The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Two Rivers Housing (202010606)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010606

Two Rivers Housing

1 December 2021


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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering including its response to reports of resulting mould.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’, the resident’s complaint that her health and that of her son’s has been affected by the situation, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. This is as the Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between matters complained of and that of an individual’s health. This is because liability needs to be determined and such claims amount to personal injury, which are better suited for the courts to provide a binding decision or as part of an insurance claim.
  4. Should the resident want to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she is advised to seek independent advice on the matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement notes in relation to access to the property, ‘You must allow us (or anybody working for us) to enter your home at a reasonable time (and at all times in an emergency) to inspect your home or carry out works to it or to an adjoining property. This would include access for inspection and/or servicing of gas boilers, smoke detectors or other appliances for which are responsible. You must also give us (or anybody working for us) access for tenancy related purposes and to allow photographs, video and/or sound recordings to be taken. We will give you reasonable prior notice of the need to gain access to your home. In an emergency, we may not be able to give you any prior notice of our need to gain access’.
  2. The repairs guide notes an urgent repair is a repair that does not fall into the emergency priority, but is still urgent enough to need attention quickly. The landlord will respond to urgent repairs within five working days of them being reported, this includes non-serious water penetration problems. It notes residents are responsible for decorating inside their homes, but it will make good any decorations following repairs it has carried out.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records note that there were reports of damp and mould in January 2020 and an inspection was carried out. It is not clear if works were carried out however there was no further issues raised until October 2020 when the landlord reopened the case.
  2. In October 2020, the resident reported issues of mould and damp noting it was affecting her child. The landlord advised works had not progressed due to covid restrictions but if she was able to provide it with any medical information it would try and push the matter forward. The resident provided the landlord with a letter form her doctor noting the property was unsuitable and causing her child harm. It advised it would consider a management move. The resident chased the landlord multiple times in quick succession and on each occasion, it advised it would update her when it had further information.
  3. The landlord raised temporary works to be completed to the roof. It noted it would also complete an internal mould wash, and repairs to the windows. The landlord then issued a vexatious and/or unreasonable behaviour warning on the resident, due to the level of contact being made. The resident advised that given the severity of the leak soaking her child’s bed, dripping down walls and causing mould and damp, her contact was trying to have these issues resolved. She noted that she had replaced numerous items in the property and the landlord had not compensated her for this. The resident then cancelled all works booked.
  4. In November 2020, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to reiterate the issues. The landlord noted that it had raised works to replace / renew the lid to the tank in the loft, repair the hole in roof and clean and treat areas of mould identified, however the resident had advised at the end of October 2020, that she would not allow any works to be completed until she was moved from the property. It advised it was also liaising with Environmental Health.
  5. Environmental and Regulatory Services (ERS) advised that, no internal or external inspections had been carried out to determine the issues with the roof, nor had a prohibition order been issued. However, on the photographic evidence received it would deem the issue in the property as a category 1 hazard for damp and mould, however it noted this advice was to assist with a decision on the resident’s banding. The landlord then agreed a management move if the resident cleared the rent arrears. This was done. The resident then advised she would give permission for works to recommence.
  6. The landlord surveyed the property advising scaffolding was needed for work to the chimney, soil stack flashing and dorma gutters. It noted there were some internal plastering needed and works would commence in the New Year, the resident was dissatisfied as the leak was ongoing.
  7. In December 2020, the resident advised the landlord that appointments were being booked without her knowledge and it had been previously agreed this would not happen. Following agreed works being booked, she advised that her household had tested positive for Covid-19 and no one was to attend. The resident complained that contractors attended, and she would not be allowing access until after the isolation period. Records note that the landlord spoke with the resident’s partner who confirmed scaffolding could be erected for works to go ahead the following week.
  8. Following the erection of scaffolding, it was noted that the ‘floors’ blocked access to all windows and there were cracked and missing tiles exposing a hole in the roof. The resident requested that the contractor return, on advice of the fire brigade, to move the scaffolding outside one room to allow a safe evacuation space.
  9. Following the temporary works being completed, the resident advised the location of the hole matched the mould and damp on the inner walls and that the gutters were covered in moss, dirt, and gravel in them, and these had not been replaced with deeper ones as promised. The resident advised there was still water ingress into the loft and the contractors had not checked this, but the scaffolding had been removed. The resident raised concerns that interior works booked for late December 2020, to treat the mould, would not be carried out until the new year. The resident sought to complain.
  10. The landlord clarified the complaints process and advised its priority was to complete the repairs and progress the management move application. It advised that adding new issues during the complaints process would delay the investigation from taking place and possibly lead to an unsatisfactory final response. It advised the resident could wait until repairs and/or management transfer had progressed or completed, or do so sooner. The resident submitted the complaint.
  11. The resident and the landlord disputed whether roof and guttering works had been completed. The landlord explained that the gutters had all been renewed at high level (dormers) but not at the lower level as these were not causing any of the issues. It noted it had reviewed the loft photos against the video of the loft that had previously been provided and it was clear that the condition of the felt was noticeably improved in the photos against the earlier video, therefore, the roof was not leaking, and the loft felt was drying which would only continue to improve. And tis supported that works had been completed.
  12. In January 2021, the resident reiterated that the leak was ongoing, and the situation was impacting her mental health. She requested no further contact from the landlord and for all works to be put on hold. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not contact her but would contact the Ombudsman as requested, and for her to inform it when it could do the works. The landlord advised the Ombudsman of the difficulties it had experienced in progressing the internal mould repairs, which had been put on hold at the request of the resident. It noted it needed three days to complete internal works and that external works had been completed.
