Thurrock Council (202345817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345817

Thurrock Council

25 September 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property and subsequent damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Background

The resident has a tenancy with the landlord which began on 23 March 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom, top floor flat in a low-rise block. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children. The resident said she has mental health difficulties.
On 4 December 2023, the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling of her bedroom and bathroom. The landlord’s operative inspected the communal loft area on 5 December 2023 and said it was unable to find a leak. On 12 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said there was still an active leak coming through her bedroom ceiling.
On 14 December 2023, the landlord said it would need to carry out further inspections of the communal loft area. It also said a mould wash was needed in the property. On 9 January 2024, the landlord’s operative attended the property and said it would need to erect scaffolding to look at the roof and the roof tiles. On 15 January 2024, the landlord completed a mould wash in the property.
On 11 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she had lived in the property for 9 years and had experienced continuous damp and mould. The resident said that the landlord treated the property 3 years ago for damp and mould, and it had told her that the damp and mould would not return for 6 years.
2. there was a leak in the property in December 2023 which had affected the ceiling of her children’s bedroom. The resident explained that the leak had damaged her children’s bedroom and their wardrobes.
3. she was concerned that there were issues with the insulation in the roof of the building. The resident said every time it rained, a new patch would appear on the bedroom ceiling.
4. she was unhappy that the landlord had not remedied the leak.
5. there was mould in her bathroom. The resident said the landlord treated the mould 2 weeks’ prior, but it had returned.
6. the property was cold, and damp and her children had to sleep in the living room.
On 23 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. it had not upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. it had previously inspected the property on 8 February 2022 following the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord said it carried out a mould wash in the property on 3 March 2022.
3. it had raised a works order on 4 December 2023, following the resident’s report of a leak coming from the loft area. It attended the property on 5 December 2023 and could not detect any leaks.
4. it had raised a new works order on 16 January 2024, to check the external roof for any potential leaks. The landlord said it attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2024, but it was unable to access the resident’s balcony to investigate the leak. It attended the property again on 13 February 2024, but it was unable to gain access. The landlord said it had arranged a new appointment on 23 February 2024 to inspect the property.
5. it would raise a works order to address the damp and mould issues, once it had investigated and resolved the leak.
On 26 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak in the property, and that the landlord had failed to attend appointments and keep in regular communication with her.
2. she was unhappy with the length of time taken to address the issues she had complained of, and that there had been a wet patch on the bedroom ceiling for 3 months.
3. she had not been given any reassurances about the outstanding repairs, including what the landlord would do to resolve the issues she had complained of.
On 22 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. it had not upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. it had attended the property on 23 February 2024. The landlord said further investigations were required with the use of scaffolding or a drone survey.
3. it had contacted the resident on 29 February 2024 to inform her about the drone survey.
4. it had completed a drone survey on 5 March 2024. The landlord said it had identified a slipped tile which was allowing water ingress during rainfall. The landlord said it had arranged to erect scaffolding on 22 March 2024 and it would complete the repairs on 26 March 2024.
5. it had contacted the resident on 11 March 2024 to arrange an appointment on 19 March 2024 to identify any internal remedial works.
On 26 March 2024, the landlord’s roofing contractor attended the property and completed repairs to the roof.
On 30 April 2024, the resident’s legal representatives sent a letter of claim to the landlord.
On 13 May 2024, a third-party surveyor completed an inspection of the property and prepared a disrepair report. The report identified:
1. there was no active leak in the bathroom or living room.
2. there was no rainwater ingress in the bedroom or coming from the roof.
3. a stain block was needed in the second bedroom.
4. mould was evident to the bathroom ceiling and the humidity levels were high. The surveyor advised a mould treatment in the property.
On 26 June 2024, the landlord’s operative attended the property and completed the outstanding internal remedial works.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak and damp and mould, and that it did not complete repairs within a reasonable time.
2. she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of response to reports of damage to her personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said that there was damp and mould affecting the property since 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from February 2023 onwards, which was 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in February 2024.
The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. The resident said the damp and mould also affected her children’s well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the property conditions impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has instructed a legal representative to bring a claim but that no claim has been filed at court. This means that we can consider this complaint under our Scheme.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak entering the property and subsequent damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. Examples of this would be an unstoppable leak from a pipe, tank or cistern or leaks or burst pipes outside of the property.
2. it will attend urgent repairs within 5 working days. Examples of this would be a leaking roof, or a containable leak from a pipe, tank or cistern.
3. it will attend routine repairs within 20 working days.
In response to reports of damp and mould, the landlord said it takes 2 approaches:
1. 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 a routine repair within the 20-day target time.
2. 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.
The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy in April 2023. The policy states:
1. the landlord will inform the individual of findings following a contractor visit, including identifying possible causes, recommending effective solutions, all necessary remedial works, and the estimated timescales to complete the works.
2. for a first report of damp and mould, the landlord’s contractors attend the property within 5 working days to carry out an inspection. If any follow-on works are identified, they will be completed by a contractor within 15 working days.
3. for “repeat occurrences” and a contractor has attended the property within the last 6 weeks, the landlord will escalate the issue to a supervisor for a review of the previous treatment.
4. for any re-occurrences which are longer than 6 weeks but within a 3-year period, a desktop review will be carried out and the tenant/leaseholder will be advised if a surveyor needs to attend.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.
On 4 December 2023, the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling of her bedroom and bathroom. The landlord’s contractor inspected the communal loft area on 5 December 2023 and said it was unable to find a leak.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractors in assessing whether there was a leak affecting the property. However, there is no evidence whether the landlord communicated the outcome of the inspection with the resident. The Ombudsman reasonably expects landlords to update residents with the outcome of any inspections and any additional works which may be required.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 December 2023 and said that there was still an active leak coming through her bedroom ceiling. On 14 December 2023, the landlord’s repair records said that “further works [were] required” and it needed to check the communal loft. It also said it would complete a mould wash in the property.
