February 2023. This was not appropriate or in line with its 20 working day timescale outline in its repair policy.
Furthermore, the landlord continuously referred to the MHVR unit being in situ as a replacement for extractor fans therefore it should have ensured this was working as intended much earlier than it eventually did. This meant that the property was without effective mechanical ventilation (either working extractor fans or MHVR) from at least the resident’s first report of mould in January 2022 until the MHVR was replaced in February 2023. This was not appropriate and likely contributed to the damp and mould issues at the property during this time.
In summary, there was a delay in removing the broken extractor fan and in turn in identifying that the MHVR unit was not working. It took the landlord 48 working days to replace the MHVR unit from first being notified it was not working. As part of its investigation in the reports of damp and mould the MHVR system should have been checked much sooner that it was performing as it should. The delay caused the resident frustration and distress and inconvenience.

Draughty windows

The EPC that was carried out in August 2021 says the energy performance of the windows was poor, nevertheless the minimum rating requirement was met.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 25 January 2022 which identified the windows in the bedroom needed resealing. The repair notes say a contractor confirmed all works were complete on 14 February 2022. This was 25 working days later and a minor failure as it was 5 days outside of its timescale set in its repair policy.
On 8 December 2022 in his formal complaint, the resident disputed that the windows were resealed and said that the house was still cold due to the windows being draughty. As a result the landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out to examine the windows on 23 December 2022. This was appropriate as it gave the landlord an up to date assessment of the current state of the windows. It was noted that the windows were beyond repair and recommended new windows were installed.
Given that the resident was disputing the windows were resealed, it is the role of the Ombudsman to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstance of the case. The repair log did not specify what works were carried out on the 14 February 2022, simply that the contractor confirmed all the works were complete. Furthermore, less than one year later on 6 February 2023, works detailed on the repair log included resealing the window frames.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that if the works were carried out on 14 February 2022, it was not to a sufficient standard as to be effective in the long term.
As mentioned above, despite the recommendation to replace the windows, the landlord carried out another repair on 6 February 2023 to include repointing and applying silicone to the window frames. This was 28 working days after it had been notified the windows were beyond repair and 8 days outside of its timescale detailed in its repair policy.
Whilst these works may have been appropriate as an interim measure, no details were provided to the resident in relation to if or when the windows may be replaced under its capital works program. This was frustrating for the resident and caused him concerns given previous repairs had not been successful or carried out.
In summary, the landlord did not carry out its initial repair to the windows and was outside of its timescale in carrying out the additional repair. It did not provide the resident with any details in relation to the replacement of the windows after it identified they were beyond repair. Keeping the resident updated and providing him with a timescale could have helped alleviate his frustration and manage expectations.

Overall

The resident has experienced delays and conflicting information when pursuing the repairs to his property which has caused him distress and inconvenience. Over a period of 1 year and 3 months the property has been in some form of disrepair despite various repairs being carried out. Although the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of repairs it failed to resolve the issues being reported. Accordingly there has been maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s repairs reports.

Compensation

Although the landlord acknowledged some of the delays and apologised to the resident, it did not award compensation which would have been a proactive step into putting things right.
Therefore in recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by the resident, £1675 compensation has been awarded. £25 per week for 67 weeks covering the period between 26 January 2022 and 9 May 2023.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and associated damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adequately identify if there was a leak at the property or if the ongoing damp and mould was caused by condensation. It was unclear if works had been carried out to the windows for over a period of a year, and there was a delay in requesting authorisation for the extractor fan to be replaced and in identifying that the MHVR unit was not working. This led to an extended period without the property having suitable ventilation.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1675 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s failures in response to his reports of repairs.
Arrange a heat loss survey of the resident’s property to establish whether any further remedial works to lessen the impact on the resident prior to the window replacement programme are required. The landlord should also take steps to offer advice to the resident regarding energy efficiency of the property and ensure that there are no other factors which may be contributing to heat loss within the property.
Provide the resident with a timescale of when the windows are to be replaced under its capital improvement works.
Instruct an independent external roofing company to inspect the entire house roof, garage roof and porch roof and carry out any necessary repair works.
Within eight weeks of today’s date, the landlord should carry out a review of this complaint to identify any lessons to be learnt from its handling of the repair requests and subsequent complaint. The review should focus on the need to get things right first time and if the initial jobs were carried out poorly resulting in the need for multiple contractor visits. The landlord should share the findings from this case review with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord takes step to ensure that it maintains oversight of the actions of its repairs contractor in response to repair requests and that it has access to the records of the actions taken by the contractor.