  13. On 9 February, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the Ombudsman, given the instruction by the resident to do so, in order to safeguard her mental wellbeing. It noted that it had responded to all repair requests made surrounding historic guttering, mould, and roofing issues. It advised the resident to keep the ventilation fan on to reduce condensation and mould growth. It advised previously agreed temporary works to the roof had been cancelled by the resident in October 2020 and though Environmental Heath agreed with proposed works, she had again cancelled, and as such Environmental Health noted it would not assist her unless she agreed to the works.
  14. The landlord further noted that works had eventually progressed in December 2020 but there were significant delays as it continued to negotiate access with her, eventually leading to external  works being completed prior to Christmas. It noted its contractors were skilled in their line of work. It confirmed the chimney had been removed, and upper guttering replaced. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the external works which were now complete and advised it could now attend to the internal works which would take 3 days to complete. It requested the resident advise when she was ready for the works to commence.
  15. On 1 March, the resident advised the landlord that the leak, mould, and damp remained. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman for assistance in moving the matter forward with the resident as it had been unable to complete the repairs as the resident sought a different surveyor and contractor be assigned. It advised that even if it did replace the current team, it foresaw further issues arising and the resident refusing access which would also delay works. The resident escalated the complaint, reiterating her dissatisfaction with the handling of the works.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 response issued on 25 March, acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the property, external works, and the internal works yet to be completed. It noted it was committed to complete the essential works and resolve the complaint, however whilst it had made attempts to accommodate her wishes , it still needed her cooperation to successfully resolve the matter. It reiterated the stage 1 response and sought to agree the three days for works to be completed.
  17. The landlord noted the length of time it had been trying to gain access and referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement and her obligation to allow access, to prevent it enforcing the terms as a breach of tenancy. It noted if this happened or it was unable to reach an agreement with her, this could delay works further. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact on her children , and urged her to consider the proposed resolution. It proposed 2 dates when the works could commence and that prior to this it would provide information on
    1. Staff/contractor attendance
    2. A written schedule of proposed works to be completed
    3. Method statement of how the works would be completed and how this may impact on what the resident needed to do during the works including Covid-19 changes
    4. Cleaning products being used
  18. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the external works and advised in order to resolve the matter, the inspection cancelled by the resident would need to go ahead and would do so concurrently with the other works and it would inspect this. It advised the resident to contact it if there were any other outstanding issues and noted she could approach the Ombudsman to consider the complaint.
  19. Prior to sending the response, the landlord spoke to the resident and access was agreed. The Ombudsman notes the works have progressed since the landlord’s final response, however any actions following the final response are unable to be addressed.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is accepted that the landlord is responsible for external leaks, and it will attend within 5 working days to inspect the issue. Therefore, when the resident reported the leak into her property, the landlord was correct to investigate the source of this, to identify the source and confirm what repairs were needed to remedy this. The landlord carried out this inspection in line with its policy.
  2. Following the inspection of the roof and it noted the potential sources of the water penetration reported by the resident. While the resident disputed what works were needed, jobs were cancelled as a result. This therefore caused delays to resolve the ongoing issues and these delays were not attributable to the landlord.
  3. In line with the findings of the report, and photographic evidence provided to the landlord by the resident, the landlord advised the resident that the source of the leak was resolved. While this is the case the Ombudsman notes that records refer to the works carried out as being temporary fixes and the Ombudsman cannot see that following this, permanent works were completed. However, the Ombudsman does note that the resident again refused access to the property and the landlord advised it would reinspect the works carried out once the resident allowed it access again. This was a reasonable response.
  4. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations with the landlord’s contractors; however, no expert evidence has been provided that they were incompetent in carrying out their work. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to continue using them, though it did advise that whilst it could change both surveyor and contractors, this would only delay matters further.
  5. While the policy notes that internal decorations are the responsibility of the resident, the landlord advised that it would address the repairs inside the property, to address any condensation and mould. It did advise that the resident keep the ventilation system on to help limit any further damp and mould concerns.
  6. The landlord’s explanation to the resident mirrored the information given by the surveyor it instructed and was therefore accurate. While the resident may not agree with the surveyor’s findings, it is reasonable for a landlord to listen to the opinion of its qualified contractors and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm the surveyor’s report was inaccurate.
  7. The landlord has consistently advised that it is willing to reinspect works and also carry out internal works and the Ombudsman deems this reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that her health and that of her son’s has been affected by the situation, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering including its response to reports of resulting mould.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman is unable to determine matters that amount to a personal injury claim as these are better suited to the courts or as an insurance claim.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its policy. Inspections were carried out and works raised. The landlord also noted that it would complete internal works to address the mould problems and provided an explanation supported by evidence of the external works it had completed. It further noted it was willing to reinspect these works and carry out a further survey should the resident grant it permission.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman notes that there have been access issues, but that matters have progressed since the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman recommends that in the next four weeks, if the landlord has not already done so, it should arrange for a reinspection of the roof and loft and carry out any permanent repairs as necessary. It should also carry out the internal repairs including the mould wash to the walls.