The landlord did not stipulate when it would complete further investigations into the cause of the leak, or when it would complete a mould wash. There is no evidence whether the landlord communicated the outcome of the inspection with the resident. This was not appropriate and would have likely caused further uncertainty to the resident about the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 January 2024 to advise that the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 January 2024 and said it would need to erect scaffolding to assess the roof, tiles and flashing around the chimney. The landlord’s repair records show that it also completed a mould wash in the property on 15 January 2024.
The landlord’s attendance at the property on 9 January 2024 was 15 working days after it had identified that further inspections were required. The landlord completed a mould wash 19 working days after it was aware that one was needed in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend repairs, such as roof leaks within 5 working days. The landlord’s attendance was therefore outside the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was not appropriate and would have likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s attendance at the property to complete a mould wash was outside the timescale set out in its damp and mould policy. This was not appropriate.
The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the damp and mould in the property, including whether the mould wash was effective.
Between 25 January and 23 February 2024, the evidence shows that the resident frequently contacted the landlord and requested an update on the repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors attempted to access the property on 25 January and 13 February 2024. On 23 February 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and concluded that it would need to erect scaffolding or complete a drone survey, for further investigation of the roof.
There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord informed the resident about the appointments on 25 January, 13 and 23 February 2024, or that it confirmed the appointments in writing with the resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord gave reasonable notice to the resident about the appointments.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord said it had difficulty accessing the property in January and February 2024, it had already identified on 9 January 2024 that it would need to erect scaffolding to inspect the roof area. The landlord has not provided any explanation why it did not request scaffolding or a drone survey when it was aware that this was needed on 9 January 2024. This inevitably caused delays in the landlord inspecting the roof to identify the cause of the leak.
The landlord attended the property on 5 March 2024 and identified that there was a slipped tile which was allowing water ingress during rainfall. The landlord’s attendance at the property was 57 working days after the resident had reported a leak on 12 December 2023. The delay in the landlord inspecting the roof was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur when trying to locate and repair complex leaks, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of water ingress and subsequent damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which would have likely left her feeling unsupported and distressed, particularly as she had explained the impact that the leak and damp and mould were having on her and her children.
The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord several times between 6 and 19 March 2024, to request an update on the repairs to the roof. The landlord inspected the property on 19 March 2024, but said it was unable to carry out any internal remedial works until it had completed the external repairs. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed works to the roof on 26 March 2024.
The landlord said it attended the property on 2 April 2024, but it was unable to gain access. The landlord attended the property again on 15 April 2024, but it said the resident had refused access due to an ongoing disrepair claim.
A third-party surveyor inspected the property on 13 May 2024 and advised that the landlord needed to complete internal remedial works. The surveyor provided their report to the landlord on 22 May 2024. The landlord’s repair records suggest that it completed the internal works on 26 June 2024, which was 24 working days later.
The Ombudsman recognises that the internal remedial works were dependent on completion of the external roof repairs. There were also delays in April 2024 due to the resident’s refusal of access to the property. However, the delays in repairing the roof meant that the subsequent internal repairs were also delayed.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that by the time the access issues became apparent, there had already been a significant period of delay and service failure by the landlord. The landlord failed to manage the external repairs in line with its repairs policy, and there was a lack of clarity about the rearrangement of repair appointments, which meant that repairs to the inside of the property were also delayed.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered any interim solutions between December 2023 and June 2024 to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident, such as dehumidifiers, additional mould washes or an emergency decant.
Given the resident’s concerns about the water ingress and subsequent damp and mould in the property, the impact this was having on the household, and that the resident’s children could not use their bedroom, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered other options to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident. For example, whether a temporary decant, additional mould washes or the installation of dehumidifiers was necessary.
Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property. The landlord failed to recognise the delays in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak entering the property and subsequent damp and mould, because:
1. in December 2023, the landlord did not stipulate when it would complete further investigations into the cause of the leak, or when it would complete a mould wash.
2. there is no evidence whether the landlord communicated the outcome of the inspection in December 2023 with the resident.
3. there were delays between December 2023 and January 2024 in the landlord further inspecting the property and carrying out a mould wash.
4. there is no evidence that the landlord monitored the damp and mould in the property, including whether the mould wash was effective.
5. there is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord informed the resident about the appointments on 25 January, 13 and 23 February 2024, or that it confirmed the appointments in writing with the resident.
6. there were delays in the landlord inspecting the external roof and completing remedial works between December 2023 and March 2024.
7. there is no evidence that the landlord considered any interim solutions between December 2023 and June 2024 to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident and her children, such as dehumidifiers, additional mould washes or an emergency decant.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 February 2024, which was 9 working days later. The landlord’s response time was appropriate and in line with the Code.
However, the landlord’s complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal belongings as a result of the leak, or that her children were sleeping in the living room and that the property was cold and damp. This was a failure by the landlord. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024, which was 19 working days later. The landlord’s response time was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s concerns about the wellbeing of her and her household, as a result of the damp and mould she had reported. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident said the leak caused damage to the property and to her personal belongings. The landlord failed to respond to this in its complaint responses. The landlord did not advise the resident if she could make a claim against her contents insurance, or the landlord’s insurance. It is unclear if the resident has submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer, or if the insurer has made a decision regarding the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the damage to her belongings, including whether its insurer is considering a claim.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the failures identified in this report. This is comprised of:
  1. £1,350 to recognise the failures by the landlord in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak and subsequent damp and mould, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs.
  2. £150 for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident.
3. contact the resident to discuss any damage to her belongings, including how she can make a claim to its liability insurer, whether its liability insurer is considering a claim or whether it should offer a contribution towards the belongings in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.